NO. I ETHNOGEOGRAPIIIC BOARD BENNETT IO9 



ject, and the survey of area studies was one of its major projects. 

 The universities and the Military reached no general agreement on 

 the nature and content of area training before the programs started, 

 and the future is equally vague. The problem needs special study, 

 since it is intimately related to the whole question of how to develop 

 area experts. More is involved than courses at universities — for ex- 

 ample, the importance of field programs and the ever-present issue 

 of support and employment of area experts once they are trained. 



The issue of area versus discipline is also included. One group 

 claims that an intensive language and area course may prepare a 

 good lawyer for work in a foreign area, but the reverse, an intensive 

 course in law, is not possible. Another group asks what kind of field 

 work could be undertaken by a man trained exclusively in area ? Dis- 

 ciplines face the same duality internally. Is the anthropologist who 

 studies a tribe in New Guinea interested in the region, or in getting 

 another sample of the cultures of the world ? It is apparent that con- 

 siderable thought is needed on the nature and purpose of area training. 



Research versus Action 



One of the major problems faced by the Ethnogeographic Board 

 was the integration of the so-called "pure" research of the scholars, 

 and the "applied" research of the Government action agencies. No 

 effective solution was reached which would reconcile the two ap- 

 proaches. This was due in part to the failure to define the area 

 approach, and in part to the neglect of such semisolutions as the 

 problem conferences. 



This problem will become more acute in the future if the Govern- 

 ment is to be the principal source of research funds. Two important 

 contributions have already been made to this question by Richard H. 

 Heindel ("The Integration of Federal and Non-Federal Research as 

 a War Problem," Technical Paper No. 9, National Resources Plan- 

 ning Board, 1942), and by the Social Science Research Council ("The 

 Federal Government and Research," mimeographed report, 1945) 

 Both of these studies point up the problems involved and suggest is' 

 sues for further consideration. The Ethnogeographic Board's ex- 

 perience adds its minor contribution. 



Future of the Ethnogeographic Board 



Some of the broad problems and important lacunae of our area 

 knowledge have been silhouetted. It is legitimate to question whether 

 the Ethnogeographic Board, in its present or in a reorganized form, 



