1942-45, 1948-51, Washington, Algiers, London, Scandinavia, mainly for Foreign Economic Administration and State Department; Associate Director, Marketing and Research Division, Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., New York City, 1945-48; Chief Special Technical and Economic Mission, Indonesia. 1951-52; Assistant Director Mutual Security Agency, Far East, 1952-53; Director, Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, 1953-60; Lecturer, Economics, University of Michigan, 1955-57, Professor of Economics, 1959-62; Director, Center for Research on Economic Development 1961-62; Consultant, Peace Corps, 1961-62; President, Foreign Policy Association, 1962- Consultant to President's Task Force on Foreign Economic Assistance, 1961.

Member of: Committee on Educational Interchange Policy; American Statistical Association; American Psychological Association; Society for International Development; American Economic Association; Council Relations; Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Xi; Fellow, AAAS.

Author: Evaluating Development Projects, 1966; An International Peace Corps, 1961. Editor (with others): Some Applications of Behavioral Research. 1957. Contributor to and author of books and articles in professional publications.

Senator HARRIS. I believe, Dr. Hayes, you have a prepared statement. We appreciate your coming and will be pleased to hear from

you now.

Dr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I follow the precedent of reading my testimony here, and make minor changes as I go along? TESTIMONY OF DR. SAMUEL P. HAYES, PRESIDENT, FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Dr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, my name is Samuel P. Hayes. I am the president-which in this case means the chief executive officer-of the Foreign Policy Association. My statement today is, however, simply an expression of my individual views. The Foreign Policy Association itself has taken no position on matters of interest to the Subcommittee on Government Research of the Committee on Government Operations.

My views are based on some 35 years of social science research, teaching. translation of research findings for use in administration, and the administration of programs that draw heavily on social science research. Nine of these years were spent in the service of the Department of State and foreign aid agencies, including 3 years in North Africa, Western Europe, and Southeast Asia.

The Foreign Policy Association itself provides a major example of program adminstration that makes important use of the findings of social science research. FPA is a research consumer rather than a research producer. It stands to benefit if support for such research is increased. The hundreds of organizations that work with FPA will likewise benefit.

The Foreign Policy Association is a private, nonprofit educational organization, operating throughout the Nation. It is nonpartisan and is prohibited by its bylaws from taking positions on issues of national policy. It attempts, through education, to build a wider and deeper understanding of the major issues of foreign policy confronting the United States, and to help develop an informed, thoughtful, and articulate public opinion on such issues. It has no members except its board of directors, and carries on its work with a staff of about 100, of whom about 45 are professional educators. For the most part,

FPA works with other organizations to help them improve their present educational activities or undertake new ones. Each year, FPA works with hundreds of national and local organizations, including voluntary associations, religious groups, university extension services, schools, world affairs councils, and so on. In many communities, there is close cooperation between FPA and the television and radio stations and the newspapers. Millions of people are reached by FPA's cooperative programs with the mass media, and hundreds of thousands participate in discussion groups which use program materials prepared by FPA and distributed by cooperating organizations.

In the preparation of its program materials, FPA draws heavily on the international relations research of university and other research centers, as well as on official sources, in order to describe fully to its audiences the principal alternatives available to U.S. policymakers. Obviously, the more and better the research going on, the richer the resources on which FPA can draw, both for use in its own programs and to help raise the quality of programing carried on by its hundreds of cooperating organizations.

FPA has a direct interest in a second type of social science research. Just as business and government organizations rely on behavioral research for guidance and evaluation of their operations, so also FPA and its many cooperating organizations need solidly based information on the current content and quality of public thinking about international relations, at various age levels-preferably obtained by national sample surveys, repeated periodically-about the sources of information drawn upon by people of different ages and characteristics; about the relationship of international attitudes to personality and upbringing; about personal influence and group dynamics as they affect attitudes and cognition; about the various ways of expressing international attitudes and views, through communications to government, demonstrations, voting, opinion polls, actions toward foreigners and foreign goods, and so on; and about the relations between public opinion and national formulation and implementation of foreign policy. FPA and its allies are educating for citizenship. We are, of course, only one of a number of influences on foreign policy opinion and behavior. But to do our job as effectively and as efficiently as possible, we need to know as much as we can about the task that confronts us, about our own success in performing this task, and about the impact of other influences upon public opinion and behavior in international affairs.

While I have thus far been explaining FPA's interest in more and better social science research, of two main types, I must repeat that I am appearing here as an individual. My views naturally reflect my experience at FPA. They also grow out of my earlier experience with other organizations, including the Federal Government.

I should like to state three general propositions, and then to expand upon one of them.

First, in my opinion, the present level of support for social science research is inadequate. This is true for all sources of support-university, foundation, business, and government. As a consequence, we know far less about the nature and functioning of our own and other societies and their interrelations than we should; and most organizations,

whether business, governmental, educational, or other, do a less successful job than they might otherwise be able to do.

Second, even the data, concepts, and generalizations that have been developed in the course of social science research are inadequately utilized to guide the operations of government, business, educational, and other organizations. The situation in many of these organizations is similar to that of the farmer who rejected the overtures of the county etxension agent, saying, "I don't need any more ideas about farming. I already know how to farm much better than I'm doing."

Third, both inadequate financial support and inadequate utilization of findings stem-at least in part from the failure of social scientists, on the one hand, and agency administrators and staff personnel, on the other, to learn enough about each other to be able to communicate effectively. Hence they are unable to concert their different efforts effectively in the common good. They might reinforce each other. Instead, much of the time they are like two trains that pass each other in the night.

It is this third point that I should like to elaborate because, in my view, it would not be enough to set up a new foundation simply for the purposes of expanding the financial support and improving the coordination of social science research. To be of maximum value, such a foundation should also provide leadership in bridging the worlds of research and action in those fields where social science has a contribution to make. It should help educate administrators in the approaches, concepts, methods, potential contributions, and limitations of social science. It should help them define their problems in terms susceptible to social science consultation and investigation. It should also help to educate social scientists in the problems, concepts, procedures, and frames of reference of the administrators. And it should help the social scientists design their research and present their findings in ways of maximum value to administrators.

This is not to suggest that all, or even the major portion, of the research supported by a new foundation need be problem-oriented research, tied to operational needs. Some is likely to be, and should be, for government agencies and other institutions in our society have a legitimate need for social science assistance in solving their operating problems. In such problem-oriented research, the need for the bridging activities suggested above is obvious. But even for basic research, there is a bridging function to be performed. Research that is quite basic in its conception can turn out to have practical implications. And if potential users collaborate in its design and in the analysis and interpretation of its findings, this may increase its immediate practical value without reducing its contribution to scientific advance.

The natural sciences are in a very different situation from the social sciences in respect to their need for "bridging" assistance. And this, to me, is one of the telling arguments in favor of a separate foundation to support the social sciences. The potential consumers of natural science research are ready and waiting. They are avid for new discoveries. The National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, NASA, and other supporters of natural science research don't have to sell anyone on the proposition that such research can have large payoffs, nor do they have to act as "translators" between producers and

consumers of natural science research. There are hundreds of thousands of engineers of myriad varieties, of physicians, of architects, of city planners, of scientific farmers, who identify problems that need research study and who reach out for new research findings that they can than apply directly in their own activities. Bridging the worlds of research and action in the natural sciences does demand some effort, of course, but there is strong interest on the action side, and there are multitudes of "translators." A foundation supporting natural science research can limit its activities to support and coordination.

In the social sciences, the situation is very different. There are relatively few "social engineers" to help with the job of translation and bridging. Educators, administrators, and professional staff in business and government, lawyers, diplomats the logical "consumers" of the findings of social science research-are frequently most skeptical about the value of such findings. They are unlikely to seek help from the social scientists. They are rarely involved at the stage of definition of the research problem and in the design of the methodology. And they find it difficult and unappealing to try by themselves to interpret the results in relation to their own activities.

We often hear it said that "everyone feels that he is an expert on human nature." Experts aren't so likely to seek guidance as nonexperts are. And it is psychologically harder to accept a new idea about human nature than to accept a new one about the nature of matter. In all candor, the evidence for the latter is likely to be more unambiguous than for the former. Moreover, the social scientists themselves haven't done a very successful job of "selling their wares" to many of those who could make good use of them.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I should like to make reference here to several published studies of the general problem of utilization of social science in government and business. I will not read off the titles, but it may be useful to the committee to have this set of references together.

(The material referred to follows:)

Graham, Milton D., Federal Utilization of Social Science Research: Exploration of the Problems. Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1954. Hayes, Samuel P., Using Behavioral Science Effectively in Development Aid Agencies. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 1964, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Jan.), pp. 3-9.

Leeds, Ruth I., and Smith, Thomasina Jo., Using Social Science Knowledge in Business and Industry. Homewood, Ill., Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1963. Likert, Rensis and Hayes, Samuel P., (Editors), Some Applications of Behavioral Research. Paris, UNESCO, 1957, esp. Chapter I, Behavioral Research: A Guide for Effective Action; and Chapter VIII, Relating Behavioral Research to the Problems of Organizations.

Likert, Rensis and Lippitt, Ronald, The Utilization of Social Science. Chapter 13 of Research Methods in the Social Sciences (edited by Leon Festinger and Daniel Katz), New York, N.Y., The Dryden Press, 1953.

Orlans, Harold, The Use of Social Research in Federal Domestic Programs, Washington, D.C., House Subcommittee on Research and Technical Programs, 1967.

Effective Use of Social Science Research in the Federal Services, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1950.

Papers and Reprints on Utilization of the Behavioral Sciences (Mimeographed), Stanford, Calif., Institute for Communication Research of Stanford Univ., 1956.

Social Science for Industry, Stanford, Calif., Stanford Research Institute, 1953.

Dr. HAYES. Unlike the natural sciences, the social sciences need a great deal of help in educating both "producers" and "consumers" of research to take full advantage of the other. A National Foundation for the Social Sciences should therefore, in my opinion, be quite different from NSF. It should assign a substantial portion of its staff and expend a significant portion of its resources on bridging and translation functions. I should personally like to see this recognized in the basic legislation, perhaps by adding to section 6 of S. 836 a fifth paragraph along the lines of the following:

(5) promote the utilization of social science research in Federal Government agencies and elsewhere by advice and assistance in the recruitment and training of personnel, by conferences and training seminars on the application of new research findings and on the need for new studies, by advice and assistance in contracting for consultants and research studies, and in other ways.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I should like to place in the committee files a memorandum on "Using Behavioral Science in AID," which I prepared and which elaborates further on the ways in which utilization of social science in a governmental agency or other organization can be promoted.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, it is my personal view that substantially increased governmental support for social science research is desirable; that governments, business, education, and other organizations have much to gain from fuller utilization of present and future social science research; and that major attention needs to be given to building better communication between researchers and those in policy and action agencies, with the twin objectives of increasing the pertinence of research to action, and increasing the utilization of research findings in action programs. For these reasons I personally support the establishment of a National Foundation for the Social Sciences.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the privilege of appearing before your committee.

Senator HARRIS. Thank you, Dr. Hayes, for a very excellent statement. I have read also the appendix which will be placed in the record, detailing AID's experiences with behavioral science. I think it is a very good statement and one which shall certainly be helpful to this subcommittee in its deliberations.

I am very much impressed by your comments concerning the need to bridge the gap between research and application in the social sciences and I like the recommendations that you made for amendment to this bill, and I can assure you that that will be given very serious consideration by this subcommittee.

I do not have any other questions to ask you. I think your statement is a very complete one. Do you have any further comments that you want to add at this time?

Dr. HAYES. I think I would only add a comment on a specific part of the area of support for social science research, having to do with research in the so-called policy sciences, of which foreign policy is obviously one. Here, while I am sure that substantial increased Government support can be used, would be appropriate, and would be sought by organizations in this field, it is, as we all know, a very delicate field in which those who do the research do not want to feel any