NO. I ETHNOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD — BENNETT 93 



Some of the Board's publicity and letter requests to the area 

 specialists established indirect contacts with the scholars of the 

 country, but more was needed. The Director prepared a statement on 

 the activities and needs for publication in the professional journals, 

 but no systematic coverage was achieved, nor were follow-up accounts 

 sent out. It was suggested that the Chairman acquaint the national 

 scientific and educational societies with its activities prior to their 

 annual meetings, and, if possible, suggest ethnogeographical subjects 

 for discussion. This proved difficult because so many meetings were 

 called off in view of travel restrictions. 



At one meeting it was decided that the use of letters and question- 

 naires was both ineffective and unpopular. This is surprising in view 

 of the Board's success in building a roster and gathering materials and 

 information by circularizing the area specialists. Furthermore, the 

 Committee on Latin American Anthropology had prepared a rather 

 comprehensive statement on research in progress, based on answers 

 to a circular letter. In fact, the Ethnogeographic Board had every 

 reason to believe that, in terms of quantity at least, individuals enjoy 

 recording their experience and publicizing their abilities. 



Finally, it was suggested that the Board increase the distribution of 

 its materials outside of Washington. However, the Board maintained 

 its policy of distributing such materials to non-Government agencies 

 only on request. This applied even to members of the collaborating 

 committees. Wider distribution would certainly have been good pub- 

 licity, and might have inspired other scholars to produce similar 

 materials, 



2. INTERVIEW 



The interview technique is recognized as a highly specialized pro- 

 cedure. The Board considered the possibility of developing an organi- 

 zation of interviewers throughout the country who could be used by 

 the staff and by the Military. In this way the Board might itself 

 be responsible for interviewing, or, at least, the staff could assist the 

 agencies in framing interview questions and in interpreting the re- 

 sults. All this remained in the never-never land of fine ideas. The 

 Board furnished the names of people whom the Navy, Army, or 

 war agency might interview, but its advice and activity stopped there. 



Since interviewing is done within a specific framework, it is almost 

 inconceivable that the Army or Navy would ever take a non-Govern- 

 mental group sufficiently into its confidence to assign it the task. The 

 only use that the Ethnogeographic Board might have made of this 



