I06 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. TO/ 



FUTURE PROBLEMS 



A review of the experience of the Ethnogeographic Board points 

 up some very real lacunae, particularly in reference to area knowledge 

 and personnel. The Board provided some temporary fillings in its at- 

 tempt to answer requests, but it could hardly be said that these des- 

 peration measures had solved the problems. Such lacunae have been 

 apparent to many other individuals and agencies faced with the prob- 

 lem of assembling adequate information on other parts of the world, 

 vitally needed during the war, but equally necessary for future action. 



Area Experts 



When the Ethnogeographic Board was first started, no adequate 

 records of area experts were available, although some of the cooperat- 

 ing committees, like those of the National Research Council, and the 

 Intensive Language Program, had started to build up regional lists, and 

 the National Roster of Scientific and Specialized Personnel contained 

 secondary information on the area experience of many individuals. 

 The Board at once started to assemble a practical area roster. Outside 

 of the European field there were few recognized area experts, so the 

 Board abandoned the idea of defining expertness and filled its roster 

 cards with the names of any individuals who had unusual experience 

 or extended area residence. Lists were obtained from a great variety 

 of sources, particularly for those areas of immediate concern to the 

 Army and Navy. The Board developed its shotgun technique of cir- 

 cularizing a great number of people in order to obtain information, 

 and the technique was reasonably successful. However, this is far 

 from a permanent solution for registration of area specialists and the 

 organization of their knowledge. 



The Area Roster does not furnish a measuring stick for determin- 

 ing the best- and the least-known areas. Not only was expert not de- 

 fined, but the Board concentrated its efforts on the lesser-known areas. 

 No final evaluation can be made until the lists for all regions are 

 carefully sifted, but withal, it is clear that area experts are inadequate 

 for almost every region. A double problem is presented by this situa- 

 tion. First the need for registration of the significant past, present, 

 and future area experience of scholars and other specialists, which is 

 more than a list of places visited. Second, the necessity of creating ex- 

 perts on all regions, including those which are almost totally unknown. 



The registration might be handled by the National Roster if new 

 techniques of evaluation were developed, although there is no guaran- 

 tee of its continuation. Mortimer Graves, of the American Council 



