no. i ethnogeographic board bennett 31 



Evaluation of Individuals 



Every compiler of a roster ultimately faces the problem of evaluat- 

 ing the individuals on his list. For example, when a man writes 

 in "fluent" to describe his ability in speaking Malayan, what are 

 the chances that he has more than a halting, lo-word vocabulary? 

 This may seem far-fetched, but experience has shown otherwise, par- 

 ticularly when the rating is done by the individuals themselves. 



Evaluation, except for such sweeping generalizations as "good" 

 or "terrible," must be done in the framework of a particular request, 

 job, or project. Attempts to evaluate in terms of hypothetical frame- 

 works are time-consuming and of dubious value. For example, the 

 Committee on Latin American Anthropology set up a jury of eight 

 to rate the linguistic and professional qualifications of each anthro- 

 pologist on its Hst, but even this simple technique broke down when 

 the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies tried to apply it to 

 historians, sociologists, language teachers, and others. These fields 

 were so large that no jury could possibly be personally acquainted with 

 any significant number of the individuals. 



The Ethnogeographic Board made an over-all rating by inspec- 

 tion and selection. Each questionnaire was examined to see if the 

 individual's experience and materials might be of service. If so, 

 the entry was made on the filing card. Other evaluation techniques 

 were utilized only when a particular request made them necessary. 



The Board was frequently asked to recommend someone for a 

 particular job or to furnish the names of individuals with specific 

 area knowledge. In these cases the Board's obligation was defined 

 by a memorandum from IMilitary Intelligence Service : "In all cases, 

 the qualifications of such scientific personnel will have been evaluated 

 by the Ethnogeographic Board, and their loyalty and reliability been 

 investigated by the Counterintelligence Branch, War Department, 

 or equivalent agencies." For these evaluations, the Board used the 

 standard biographical reference books, sought the opinions of others 

 in the man's professions, and checked with the source which had 

 furnished the man's name. Some evaluations were made by the 

 cooperating committee which specialized on the area in question. 



Many individuals in the Area Roster were sent requests for maps, 

 photographs, and specific information on a particular area. Rough 

 evaluations were used in selecting the individuals who would receive 

 these requests. For example, the Oceania Committee had followed up 

 its original questionnaire with a second one calling for details of 

 resources, topography, and population of certain islands. A gen- 



