Relation of the Federal Government to Research 



215 



sense for administrative difficulties, might be a con- 

 stant annoyance with impractical ideas and, if the 

 ideas were not accepted, become quite discontented. 

 In rare cases, where both men had unusual tact, 

 generosity, and awareness of mutual limitations, ef- 

 fective team work might be possible. On the other 

 hand, if the professionally trained man were made 

 chief and most of the administrative responsibilities 

 were delegated to an assistant chief without profes- 

 sional training who is an expert factory superintend- 

 ent, the problem of salary for the former might be 

 solved, but the problem of conflict suggested above 

 would remain and the arrangement might be disastrous, 

 if the chief lacked sound administrative judgment. 

 The responsibility for decisions must rest in the chief, 

 subject to review by the director. In rare cases, team 

 work might be possible, but the inherent dangers are 

 obvious. 



Making Each S\ihject-M otter Division a Strictly/ 

 Factory Unit With No Professionally Trained Man 

 in High Authority in. the Division, and Concentrating 

 Professionally Trained Men in an Expanded Central 

 Division of Research. — This arrangement would con- 

 template much less autonomy in the divisions than 

 now exists, and would limit the responsibility of the 

 division chiefs to the administration of routines. The 

 work of analysis, and the technical research to deter- 

 mine ways of improving the data, would be the re- 

 sponsibility of the Division of Research. This sug- 

 gestion, insofar as it would contemplate a strong "gen- 

 eral staff" of professionally trained men responsible 

 immediately to the director, has much to commend it. 

 In the writer's judgment, one of the most important 

 forward steps the Bureau has taken has been to develop 

 a central research division. But, the writer also be- 

 lieves, the Bureau is correct in rejecting any suggestion 

 of stripping the subject-matter divisions of profes- 

 sionally trained men. The objections are several : 



(a) There is no way, at present, by which adequate 

 salaries could be paid to a sufficient number of experts 

 attached to a single division like a Division of 

 Research. Under existing personnel policies any effort 

 to place, in a single division, more than three or four 

 people at salaries higher than, say, $3,800 a year is 

 not likely to succeed. In view of the variety and scope 

 of the Bureau's fields of work — involving such diverse 

 problems as population, mortality, criminology, agri- 

 culture, manufactures, trade, and taxation, to mention 

 only a few — it is obvious that an effective "pool" of 

 technical specialists could not be had under such salary 

 limitations. Possibly, some other arrangement might 

 be made — such as setting up several research divisions 

 under an assistant director or detaching experts nomi- 



nally assigned to the present subject-matter divisions — 

 but these possibilities are problematical. In any case, 

 unless the experts could look forward to receiving, 

 eventually, salaries at least as high as a division chief, 

 the almost inevitable result would be an eventual loss 

 lo the Bureau of the best experts and the retention of 

 the poorest. 



{h) If research minds are more or less isolated from 

 the actual operation of subject-matter divisions, there 

 is a danger that their ideas would become impractical 

 or, even if practical, would get lost in a cumbersome 

 process of transmission. Under such an arrangement, 

 the ideas would have to be transmitted to an already 

 overburdened director or assistant director, who would 

 have to approve or disapprove, and then issue orders 

 (o the operating division chiefs concerned. 



(c) The danger would arise that under a future 

 administration of the Bureau, less appreciative of sci- 

 entific work than the present administration, the re- 

 search minds would be sidetracked entirely. We must 

 not forget the tradition, discussed in part I, that the 

 fidministration of the Bureau is changed with each 

 change of party in power. It would be possible for a 

 future director, if he were not scientifically minded, 

 lo take the easy course of letting the "factory" run on 

 its momentum and to avoid the nuisance of deciding 

 M hether or not to implement new technical ideas from 

 a "brain trust." The research division could be ig- 

 nored or abolished. Such a development is quite within 

 the range of possibility. The best insurance policy, 

 perhaps, for protecting future scientific work in the 

 Bureau would be to have professionally trained men, 

 who are also good administrators, in charge of each 

 of the divisions of the Bureau. 



The Junior Professional Staff and 

 Opportunities for Promotion 



From one jDrofessional and scientific man under 45 

 years of age in 1933 the number in the Bureau of the 

 Census has grown to 18 in 1938. 



In the discussion of the chief positions it was pointed 

 out that new appointments depended on vacancies 

 which may be slow to develop if an agency is to keep 

 faith with the civil service and that the salary scale 

 was too low to attract the rare combination of profes- 

 sional training and administrative ability required. 

 With respect to junior i^ositions, it is likewise true that 

 new appointments depend on vacancies which may be 

 slow to develop in an agency not continually acquiring 

 new functions. But the salarj^ scale, especially at the 

 entrance level, is ample — indeed, more than ample — 

 to attract competent young Ph.D.'s in the social 

 sciences in competition with the academic or business 

 world. 



