UNIVERSITY OP

ILLINOIS LIBRARY

AT URBANA-CHAiWAIGN

BOOKSTACKS

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2011 with funding from

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

http://www.archive.org/details/surveyofresearch192mill

Faculty Working Papers

A SURVEY OF RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN STUDIES

James R. Millar and Donna Bahry

//192

College of Commerce and Business Administration

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

FACULTY WORKING PAPERS

Bureau of Economic and Business Research College of Commerce and Business Administration University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

July 1, 1974

A SURVEY OF RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN STUDIES

James R. Millar and Donna Bahry

#192

A Survey of Research Opportunities in Soviet and East European Studies

James R. Millar

Donna Bahry

University of Illinois (U-C)

Our purpose and procedures are explained in the cover letter that

accompanied the questionnaires:

"Now that the period of rapid growth of Soviet and East European studies has apparently come to a close, the question of whether or not the existing allocation of talent and effort is optimal has become much more pressing. Several prominent scholars have argued that it is not.

It seems worthwhile to attempt to ascertain for the various disciplines whether there are significant dis- crepancies between the existing distribution of scholarly effort and the judgments of active scholars in the field as to what the allocation ought to be. The results of the survey ought to be especially valuable to graduate students, whose interests are the most mobile, and who are freest to go where the spirit moves them. But the results should also be of Interest to established scholars, if only for comparison with their own assess- ments .

Would you be good enough to help in identifying where the important frontiers of Soviet and East European studies now lie within your own discipline? Since the number of active specialists in the various disciplines is relatively small, your response will count heavily and is needed. Completion of the questionnaire should not take more than 10-15 minutes, and the time spent could prove of con- siderable benefit for the field.

Instructions for the enclosed questionnaire are as follows: I. Simply proceed down the list of specialties, and for each, indicate in Column (1) which specialties, in your judgment, ought to receive more attention ("M") or less attention ("L") from members of your discipline special- izing in the Soviet and East European area. Where you

-2-

feel the allocation of research resources is about right, put an ("R"). Leave the others blank. The criterion should be your own evaluation of the state of the profession, and it should reflect your appraisal of the quality as well as the quantity of man-hours devoted to the various specialties. Blank spaces are provided at the bottom for any specialties you feel ought to be included in the list. II. Indicate in Column (2) of the questionnaire the specialties on which your own research effort is being concentrated ("S") and those into which you would encourage your better graduate students ("G"). III. Indicate in Column (3) whether your judgment refers exclusively to the Soviet area ("SU") or to the Eastern European area ("EE"). Otherwise leave Column (3) blank.

We hope that you will take the trouble to respond."

Questionnaires were developed for four disciplines: economics, history, sociology and political science (including international relations).* The sample was drawn from the 1971-1973 membership directory of the AAASS, and included for all four disciplines only those members who reported holding a Ph.D., and/or a teaching position at the instructor or higher level, and/or a research post in the field. For history, the sample was further restricted to include only those specialists who claimed as fields "20th century Russia and/or Eastern

*We would like to express our appreciation to those who served as consultants in designing the various questionnaires: Morris Bornstein, Elizabeth Clayton, Norman Denzin, Alexander Vucinich, Jan Gorecki, Ralph Fisher, David Ransel, Sam Ramer, Bob Miller and Jerry Hough. They are, of course, not responsible for any remaining errors of commission or omission.

-3-

Europe," the "Soviet Union and socialist countries," "revolutionary movements," or "socialist theory." The sample included also the members of the Editorial Board of the Slav:* 2 Review.

A second mailing was made for each discipline to non-respondents, and the total response rate for each was: Economics - 54%; Political Science - 55%; Sociology - 72%; History - 61%. For all disciplines except sociology, very high rank order correlations were obtained between responses to the first and second mailings (.001 level, see Appendix A).

The results of the survey are presented in Tables I- IV. Responses are presented separately for the Soviet Union and for Eastern Europe, and stub entries are arranged according to the rank order of "More minus Less" responses for specialists in Soviet affairs. It Is important and interest- ing to note that high rank order correlations were obtained for all four disciplines between responses to the Soviet and the East European portions of the questionnaire. The most striking differences are to be found in responses to the history questionnaire, as might be expected, because of the differential applicability of entries pertaining to specific historical periods, e.g., "NEP," "October revolution."

The questionnaires also asked respondents to identify their own specialties as a control. Generally speaking, for all disciplines, specialists tended to rank their own areas of interest somewhat higher than did non-specialists. Nonetheless, high correlation were ob- tained for all fields for rank orders of "more minus less" (Columns 6 and 12) including and excluding specialists. Moreover, although the sparing use of the "less" response for all disciplines very probably indicates a preference for expanding disciplines, the results nonethe- less indicate clearly a recognition of a need to reallocate resources

TABLE 1. WHICH FIELDS NEED KORE (LESS) ATTENTION ECONOMICS

		USSR						Eastern Europe
3 m	• i o. 5 . 9 o H	ft a	■ u	a M .3	3 a uS ■a ^ — . U •* »A o •— •- •a * : 3xi	• SJ a ■ t) (4 w w a v> O i. 3 • M a -d c u « cZ u o	■ • 1 5 5. s M 3 u	*> J! SO a	• ii	at 3 ■a	1 ■a o ~i &2S	s 8 v « 9 C • M O f •al. 2SS
a)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(il)	(12)	(13)
Technological Chans*	40	6	33	1	1	2	38	6	30		2	2
locooe Distribution 4 Distribution Theory	44	7	34	3	2	1	42	7	33		1	1
Regional a Urban Economic*	36	9	25	2	3	4	34	8	24		4	4
Money, Credit k Banking	35	12	22	1	4	17	31	11	19		7	17
Flacal Policy	32	8	22	2	5	25	34	6	25		3	10
Intra-gloc Economic Relatlona	36	11	23	4	6	17	37	10	24		5	17
Incomes Pollclea	30	7	21	2	6	17	30	7	21		6	10
Human Resource Kconoaic*	35	10	21	3	6	10	32	10	18		13	17
Monetary Theory 4 Policy	33	9	20	3	9	12	32	9	20		8	10
Eaat-Weat Trade	41	17	20	3	9	S	38	16	19		8	8
Regional I Local Finance	32	9	20	3	9	17	29	8	18		13	26
Induatrlal Organlxatlon	34	9	20	4	12	17	32	9	19		13	17
Applied Econoaetrlce	33	6	21	5	12	3	33	7	20		13'	3
Indue try Studies	36	13	19	4	14	25	33	11	18		20	30
Health, Educ, Welfare	31	12	17	2	14	17	31	10	19		8	17
Income & Employment Theory	32	11	18	3	14	12	30	11	17		13	17
International Economic*	36	13	18	4	17	25	35	12	19		11	16
Agricultural Economics	36	12	19	5	17	25	31	12	16		21	34
Econ. Fluctuation 4
Stablllxatlon Pollclea	30	5	19	6	19	25	29	5	19		21	17
Environmental Econoalca	37	12	19	6	19	37	35	12	17		25	41
Economic Blatory	34	11	18	5	19	12	33	e	20		. 13	10
Welfare Prograea /Applied Welfare Economic*	36	6	20	8	22	12	35	5	20	8	24	10
Public Flnenc*	35	16	17	5	22	40	34	14	18	2	11	34
Price Formation	46	13	24	12	22	6	43	12	23	8	13	4
Econ. of Peace/Disarmament	29	9	16	4	22	43	27	9	14	4	27	43
Economic Syateaa	41	19	16	5	26	25	42	20	17	4	21	26
Statistical Method*	36	16	15	5	27	33	34	16	14	4	27	30
Theorlee of Econ. Planning	41	14	18	9	28	8	39	13	18	8	27	8
Natural Resources; Land
Econoalca	31	17	11	2	28	12	28	17	9	1	31	26.
Consumer Econoalca	33	16	13	4	28	25	32	15	14	3	25	17
Econometrics (Planimetries)	38	13	17	8	28	10	36	13	15	8	33	10
Population	33	19	11	3	32	40	30	17	10	3	33	43
Econoalca of Property Rights	30	12	13		32	37	30	13	12	5	33	34
Blatory of Econ. Thought	36	15	14		32	33	33	14	13	5	31	30
War/Defense Economics	34	12	15		32	43	28	11	12 .	5	33	46
Statlatlcal Data	37	19	13		32	17	35	19	13	3	27	10
Planning & Reform	44	15	18 11	37	4	41	15	16	10	37	4
Social Accounting	35	14	13		38	37	33	13	13	7	37	"34
Wage Formation	34	18	10		38	33	32	17	9	5	39	34
Transportation Economlce	28	10	11		40	48	25	10	9	6	41	49
Research Methodology	28	7	12		41	47	27	7	12	8	39	46
Labor Econoalca	32	20	7		42	46	30	18	7	5	42	49
Economic Geography	22	12	6		42	43	20	9	5	3	42	46
Price 4 Allocation Theory
Under Sociallsa	47	22	13	12	44	6	43	20	12	11	45	4
Historical Antecedents of
Communist Economic Systems	28	12	8		44	40	27	12	8	6	42	41
Product Los Functions	35	13	11		46	33	32	12	10	10	46	34
Economic Development	38	13	11		47	17	35	13	10	10	46	17
Welfare Econoalca	35	e	12		47	48	32	8	10	12	49	34
Radical Econoalca	24	5	9		47	43	24	5	9	10	48	43
Crowtb Theory	37	14	7		50	25	35	14	6	IS	50	30
Economic Convergence	33	10	6		51	48	31	10	6	IS	50	49

TABLE II. WHICH FIELDS NEED MORE (LESS) ATTENTION SOCIOLOGY

		USSR							Eastern Europe
3	41 a o a. O & ■3 41	4J A 60 2	u Q X	N ■ U •J	Rank Order More (4) Minus Less (5)	Rank Order Encourage Crad. Student 8	• i c o a. (0 0* « ft m S ft	M JB to s	More	J	Rank Order More (10) Kinui Less (11).	• 8 u -o V 4) 3 Xi 00 4J 3 • NOV d o a (2 w o
(1)	C2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(ID	(12)	(13)
Comparative Sociology	16	1	14	0	1	5	14	1	12	0	1	5
Social Policy/Research	15	4	11	0	2	3	14	3	11	0	2	2 *
Social Change/Social Dis-
organization	18	3 "	13	2	2	3	17	4	12	1	2	3
Race/Ethnic Minorities	18	6	11	1	4	5	15	5	9	1	8	S
Urban Life & Culture	18	6	11	1	4	1	17	4	12	1	2	1
Methodology-Qualitative	14	4	10	0	4	11	12	4	8	0	8	11
Sociology of Organization/
Bureaucracy	15	6	9	0	7	2	13	4	9	0	7	3
Social Stratification	19	5	11	3	8	7	17	6	10	2	8	5
Sociology of the Military	16	4	10	2	8	7	16	4	11	1	5	11
Rural Sociology	16	7	8	1	10	19	16	6	8	2	14	11
Social Psychology	13	4	8	1	10	11	11	3	7	1	14	18
Sociology of Law	14	5	8	1	10	11	14	5	8	1	12	11
Child & Adult Socialization	15	8	7	0	10	22	14	6	8	0	8	24
Social Continuity	14	5	8	1	10	22	14	4	10	0	5	18
Sociology of Science	16	7	7	1	15	7	15	7	7	0	12	5
Methodology-Quantitative	14	2	9	3	15	19	12	1	8	3	18	18
Mass Culture/Public Opinion/Media	16	8	7	1	15	11	14	8	5	1	24	24
Sociology of Aging	11	6	5	0	18	25	11	6	5	0	18	28
Political Sociology	13	6	6	1	18	11	13	7	5	. 1	24	5
Collective Behavior	15	8	6	1	18	19	14	6	7	2	18	18
Sociology of Medicine	14	5	7	2	18	25	13	6	6	1	18	18
Criminology /Del iquency /Deviance	16	8	6	2	22	22	14	6	7	1	14	18
Sociology of Education	15	7	6	2	22	7	14	" 6	6	2	24	11
Status of Women	16	7	7	3	22	11	15	7	7	1	14	11
Small Groups	9	4	4	1	25	25	9	4	3	1	29	28
Culture/ Arts	12	7	3	1	26	30	13	5	6	1	18	24
Marginal Groups	11	5	4	2	26	25	10	5	5	0	18	28
Marriage & the Family	17	9	5	3	26	30	15	8	5	2	27	28
Work, Leisure, Sport	18	8	6	4	26	25	16	5	7	4	27	24
Ethnomethodology/Phenomenologica]
' Sociology	9	2	4	3	30	30	8	2	4	2	29	32
Sociological Theory	16	7	5	4	30	11	16	8	5	3	29	11
Religion	17	9	4	4	32	30	15	7	5	3	29	32
Marxist Sociology	16	6	4	6	33	11	15	6	5	4	33	5

TABLE III. WHICH FIELDS NEED MORE (LESS) ATTENTION POLITICAL SCIENCE

3

■H *

a)

Comparative Studies

Regional & Local Government

Interest Articulation & Aggregation

Orban Planning & Policy

Admin. Inst. & Development

Intergovernmental Relations

Social Welfare

Nationalities

Political Culture

Political Socialization

Communications & Media

Social Control

Foreign Policy-Japan

Science & Technology

Foreign Policy-Socialist Bloc

Political Recruitment

Foreign Trade & Aid

Foreign Policy-China

Education/Educ. Policy

The Military

Agr. Policy & Administration

Methodology

Econ. Institutions & Development 104

Soviets & Legislation

Economic Planning

Communist Party

Foreign Policy-U.S. & W. Europe 110

Law/Legal Systems

Political Leadership

Dissidence

Historical Antecedents

Secret Police

The Komsomol

Religion

Foreign Policy-Third World

International Organization/Law

Arms Control/Disarmament

Political Theory

Arts/Literature

Ideology

	USSR							Easterc	i Europe
■ a o ex ID ■	•i 00	II u o X	OS	Rank Order More (4) Minus Less (5)	Rank Order Encourage Grad. Students	CO a o a. a Ol « i-t (0 4J o H	u	4) U o	00 0} 41 »3	Rank Order More (10) Minua Less (11)	Rank Order Encourage Crod. Students
(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)	(13)
112	14	88	5	1	4	105	12	83	6	1	4
109	21	82	5	2	1	85	15	66	4	2	1 '
105	29	73	3	3	6	92	27	60	5	5	6
87	22	71	3	4	4	82	17	60	2	3	4
110	33	72	5	5	1	90	23	61	5	4	1
88	18	65	3	6	- 7	77	18	54	3	7	7
105	37	64	2	6	9	88	30	55	0	5	9
114	32	69	11	8	1	103	24	59	8	7	1
107	40	62	4	8	10	92	34	53	4	9	10
104	40	58	5	10	11	91	33	52	5	10	11
98	37	56	3	10	14	84	28	51	4	10	14
101	38	55	8	12	16	86	33	47	6	12	16
93	34	51	6	13	23	68	28	35	4	17	23
96	43	47	4	14	8	78	37	37	2	15	8
109	55	46	7	15	13	92	42	43	4	13	13
104	54	44	6	16	20	68	48	36	4	16	20
104	54	42	7~	17	17	87 .	42	41	4	14	17
105	60	39	5	18	12	83	46	32	2	19	12
103	59	39	5	18	26	80	47	30	1	20	26
106	52	44	10	18	27	86	41	37	8	20	27
102	54	39	8	21	20	87	44	37	6	17	20
103	40	46	15	21	30	88	35	38	13	26	30
104	67	33	3	23	14	87	55	30	2	22	14
100	44	44	15	24	23	78	30	• 37	11	24	23
103	70	30	3	25	30	86	56	27	3	27	30
107	69	32	6	26	28	89	55	30	4	24	28
110	63	35	10	27	20	88	49	32	5	23	20
110	56	38	14	28	25	89	47	32	8	27	25
110	57	37	14	29	17	94	46	35	11	27	17
110	57	38	17	30	17	93	47	33	12	30	17
91	35	38	17	30	36	. 85	35	32	17	33	36
104	52	34	17	32	36	82	39	29	13	31	36
103	54	33	17	33	30	60	40	28	12	31	30
103	58	29	16	34	34	85	43	28	13	33	34
108	63	27	16	35	30	84	50	23	9	35	30
104	54	27	21	36	38	85	46	21	17	37	38
109	65	22	19	37	28	82	48	19	14	36	28
103 •	58	24	21	37	35	88	49	21 '	18	38	35
101''	67	11	22	39	40	81	53	11	17	39	40
109	52	20	36	40	39	90	40	15	33	40	39

TABLE IV. WHICH FIELDS NEED MORE (LESS) ATTENTION HISTORY

USSR

(2) 126 116 116 126 122 119 106 115 132 126 122

113 129 115 108 131 117 132 119 117 126

117 119 126 124 1X3

(1) Social History Regional & Local Studies Post-War Reconstruction Nationalities Agricultural History Rural Ufa Comparative Studies Urbanization War Communian Historiography Biography

Class Structure; Social Stratification

M.S. P.

Demographic Trends & Patterns

Social Deviance

Collectivization

Science 4 Technology

Civil War

Industrialization

Post-Stalin Period

Economic History

Historical Antecedents of Communist Systems

The Military

Dissent

Intellectual History

Economic Reforms

Foreign Policy: Socialist States 120

Foreign Policy: Third World 122

The Secret Police 121

Marriage 4 Family Life 106

World War II 127

Foreign Policy: China 125

Foreign Policy: Japan 102

Administrative Structures & •Development 119

Education & Educational Policy 120

Trade Onions 114

Legal Systems 111

Literature 4 the Arte 119

Foreign Trade 4 Aid 107

Religion 116

The Komsomol 112

Purges 130

Party History 125

Political Leadership 115

Political Succession 119

Foreign Policy: U.S. 4

Western Europe 121

Arms Control 4 Disarmament 107 International Organization

4 Law 100

Allied Intervention 130

October Revolution 135

International Communist

Moveaent 125

Soviet Political Theories 121

Karjclit-Lenlnlat Theory 130

•a

oc

(3) 35 21 30 32 39 28 26 34 38 42 40

34 45 44 28 51 56 46 61 54 50

30 55

51 *9 59 62 48 51 45 49 60 44

49 65 59 56 71 58 56 62

55

59 55 57

72 66

50 64 60

67 49 51

a

(4) 99 94 85 88 81 84 79 77 83 78 73

69 72 63 68 68 57 70 60 57 63

67 56 61 60 49 55 57 56 52 59 52 47

53 43 42 42 38 38 44 39

47 41 34 33

27 23

23 33 35

23 27 18

3 (5) 2 1 1 5 2 5 3 2 9 5 9

9

12

3

10

10 3

16 8 6

13

19

8 14 13

5 12 14 13 11 19 13

8

15

10 12 13 9 10 16 11

25 24 24 27

21 17

24 34 38

34 44 60

c t, .,

(6) 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9

10

11

12

12 14 14 14 17 17 19 20 21

22 22 24 24 26 27 27 27 30 31 32 32

34 35 36 37 37 39 39 39

42 43 44 45

45 45

48 49 50

31 52 53

* «. D

U oj in

°3 .

c o 3

(7) 1 7

17 2 5 6

13 8 3 9

12

21 4 17 23 15 17 21 17 29 9

14 37 36 11 29 33 15 41 25 33 25 33

23 32 46 41 25 44 29 46

37 25 46 50

44 50

49 41 39

50 39 53

Eastern Europe

«i«^»-» • • a ►..-<-< Mem

(8) 91

87 90 92 90 85 89 87 54 93 94

85

51

ai

82 67 80 57 74 91 94

87 83 94 94 90 92 90 86 84 96 89 68

88 92

eo

84 91 80 92 70

78 97 87 93

88 76

74 61 58

96

75

100

6

a

(9) 18 18 20 19 22 20 21 24 14 27 32

24 19 30 24 29 39 13 49 39 29

22 37 35 32 41 45 35 38 33 35 42 29

31 50 38 40 49 45 41 38

32 43 42 43

51

49

35 29 24

52

31

3S

.2

(10) 71 68 69 67 66 61 65 61 34 59 55

55

23 46 49 33 39 36 36 46 57

53

38 49 50 44 41 45 39 43 48 41 31

43 36 32 33 33 29 38 25

31 36 30 32

23 15

21 17 17

21 18 15

3

(11)

2

1 1 4 2 4 2 2 6 4 7

6 9 4 8 3 2 9 4 5 8

11

8 10 11

4

6

8

9

e 12

6

7

14

6

8

9

9

6 13

7

13 17 15 17

13 12

18 15 17

23 26

46

fix. -3 (12)

1

3

2

5

4

8

5

7 32

9 12

10 45 13 15 26 20 33 26 15 10

13 28 18 18 17 23 20 28 23 22 23 35

31 28 35 35 35 39 34 41

41 40 43 43

46 47

*7 49 50

51 52 53

due

a a v. w o

(13)

1 -

3 15

3

3

3

7

2 47 25 12

21 50 19 13 39 21 52 31 25 9

10 39 17 8 17 24 12 34 19 29 29 36

21 25 43 33 10 42 28 50

39 14 36 36

31 43

43 47 53

34

44 47

-4-

within each discipline. Rank orders of "more minus less" for each disci- pline and of the existing distribution of specialties of our respondents are presented in Appendix B.

Of course, one of the problems of this kind of survey is the problem that both relatively small, specialized topics and broad, large categories may be perceived as needing some more (less) attention. Rank orders of the existing distribution of specialties as represented by our discipline samples (Appendix B) help somewhat to overcome this difficulty in the interpretation that follows.

Finally, on a general level, there are several notable discrepan- cies between the rank order of fields needing more attention for each discipline and rank orders of fields into which the respondents would encourage "better" graduate students (Compare Columns 6 and 7; 12 and 13). Nonetheless, high rank order correlations are obtained, and there seems to be no single, simple explanation for individual discrepancies. Respon- dents may have encouraged graduate students to enter (or avoid) fields otherwise ranked high as needing more (less) attention because of the size and thus high replacement demand in certain large, traditional areas. In other cases, these discrepancies may be explained in part by the per- ceived degree of difficulty in achieving results in particular fields, or because of the relative professional salability of the topic or of the skills required to master it.

Now for a brief interpretation of the results for the various disciplines: Economics

The following fields, or clusters of fields, are perceived as needing more attention from economists specializing in Soviet and Eastern European economies:

-5-

a. "Technological change."

b. "Urban and regional economics."

c. "Regional and local finance."

d. The cluster of fields pertaining to money, macroeconomics and income distribution: specifically, the relatively well-established fields of "Income distribution and distribution theory," "Money, credit and banking," "Incomes policies," "Monetary theory and policy," plus the small, less developed fields of "Fiscal policy" and "Income and employment theory."

e. Trade and international economics: "Intra-bloc economic relations," "East-West trade," and "International economics," all of which are relatively well-established fields at present.

f. Two currently "fashionable" fields in the discipline: "Human resource economics" and "Health, education and welfare."

g. Empirical economic studies and applications ranked generally high,

as may be seen from the fields listed above and also by the relatively high rank of "Applied econometrics," "Industrial organization" and "Industrv studies." The following fields were considered as needing less attention:

a. Theory, planning and reform: specifically, "Theories of economic planning," "Econometrics," "Planning and reform," "Price and alloca- tion theory under socialism," "Growth theory," "Economic convergence," "Welfare economics" and "Production functions." Despite the rela- tively low ranking of these topics, many of them ranked high as fields "better" graduate students should be encouraged to enter.

b. "Statistical data" and "Social accounting."

c. "Wage formation" and "Labor."

d. "Economic development."

-6-

e. "Radical economics." Sociology

Of the four disciplines surveyed, sociology is the smallest measured by the number of specialists who are members of MASS. The fields and clusters of fields considered as needing relatively more attention are:

a. "Comparative sociology."

b. Studies of broad social aggregates and social policy: including particularly, "Social change/ social disorganization," "Social policy," "Social stratification," "Child-adult socialization," "Social continuity," "Social psychology," "Mass culture/ public opinion/media."

c. Certain social sub-groups: more specifically, "Race/ethnic minorities," "Urban life and culture," and "Rural sociology,"

d. "Methodology," especially "qualitative."

e. Institutional studies ranked toward the bottom of the scale, with the exception of two relatively under-represented fields: "Sociology of organizations /bureaucracy" and "Sociology of the military," and two relatively well-represented fields: "Sociology of law" and "Sociology of science."

Fields perceived as needing relatively less attention are:

a. Certain social sub-groups: "Sociology of aging," "Status of women," and "Marginal groups."

b. "Marriage and the family."

c. "Work/ leisure/sport."

d. "Sociological theory."

e. "Religion."

f. "Marxist sociology."

-7-

Political Science

The top ranking fields and groups of related fields in political science are:

a. 'Comparative systems," which was also the most heavily represented

specialty in our sample.

b. Disaggregated political and governmental studies: specifically, "Regional and local government," "Interest articulation," and two very lightly represented fields: "Urban planning and policy" and "Inter-governmental relations."

c. A large cluster of broad political and social concerns: including "Nationalities," "Political culture," "Social welfare," "Political socialization," and "Social control," but notably excluding the relatively large field: "Dissidence."

d. "Administrative institutions."

e. "Science and technology."

f. "Political recruitment."

Low-ranked fields in political science are:

a. Traditional institutional studies: specifically, "Economic Institu- tions," "Communist Party," "Soviets and legislation," "Law and legal system," "Secret police," and "Komsomol."

b. Foreign policy, trade, international and arms control: with the exception of "Foreign policy-Japan," all topics in this general area were perceived as needing less attention than was indicated by the relatively high representation of these areas in the sample, and especially so for "Foreign policy-US/Western Europe," "Foreign policy-Third World," and "International organizations and law."

c. "Political leadership."

d. "Religion".

-8-

e. "Political theory."

f. "Arts/literature."

g. "Ideology." History

The fields and groups of fields in history designated as needing more attention are:

a. "Social history."

b. "Regional and local studies."

c. "Nationalities."

d. "Agricultural history" and "Rural life."

e. "Comparative studies."

f. Social structure and change: "Urbanization," "Class structure," "Demographic trends," and "Social deviance."

g. Selected historical periods: "Post-war reconstruction" is ranked quite high (especially with respect to its relative under-representation as a specialty of our respondents) as are the well-established Soviet period studies: "War communism," "NEP," "Collectivization," and "Civil war." "WW II," "Historical antecedents of communist systems," and the "Post-Stalin" periods rank relatively higher for East European than for Soviet studies.

h. "Historiography." i. "Biography."

The following fields and field clusters are Judged to need less attention:

a. Certain Soviet historical periods: "Allied intervention," "October revolution," and "Purges."

b. "Intellectual history."

-9-

c. Institutional studies generally: including highly-represented fields such as "Party history," "Administrative structures," "Religion" and "Education" as well as "Secret police," "Trade unions," "Komsomol," and "Legal institutions."

d. Foreign policy, trade and international: particularly, "Foreign policy" with respect to the "US and Western Europe," "China," and "Japan," and "Foreign trade and aid," "Arms control, disarmament," "International organizations and law," and "International communist movements."

e. "Political leadership" and "Political succession."

f. "Soviet political theory."

g. "Marxist-Leninist theory." Cross-discipline

There do seem to be certain general areas of agreement across disci- plines with respect to broad topics that need more or less attention. Economics is, for the most part, an exception, partly because the struc- ture of the discipline differs so substantially from that of the other disciplines. All disciplines seem to evidence a movement toward the expansion of standard disciplinary areas that have been relatively underdeveloped in Soviet and East European studies. Comparative studies and systems rank, high for all but economics. Social change and trends, social structure, and welfare of people are believed to need more at- tention in all disciplines. For economics, political science and history, regional, local and urban studies are seen as needing more attention.

With exception of economics, foreign policy, trade and international issues are perceived as needing less attention. Traditional political, ideological, and theoretical concerns fare the same. Theory is low- ranked for all disciplines, although, of course, it has different content

-10-

in each. Finally, traditional institutional studies are widely viewed as needing less attention, with some exceptions for economics.

In all four disciplines there are some inexplicable discrepancies between the over-all ranking of fields and the rank order of fields which "better" graduate students should be encouraged to enter, but especially so for economics. It is not possible, we believe, to interpret these discrepancies with any confidence — short of a supplementary survey. Conclusion

Our purpose in conducting this survey was mainly to initiate public discussion of the reallocation problem posed by the expectation that Soviet and East European studies is highly unlikely to continue to ex- pand at the rate that it has in the immediate past and may indeed be forced to contract. In effect, we have attempted to derive for each of the four disciplines surveyed a composite "subjective," demand curve for research activity. We believe that our results indicate for each that there does exist a need to reallocate research effort, although, of course, many of our respondents complained that everything in fact really needs more attention. Selected comments of our respondents are reproduced in Appendix C. A number of fields were suggested by our respondents in the various disciplines that we had failed to list, and fields and sub- fields mentioned by two or more respondents are listed in Appendix D.

It might prove interesting to re-survey these four disciplines in, say, five years to ascertain whether or not significant changes have come about. Meanwhile, we confidently expect our discussants to point out our errors both of commission and omission and also to provide fresh Insights into our results and the general problems posed by the need to assess the existing allocation of research effort within the various disciplines.

Appendix A: Survey Response Rates

Field

Economics

Sent Out

Returned of which: unopened

refused to respond already responded

Response Rate

Political Science

Sent Out

Returned of which: unopened

refused to respond already responded

Response Rate

Sociology

Sent Out

Returned of which: unopened

refused to respond already responded

Response Rate

History

Sent Out

Returned of which: unopened

refused to respond already responded

Response Rate

Mailings

I	II
94	68
36	16
1	0
0	1
	1
38%	22%
262	173
109	46
7 .	5
4	3
	5
40%	22%
34	22
13	12
0	1
0	1
38%	52%
258	173
102	60
2	4
4	3
	1

Total

94 52

54%

262 155

12 7

~55%

34 25

39%

32%

72%

258 162

6

7

i

~61%

The rank-order relationship between responses to the first and second mailings was tested using Spearman's p. Coefficients for the four fields were:

Economics: Rg = .57, significant at the .001 level.

Political Science: R = .88, significant at the .001 level.

History: R = .86, significant at the .001 level, s

Sociology: Rg = .182, not statistically significant (not different from 0). Note: A different correlation, Kendall's Tau, was also computed. It produced the same result, (t, corrected for ties, was 0.)

Appendix B: Rank Order Correlations for Columns 6 (Mor* minus Lean) and the Distribution of Specialists as Reported by Ktspondente

Sociology

Political Science

2

(1)

Comparative Sociology

Social Policy/Research

Social Change/Social Dis- organization

toce/Ethnic Minorities

Urban Life 6 Culture

Methodology-Quail native

Sociology of Organization/ Bureaucracy

Social Stratification

Soclolosy of the Military

Rural Sociology

Social Pcychology

Sociology of Law

Child & Mult Socialization

Social Continuity

Sociology °l Science

Kdhutlolog) -Quantitative

Mass Culture/Public Opinion/Media

Sociology of Aging Political Sociology

Collective Echavior

Sociology of Medicine

Cr imlno logy /rliouency /Deviance

Sociology of Education

Status of Wcren

Snail Croups

Culture/Arts

Marginal Croups

Marriage 6 the "acily

Vork, Leisure, Sport

Ethr.onictliodology/rhenonicnologlcal Sociology

Sociologlc.il Theory

Religion

Marxist Sociology

o M a a 2.	u CI •o M O 1	u n 41 3 "□ c U ^4 O it
(2)	(3)	(4)
7	1	1
5	7	2
6	2	2
3	13	4
2	18	4
1	23	4
1	23	7
6	2	8
0	30	8
1	- 23	10
1	23	10
4	10	10
4	10	10
4	10	10
6	2	15
1	23	15
5	7	15
2	18	18
5	7	18
2	38	18
3	13	18
3	13	:
2	18	22
2	18	22
0	30	25
1	23 .	26
0	30	26
t	2	26
6	?.	26
1	23	30
3	13	30
0	30	32
3	13	33

(1)

Comparative Studies

Regional L Local Government

Interest Articulation 4 Aggregation

Urban Planning & Policy

Admin. Inst. & Development

Intergovernmental Relations

Social Welfare

Nationalities

Political Culture

Politlc.il Socialization

Coinnunications £ Media

Social Control

Foreign Policy-Japan

Science & Technology

Foreign Policy-Socialist Bloc

Political Recruitment

Foreign Trade i. Aid

Foreign Policy-China

Education/Educ. Policy

The Military

Agr. Policy & Administration

Methodology

Econ. Institutions & Development

Soviets 6 Legislation

Economic Planning

Cornunist Party

Foreign Policy-U.S. & W. Europe

Law/Legal Systems

Political Leadership

Dlssidcncc

Historical Antecedents

Secret Police

The Konsomol

Religion

Foreign Policy-Third World

Ir.tcrnation.il Organization/Law

Arn-s CoiitroJ/Dirarnanent

Political Theory

Arts/Li telature

Ideology

•H 0 M u 3 35	0 u o I	U 3 u ■* © X, M «
(2)	(3)	W
46	1	l
19	14	l
20	12	2
4	37	4
25	7	5
4	37	6
8	29	6
23	8	6
20	12	8
9	26	10
7	31	10
9	26	12
5	35	13
7	31	14
33	2	15
10	24	16
22	9	17
18	15	18
13	20	18
11	22	18
6	33	21
15	17	21
6	33	23
11	22	24
3	40	25
29	4	26
32	3	27
16	16	28
28	5	29
21	10	30
13	20	30
e	29	32
5	35	33
9	26	34
21	10	35
15	i;	36
10	24	37
15	17	37
4	37	39
76	6	40

*Scc Tabic II, Column 6.

Coefficient Tor rank ord.-r crrrol.it ion between (Number of Specialists) and (.'lore minus Less): K - .?85, significantly different fron 0 at the .90* level.

**Sce Table III, Column 6.

Coefficient for rank order correlation between Specialists) and (Hove nlnus Less): R - .022, Significantly different from 0.

(Nucber of r.ot

.0) Technological Change

Ineoce Distrib.it lu-.i 4. Distribution Tneuty

H,iio,-i.il £ L'ib.'.iv Economics

Money, Credit £ tanking

Fiscal Policy

In:ra-K.loc Cconouic Relations

Ineooea Policies

Huron Resource Econoeica

Monetary Theory 1 Policy

East-West Trade

Roglo:i.il 1. Ipc.i1 Klr.ar.ce

Iniustrial Organization

Applied Econometrics

Industry Studies

Health, Educ., Welfare

Incouc 6 Ecploytient Theory

Intermtlor.ul Econoiiics

Agricultural Ecor.i'cics

Econ. Fluctuation 4

StaL.iliiot.lon I'olicles

Environmental Iccrios-les

Economic Hiitoiy

Welfare Prograr/s/Applicd Welfare Economics

Public Fln.-.nce Price Forration Ecou. of Pcace/Disarmanent Econoaic Systems Statistical Methods Tlicorics of Econ. Planning Katural Resources; Land Economic*

Consumer Economics

Econometrics (»" jnlactrics)

Population

Economics of Property Rights

HIbtory of F.cun. Thought

War/Defense Econouics

Statiatiral Data

Planning £ F.cfora

Social Accounting

Wage 1 j no.it ion

Transportation Eccnonica

Rcccarch Methodology

Labor Economies

Econonic Ceography

Price £ Alloc.itioii Theory Under Social lsu

Historical Antecedents of

CousunLot Lconoxlc Systcaa Production Functlona Economic Development WcK,.i. F. .oi.or.les Padical Economics Growth lheory

I ■ rncc

IM O U	u ■u u o	-o c u -* o .
D	c &	o o
<2)	(3)	(*)
6	12	l
5	15	2
5	15	3
4	21	4
3	28	5
9	6	6
4	21	6
3	28	8
4	21	9
13	3	9
3	23	9
7	10	12
3	28	12
3	28	14
2	40	14
1	47	14
12	4	17
5	15	17
2	40	19
3	28	19
8	8	19
3	28	22
3	28	11
8	.;	22
4	21	22
25	1	26
1	4?	27
9	6	28
3	23	23
3	28	28
2	40	28
4	21	32
5	15	32
6	12	32
4	21	32
5	15	32
20	2	37
3	28	38
2	40	38
2.	40	40
0	5C	41
4	21	42
0	50	'.2

12

44

2	40	44
3	28	46
12	4	47
2	40	47
1	47	47
7	10	50
5	15	51

(1)

Joci.i) Uiutocy

Regional £ Local Stu

i I

Nationalities

Agricultural History

Kur., 1

Comparative Studies

L'tbanlzallon

W.'ir Cc.ir.uu J sn *

Historiography

Biography

Cla:;s Structure; Social Sti.itiflcat.Jon

II.E.F.

Dctr.ographlc Trends 4 Patterns

Social Deviance

Collectivization

Science £ Technology

Civil War

lnJu.strloiiration

Post-Stalin Period

Economic History

Historical Antecedents of Cocji jnist Systems

The Kllttary

Dissent

Intellectual History

Economic Reforos

Foreign Policy: Socialist States

Foreign Policy. Third World

The Secret Police

Marriage 4 Family Life

World War II

Foreign Policy: China

foreign Policy: Japan

Adalnistr.itivc Structures 6 Development

Education 4 Educational Policy

Trade Unions

Legal Systems

Literature £ the Arts

Foreign Trade fi Aid

Religion

The KoniKjiioL

Furg.cs

Party History Political leadership Political Succession Foreign Policy: U.S. £ W'utern Europe

Artis Control £ Disarmament

International Organization £ Low

Alli>d Intervention

Cc:o'..: Revolution

International Couiaunist Movement

Soviet Political Theories

Knrxint-Loniuist Tlieory

o u V ■a	U II •u o e 2.	u <• o ■> -u c U -1 O E Jt V u u 3.Z
(2)	(3)	(4)
14	15	1
5	40	2
7	31	3
22	5	4
6	3/	5
f	37	5
12	18	7
7	33	8
16	11	9
16	11	10
10	21	11
8	29	12
15	14	12
4	44	14
3	45	14
e	29	14
8	29	17
21	7	17
10	21	19
6	37	20
5	40	21
12	18	22
9	24	22
20	9	24
29	2	24
1	51	26
13	16	27
o	24	27
8	29	27
3	45	30
22	5	31
13	16	32
5	40	32
r>	24	34
9	24	35
1	52	36
2	47	37
10	21	37
2	47	39
9	7.1'	39
1	52	39
16	11	42
11	20	43
7	33	44
7	33	45
21	7	45
2	47	45
2	47	48
25	3	49
42	1	50
74	4	51
5	40	52
19	10	53

Tnble 7 , Colucn 6. CoefiKient [or rank oidei correlation between

(I'iunlet of Sp.r- ( -j | •. t . ; .in. I (Mnre ml

KL • •?n-', - ■ :ly djfferci

«»Si<- Tnhle IV, Coluvn 6.

icl.nr for rank order correlation between (Humbci of Spec! . mi: I est)! K • .Ofifl, not

nlf tf.ini lu .net,-

Appendix C: Selected Comments from Respondents

Economics:

"I have very reluctantly concluded that I cannot usefully fill out your questionnaire. The trouble is that in my opinion the study of Soviet and East European economics is seriously undermanned in this country. As a result, there is neea for more research in practically every one of the specialties that you list, and it just doesn't seem very fruitful to try to discriminate among them."

"I have three comments on the questionnaire itself:

1. It is rather long and complex.

2. Some of the topics seem to overlap others — e.g., 'income distribution and distribution theory1 and 'incomes policies'; and 'fiscal policy' and 'public finance.'

3. The relevance of some topics to Soviet and East European economies is unclear — e.g., 'regulatory economics.'"

"This kind of evaluation ain't easy. That must be why I conveniently forgot."

"it seems to me an important area to be worked on is system change and since this is a system in which politics & econ are tightly integrated both have to be considered together and in their interaction. — the present approaches through reform, convergence, etc. are too partial. And the whole issue has to be seen as one aspect of development."

Sociology:

"... it is not quite clear whether attention needed is to be evaluated from the point of view of (1) personal interest of the respon- dent, or (2) general, theoretical 'validity' of the problems listed (i.e. their suitability for fruitful theorizing), or (3) American political or policy- type interest.

Moreover, some of the fields are too complex to be properly evaluated; e.g. 'work, leisure time and sport.' I believe problems of labor deserve very much attention, while leisure and sport are rather unimportant."

"As you might know, it is virtually impossible to respond across all these subfield dimensions (invented by a fairly parochial ASA with little interest in "area" stuff.) Counting faculty and advanced graduate students, trained in sociology, there are probably no more than a dozen of us, at the outside. Virtually everything on the list could use more study, though some of the areas, as named, seem somewhat irrelevant and these I have lined through. Though some of my colleagues may disagree with me, it would seem premature under these circumstances to nominate any other fields similarly in want of attention."

"I am afraid that these answers are not very responsive, but the fact is that I would not advise any student of mine to specialize in Soviet or Eastern European area as a sociologist, except if he or she had already a prior passion for the subject. A student has to be a fully trained sociologist first, and only secondarily take up Sovietology as a hobby or avocation. I do not t now of any soc. dept. that would hire anyone to teach nothing but Sovietology and I agree with this policy, at least in the present financial circumstances. Persons with passion for the area will find it wide open."

Political Science

"I hate to seem uncooperative in this matter. But I have no fixed and considered views on priorities , feeling that the need for quality work is equally great, everywhere."

"graduate students, good or mediocre, should be encouraged to pursue whatever interests them. If this results in tover-crowding ', so be it."

"To a certain extent my responses have ducked inportant questions about priorities. I have not marked any item "L", because I think that the quantity and qualitity of research in all these fields could and should be higher, and that the 'decline' of Soviet & East European studies (especially in funding and student interest) should be strongly resisted."

"One thought occurred to me just as I was sticking it in the envelope. Where I have indicated :,M", 1 often have in mind need for better and more perspicacious treatment, not necessarily more quantity; indeed, more often than not not more quantity."

"Often the topics on this list are inadequately researched. Isn't the reason a lack of source materials? In last analysis, all these fields require further work."

"As I filled out the questionnaire, however, it seemed to me that I approached it with two assumptions which needed to be made explicit:

1. Of course, there is a definite sense in which the. whole field is in a period of 'depression,' and each of the categories you list require more attention. I have, however, attempted to make relative judgments about the categories , and have suppressed my instinct to place an "M" next to each item in column one. Furthermore, I was aware that in some of those categories, next to which I placed the letter "RH I -was reflecting or. good work by colleagues in the past. In many cases either these colleagues are no longer living or they have moved on to other areas of attention. Therefore, some of the categories, in which we can feel relative satisfaction, will no doubt be in a condition of disrepair in a five or ten year future.

2. I was also acutely aware when I made the judgment that some categories did not need further attention., that I was thinking in terms of the kinds of efforts that have been made in the past. For example, it did not seem profitable to me to devote very much more attention to the question of ideology, but o** the other hend I feel acutely that Soviet efforts in 'academic philosophy' merit more attention. There- fore, it might well be that some of the areas that I have marked with the letter "R" of "L" would deserve more attention if fresh approaches were brought to them."

"I am returning— uncompleted — the questionnaire on Soviet and Ea3t European studies. With all due respect to your efforts, and our liveli- hood, I do not think the compilation of the information requested would prove very much. Can one say that any field has been over-worked? Is yet another study on John Stuart Mill unnecessary? Clearly the quality of the work is what is important and not whether a lot of stuff has been written on some particular aspect or another. Again, some areas have not been much explored because there is little interest in them, or data and documents are sparse."

History

"When I received your questionnaire the first time, I began to attempt to fill it out but was unable to do so. The entire thrust of the questionnaire is fundamentally opposed to my own philosophy of learning, and also I believe does not really answer the current problems in the field of higher education. I do not think that the quest for knowledge should be limited in any quanti- tative manner, or in fact that a sufficiency of knowledge can ever be reached. Limitations if they are needed should be made in a qualitative fashion. Persons who are unable to contribute to the increase of our store of knowledge should not be admitted to the profession, but those that are should not be limited in their interests or the areas which they perceive to require attention. If at the present time opportunities for research in Soviet and East European studies arc limited, I do not believe that this is a problem created by those in the profession."

"As you will note, I left many topics unmarked since I am not sure that serious studies of them can be made due to the lack of primary materials. I strongly feel that the emphasis should be on pre-revoiutionary Russia, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, because despite Soviet restric- tions imposed on the use of archives, there is a lot available abroad which has not as yet been studied. Furthermore, the Soviets will be more disposed to opening materials dealing with the nineteenth century, and hopefully, very soon, they might even open up archives related to the reign of Nicholas II."

"May I add emphasis should be put on graduate training for non- teaching careers, on research and on other transferable skills. In all honesty, can we encourage future professors?"

"In summary, my opinion is that much work is being done on the Soviet Union and E.E. and that no new emphasis is needed. We need less propa- ganda, however."

"My basic position is that for the sake of their scholarly creativity all scholars have to make their own decision where to apply their work. They will be guided by those who have taught them; after that they should have enough of an overview themselves, as well as a sense of their own personal preferences. Scholarship is not like research in the natural sciences where durable results are Luilt up covering entire disciplines. Scholarly investigations, at least in my field, are personal probes, some more solid than others, prompted by personal factors at least as much as by a sense of the field or the discipline. The fact is that the field is so vast and many- layered, and the laborers in it are so few, so that no systematic effort can be arranged. We should know more about all the fields mentioned in your questionnaire - I cannot conceive of a hierarchy of needs that I would like to impose on anybody. It is an open and vast field that we deal with. Let it be explored according to the temperament and curiosity of those who would be explorers in it - they have to sustain the enthusiasm and motivation for all the hardships that go with scholarship."

"In looking over this questionnaire, I find 1 cannot do justice to the intent of your study by filling it out as you desire. The topics listed, as a whole, reflect to my mind a pervasive bias in Russian studies— and in other areas as well. This bias can best be defined as a fixation on the development of the state and all its dependent institutions, and an insensitivity to the experiences, culture and character of Russians (or other peoples). Of your fifty odd topics, only 4 or 5 (rural life, social history etc.) touch on history from below; there is no mention of mass culture or psychology. It may be you see this list as a reflection of the topics now dominant in the field; if so, I see no point in trying to differentiate among them. My apologies for fouling up your coding."

"None of these fields has been really neglected. There is no Golden Amount of research that is right for a field. If a scholar feels like doing research in a field, his own satisfaction is the chief benefit to be derived form it; his intellectual activity is an end in itself, regardless of field. The benefit others derive from such a scholar's work depends on his art, not on the field. One could say that relations with Japan are relatively neglected — and if anyone tries to make me read another work on Marxist-Leninist theory, I'll scream — but these are not important judgments. Please pardon my skepticism about this enterprise','1

"The real need is for less 'trendy* studies on the Soviet Union and more solid scholarship on those institutional aspects of Imperial Russia which have traditionally suffered at the hands of our pre-occupation with intellectual and revolutionary developments, namely the bureaucracy, foreign policy, agriculture, etc."

"I have not responded as painstakingly as you requested, because I do not think of the problem you raise (a very important problem!) in the categories you suggest. My feeling is that institutional development is the major type of research to be stressed, In whatever context — economics, politics, foreign policy, education, etc. Along \-rith that, I think we should urge students (and colleagues!) to stop and question

our facile assumptions about Communist and other institutions, the assumptions we simply take for granted. The tricky problem is to choose research topics that put those assumptions to a crucial test. This sort of consideration is, I think, more important than a choice between, say, agricultural history and local politics. In short, your list of alter- native topics is not nearly as impo. iant as a list of alternative methodologies."

"The questionnaire is constructed to fit the USSR rather than EE. Therefore it was difficult to cover history of EE, especially before 1945."

"I am returning the completed questionnaire as per your request. As you will note, I have indicated several areas where I believe that research and analysis is still desired. What your questionnaire does not do, and perhaps cannot do, is determine the correlation between research/ training needs and the academic marketplace, a reality with which we will be forced to contend for many years."

Appendix D: Fields Suggested by Two or More Respondents

Economics: Political Science:

Sociology: History:

None

Policy-making Process

Policy Outputs

Women

Political Development and Modernization

Political Participation

Public Opinion

Trade Unions and Industrial Management

None

Central Asia

Siberia

Foreign Communist Movements

Resistance Movements