NO. I ETHNOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD BENNETT 97 



equipped to answer questions, gather materials, prepare reports, 

 translate, copy photographs, and many other things that had been part 

 of the Board's stock-in-trade. 



The information service was of great initial value but should have 

 led to even greater contributions. As the requests dwindled, the 

 Board declined instead of using its strong position to bring the 

 scholarly and academic resources, which it was supposed to represent, 

 into true effectiveness. When it came to the point of assisting the 

 Government in the planning and formulation of projects or of pro- 

 moting the activities of the scholars, the Board found itself in the 

 embarrassing position of having nothing to sell. The sales organiza- 

 tion, in its enthusiasm, had put on a successful promotion campaign 

 but neglected to stir the manufacturer into producing the goods. 



The first Director recognized this situation in his letter of resig- 

 nation, except that he made a sharp distinction between the two func- 

 tions, namely, active service to the war effort versus long-term post- 

 war projects. The Director felt that reorganization would be neces- 

 sary if activities of another nature were undertaken. The Sponsors 

 agreed, but did not authorize the changes at so late a date. However, 

 from the present perspective, the great need for research promotion 

 was during the first 2 years of the Board's existence and not after its 

 service function had ceased. 



Research Promotion 



The reports, materials, and projects produced or stimulated by the 

 Ethnogeographic Board have been described and evaluated, as well 

 as those initiated or suggested but not completed. Together with the 

 description, some reasons for the limited activities have been included, 

 such as personnel, framing outlines, policy, techniques, and attitudes. 

 Limited is the best descriptive word for the research-promotion ac- 

 tivities. Those that were undertaken were well executed and valuable. 

 There should have been more. 



The staff of the Washington office should not be saddled with all 

 the blame. It not only had its own job to do, but its whole organiza- 

 tion was directed toward that end. At every meeting the need for more 

 substantial academic relations and more outside reports was brought to 

 the attention of the Board. It was the Board itself, then, that had no 

 function. The Directorate could have carried on with a small advisory 

 group, such as the executive committee became. The Board might 

 well have assumed the responsibility for research promotion. Its field 

 of activity was not limited to Washington. Ideas were abundant, and 



