The Institute for Social Research is an agency of the University of Michigan engaged in a continuous program of research on problems concerning human behavior in social settings. It is organized on a University-wide basis, administratively independent of the teaching departments and schools, but closely allied with many of them through research, teaching, and professional interests. The Institute's objectives include the conduct of major research projects, assistance in the provision of professional training for advanced graduate students in the social sciences and allied professions, the publication and dissemination of studies, and assistance to and consultation with other persons and agencies engaged in research or action programs related to the scientific interests of the Institute.
The regular staff, early in 1954, consisted of about fifty research scientists, about sixty home-office clerical and administrative workers, and more than two hundred part-time field interviewers located throughout the country. The Institute during recent years has operated on a budget of approximately $800,000 a year, with support coming primarily through contracts with government agencies, private business firms, and similar organizations; through grants from research supporting foundations; and from compensation for certain services provided to other parts of the University.
The Institute through its scientific contributions has attracted worldwide attention and respect. Approximately one hundred scientific reports or interpretations of research are currently issued annually. More than four hundred scholars and professional persons who wish to know more of its work or who desire consultation visit it each year. Since much of the research relates to current problems and issues, there has been considerable notice of it in the daily press as well as in various scientific and professional journals. It is the major agency of its kind and is widely regarded as an important influence both in theoretical developments and in bridging the gap between theory and applications of theory to current social, political, economic, and business problems.
The history of the Institute for Social Research, like that of most institutions, is partly a reflection of the needs and opportunities of the times, and partly a creation of the individuals who saw the needs clearly and were able to give direction and organizational form to an agency designed to meet them. Thus, the Institute is a logical development resulting from the broadening of interest in the scientific approach to problems of human behavior, from the emergence of improved scientific theory and research methods during the 1930's and 1940's, and from the urgency of the problems, which may ultimately be resolved through a better understanding of human behavior. The Institute is also a product of a few individuals who were able to lend their insight, their confidence in long-term objectives, and their immediate influence, to the practical problems of organization and financial support.
The Institute had its formal origin at Michigan when the Regents in June 1946, established the Social Science Surveys Project to conduct research on public opinion. Later in the same year, the "project" became the Survey Research Center, with broadened objectives and with important subsidiary functions in the areas of training and service. In 1948 the Research Center for Group Dynamics joined with the Survey Research Center. Together, these two units comprise the Institute for Social Research. Each of the Centers has its roots in events, which occurred before their association at the University of Michigan.
The Survey Research Center grew out of an organization — the Division of Program Surveys — within the U. S. Department of Agriculture. This unit was formed in 1939 under the direction of Rensis Likert ('26, Ph.D. Columbia '32), present Director of the Institute, to conduct sample interview surveys required by the program of the Department of Agriculture. During World War II this group of scientists extended the range and variety of their work to include surveys for several government agencies on problems related to the support of the war effort. These included studies of public finance, civilian morale, public response to government policies, and agricultural productivity.
At the conclusion of the war the key members of this organization set for themselves new objectives with an emphasis on the conduct of research oriented toward the solution of more basic scientific problems than could be studied effectively within the frame-work of governmental administrative service. They determined to seek, as a group, association with an academic institution that offered greater freedom in choice of research objectives, greater effectiveness through association with a teaching faculty in the social sciences, and greater opportunities for contributions to the social sciences through teaching and publication.
The adoption by a university of such a research organization posed many problems. While it was to be self-supporting through contracts and grants, there was little precedent for the idea that adequate support could be obtained. Furthermore, the organization had interests, which cut across such traditional areas of academic interest as economics, psychology, sociology, and political science and which did not seem to fit the established structure of most universities. There was some uncertainty as to whether its objectives as developed would coincide with those of a university. In retrospect, it seems quite logical: Michigan was one of the few institutions with experience in the administration of large-scale interdisciplinary research units, was exceptionally active in developing its social science program, and was able to provide the necessary housing and immediate financial support.
Negotiations were initiated by Rensis Likert, leader of the research group contemplating the move, and by Angus Campbell (Oregon '31, Ph.D. Stanford '36), now Director of the Center. Prominent in the early discussions during which the general character and purposes of the Institute for Social Research were formed were Vice-President Marvin L. Niehuss, Dean Hayward Keniston, Professors Donald G. Marquis, Robert Angell, I. L. Sharfman, and Provost James P. Adams. With the assistance of these men the plans for the establishment of the research unit were developed and recommended to the Regents.
The second of the Centers comprising the Institute, the Research Center for Group Dynamics, was founded at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1945 by Professor Kurt Lewin, pioneer in the field of research on group life. From a time shortly before World War II Lewin had made substantial progress in developing experimental techniques for studying the functioning of groups in both laboratory and natural settings. He had succeeded in isolating different types of leadership and in demonstrating their consequences for groups of various kinds. This work took him into such diverse activities during the war as those of the Office of Strategic Services, the Committee on Food Habits of the National Research Council, and agencies concerned with industrial productivity, national unity, and inter-group relations. From this experience Professor Lewin foresaw the scientific and social values to be gained by the establishment of a center, which would be concerned simultaneously with basic scientific research on group life and with the utilization of research methods in the solutions of urgent social problems involving the relations among people in groups. Initial financial grants, which permitted the establishment of the new Center were provided by the Field Foundation and the American Jewish Congress. The vision of two other men was especially important in creating the Research Center for Group Dynamics: Alfred J. Marrow, president of the Harwood Manufacturing Company, and Professor Douglas McGregor, then of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and subsequently president of Antioch College.
After Professor Lewin's death in 1947, his immediate staff members determined to continue their association in research and chose one of their members, Professor Dorwin Cartwright (Swarthmore '37, Ph.D. Harvard '40), to succeed Lewin as director. This event was made the occasion to reassess the suitability of such a center within an institution primarily concerned with the natural sciences and engineering. It was concluded that a university with stronger resources in the social sciences might provide a better base of operations, and with the consent of all parties, the Center was formally invited to transfer to the University of Michigan and to continue its work in association with the already-established Survey Research Center.
The Regents' Proceedings record approval of the establishment of the Social Science Surveys Project as follows:
The Board approved the establishment of the Social Science Surveys Project, which is a research and service project in the field of public opinion survey, on an experimental basis… It is understood that the project is to be under the supervision of a director, assisted by an executive committee, to be appointed by the Regents, and under the general jurisdiction of the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies.
(R.P., 1945-48, p. 418.)
After this initial action, the plans for the new research unit were further developed and the Regents established the unit at their September 1946, meeting:
The Survey Research Center is hereby established (effective August 1, 1946) as a research, service, and training project of the University.
The Center shall be under the direction of a Director assisted by an Executive Committee. The Director shall be appointed by the Board of Regents on recommendation by the President. The Executive Committee shall consist of the Dean of the Graduate School or a representative designated by him, the Director, who shall be chairman, and six additional members of the University Senate representing fields related to the activities of the Center, to be appointed by the Board of Regents on recommendation by the President.
The Executive Committee shall be responsible for the determination of general policy regarding the nature and scope of the research, service, and training activities of the Center, and in co-operation with the responsible officers of the teaching units and subject to their approval, for the co-ordination of the activities of the Center with the research and training functions of such units. The Committee shall be responsible for the recommendation of appointments of members of the staff of the Center and for recommendations related to its budget. The Committee shall also be responsible for the approval of contracts for service to be rendered by the Center, with the understanding that such contracts must also have the approval of the Vice-President in charge of business and finance…
The Center is established with the understanding that its activities are to be financially self-supporting from the proceeds of contracts for service or from grants for research or training and that it will impose no burden upon the general funds budget of the University…
(R.P., 1945-48, p. 522.)
The decision to invite the Research Center for Group Dynamics is recorded in the Proceedings of the January, 1948, meeting of the Board of Regents, and one year later, with the Research Center for Group Dynamics already established at the University, the formal designation of the new and larger organization was prescribed:
On recommendation of Dr. Rensis Likert and the Executive Committee of the Survey Research Center, and with the approval of the General Committee of the Division of the Social Sciences, the Regents voted that the Survey Research Center and the Research Center for Group Dynamics are to be identified under the title Institute for Social Research, with Dr. Rensis Likert as Director. For the time being, the two projects will operate with separate designations within the Institute for Social Research, but it is expected that in due course their separate identities will merge.
(R.P., 1948-51, p. 234.)
In accordance with this action of the Board of Regents, the "By-Laws" of the University were amended to recognize the permanent status of the Institute for Social Research and to fix the essential characteristics of the Institute in relation to the University administrative structure:
Sec. 30. 15. Institute for Social Research. There shall be maintained an Institute for Social Research, which shall be conducted for the purpose of research, service, and training.
The Institute shall be under the direction of a Director appointed by the Board of Regents on recommendation by the President and assisted by an Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall consist of the Director ex officio, chairman; the Dean of the Graduate School ex officio, or a representative designated by him; and additional members of the University Senate representing fields related to the activities of the Institute, to be appointed by the Board of Regents on recommendation by the President. The appointed members shall hold office for three years each, the terms to be so adjusted that two vacancies shall occur each year.
The Executive Committee shall be responsible for the determination of general policies, regarding the nature and scope of the activities of the Institute and, in co-operation with the responsible officers of the teaching units, for the co-ordination of its activities with the research and training functions of such units. It shall also be responsible for recommendations relating to the appointment of members of the staff and the budget, and for the approval of contracts for service to be rendered by the Institute, provided that such contracts must also have the approval of the Vice-President in charge of business and finance.
All appointments to the staff of the Institute for Social Research shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.09 of these "By-Laws," and any collateral appointments in teaching units held by members of the staff of the Institute shall be without tenure, except as may be otherwise specifically provided by action of the Board of Regents. The activities of the Institute shall be financially supported from the proceeds of contracts for services rendered to organizations, agencies, or institutions outside of the University; or from grants for research or training. The Institute may be compensated for services rendered to the educational programs of teaching units and other agencies of the University.
(R.P., 1948-51, pp. 368-69.)
The intention that the Institute should be interdisciplinary and accessible to all schools and departments of the University is implicit in the form of its organization. From the beginning it was administratively separate from any one department or school, responsible directly to the chief academic officer of the University. This intention was strengthened and given vitality by the decision to have an Executive Committee composed of members drawn from a variety of relevant disciplines. Those serving on the Executive Committee, with their terms of office are as follows: G. Ackley (economics), 1947-51; R. C. Angell (sociology), 1946-53; K. E. Boulding (economics), 1951-56; A. L. Brandon, 1947 — ; A. W. Bromage (political science), 1946-55; E. M. Hoover (economics), 1946-47; R. Likert (ex officio), 1946 — ; D. G. Marquis (psychology), 1946-55; C. E. Odegaard, 1953-56; W. C. Olson, 1952-55; J. Perkins, 1949-50; D. M. Phelps (marketing), 1953-56; R. A. Sawyer (ex officio), 1946 — ; R. A. Stevenson, 1946-53; H. F. Vaughan, 1951-54; M. L. Niehuss, 1946-47.
Since the functions of the Executive Committee have included guidance on research objectives as well as administrative control, it has been important that its members have interests at least as broad as those of the Institute research staff. To strengthen the committee in this respect, the Regents in 1952 modified the "By-Laws" affecting the Institute to permit the expansion of the membership of the Committee from six members of the University Senate to a maximum of nine (in addition to the ex officio members).
Within the framework of organization and broad purpose outlined above, the Institute has moved steadily toward a definition of its activities, which in 1952, were stated as follows:
The aim of the Institute is to increase our understanding of social behavior through the utilization of scientific methods. Underlying this aim is the faith that scientific methods — in particular the use of quantitative measurement intimately linked with social theory — can make a major contribution to knowledge about social affairs and to human welfare. Diverse problems have been studied; all were chosen because of their basic theoretical significance, or immediate social implications. These problems, in general, have been sufficiently broad to require team research, and since human problems overlap traditional academic boundaries, the research teams usually have included persons from more than one scientific discipline.
A broad program of this kind must encompass a variety of activities. It is necessary to develop specialized research skills; so there must be constant training of personnel both for the staff of the Institute and for research in other agencies and at other locations. There must be a constant exchange of findings and methods with other researchers; this requires an active program of consultation, publication and exchange of communications, and contacts with colleagues. There must be research on the methods of research so that new and more complex problems may effectively be studied. It is necessary to develop procedures for the interpretation and application of research findings; this leads to the training of leaders and technicians in the use of the research results.
The objectives of the Institute thus include research, professional training for researchers, exchange of scientific information, research on methodology, and assistance in the application of research results.
The research activities of the Institute have been largely the activities of the two Centers. Of separate origin, and beginning with separate problems, methods, and personnel, each has continued its program with considerable autonomy but with the mutual benefit that comes from close association and from sharing of interests, scientific findings, and research skills. Angus Campbell has been Director of the Survey Research Center since 1948, and Dorwin Cartwright has been Director of the Research Center for Group Dynamics during the same period.
Survey research center. — The oldest of the integrated research programs of the Survey Research Center is concerned with the dynamics of the major economic decisions made by consumers and businessmen. This program, under the direction of Professor George Katona (Ph.D. Göttingen '21), was undertaken in the belief that people's motives, levels of information, attitudes, and expectations influence their economic behavior, and that measures of attitudinal variables obtained in interviews with a sample of consumers or businessmen can provide important information relevant to past as well as to forthcoming trends in the economy. Data traditionally regarded as economic — incomes, profit, assets, debt, prices — can thus be supplemented by quantitative information on psychological and sociological factors. The major economic surveys of the Center are an annual series of studies known as the surveys of consumer finances, conducted for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The ninth of these annual surveys is currently in progress. Further surveys have been carried out concerning specific economic decisions on purchases of houses, life insurance, savings bonds, stocks, and consumer goods both durable and nondurable. A series of studies made in 1951, 1952, and 1953 was concerned with attitudes toward inflation, spending, and saving, the origin of economic attitudes and the relation of these to economic behavior.
This work has been supported by various governmental organizations, private business firms, and foundations.
A second major program of research conducted by the Survey Research Center has been concerned with discovering some of the underlying principles applicable to the problems of organizing and managing human activity. This program was initially directed by Professor Daniel Katz (Buffalo '25, Ph.D. Syracuse '28) and later by Robert L. Kahn (Michigan '39, Ph.D. ibid. '52). In 1947 a ten-year program was outlined in this area, which provided for the study, in sequence, of a variety of functioning organizations to explore the social and interpersonal determinants of organizational effectiveness and employee satisfaction. Substantial projects have been conducted within this broad program in an insurance company, a railroad, a public utility, an automobile factory, a governmental administrative agency, a research agency, a household appliance factory, a professional society, four labor unions, and other similar organizations. An important aspect of this research is the experimental testing of concepts and hypotheses developed from earlier studies. One such experiment has involved the creation of contrasting organizations with respect to the level of decision-making and the effects of this difference on productivity and morale. Another has been concerned with the process of introducing change in organizational structure and of individual behavior.
One of the early and continuing interests of the Survey Research Center has been that of the perceptions, values, and behavior of the American people in their role as citizens. One of the first studies undertaken by the Center was an inquiry into public understanding and evaluation of certain aspects of the nation's actions in the field of foreign affairs. Subsequent research has been carried out in the broad area of public reaction to policy issues. In addition, there have been extensive investigations, using the sample interview method, of such diverse problems as: the social implications of atomic energy developments, the factors influencing voter decision in presidential elections, the sources and impact of information on public issues, and the role of large corporations in our society. Studies in this series have also concerned the needs and experiences of teen-age boys in relation to organized group activity and the information and attitudes of the public in relation to atomic warfare. Work on these has been directed by Professor Angus Campbell, Burton Fisher (Yale, '38, Ph.D. ibid. '47), and Stephen B. Withey (Asbury College '41, Ph.D. Michigan '52).
Two important projects have been completed by the Center in the area of public health. One, conducted for the American Cancer Society, was concerned with public concepts of cancer and attitudes toward the disease, and was in part an appraisal of the effectiveness of the society's informational campaigns. The other, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, was an exploratory study of the public's concepts and values in the field of mental health; in a single community this focused upon factors associated with public readiness to recognize mental health problems and popular considerations in connection with choice of professional services for such problems. The Center has also provided special services in connection with a nation-wide field trial of a newly developed polio vaccine.
The Detroit Area study, established in 1951 as the result of a grant to the University from the Ford Foundation, has developed as a research and training facility available to faculty and to graduate students in the behavioral sciences. It has provided data to faculty members interested in research on human behavior and also has served the state of Michigan by means of socially useful data regarding its major metropolitan area. The first sample survey of the Detroit population concentrated on group membership and political behavior, the second on childrearing customs and attitudes, and the third on citizen attitudes toward civic and community organizations.
The scope and complexity of sample interview survey research has required a constant attention to problems of methodology, particularly in connection with sampling and data collection. The Center, since its origin, has maintained special sections to provide the necessary sampling and field services for projects and also to conduct research on methodology. Charles F. Cannell (New Hampshire '36, Ph.D. Ohio State '42) has been in charge of the work relating to interviewing methods, questionnaire construction, and other survey data-gathering problems. Roe Goodman (Friends University '31, M.S. Iowa State '44) and later Leslie Kish (City College of New York '39, Ph.D. Michigan '52) have had major responsibility for sampling, and have made significant contributions to the theory and practice of probability sampling.
Research center for group dynamics. — The Research Center for Group Dynamics has also organized its work in terms of integrated and continuing programs of research on selected scientific problem areas. This research rests on the conviction that there are principles of group behavior which can be established independently of the purposes or specific activities of the groups and that basic principles of group dynamics can be established which will aid in understanding the processes of group formation, change, and dissolution, and which will lead to an understanding of the determinants of intergroup relations and of interpersonal relations within groups. The direction of work in these programs has been shared by Professors Dorwin Cartwright and Ronald Lippitt (Springfield College '36, Ph.D. Iowa '40), and Associate Professors J. R. P. French, Jr. (Black Mountain College '37, Ph.D. Harvard '40), Alvin Zander (Michigan '36, Ph.D. ibid. '42), and Leon Festinger (City College of New York '39, Ph.D. Iowa '42).
One series of projects has been concerned with group productivity as a focus for integrating the findings from various researches into a coherent conception of the determinants of group efficiency. Experiments and field investigations have aimed at developing ways of measuring group productivity and at exploring aspects of group organization and function related to it. An example of this is the study of the consequences of organizing individual motivations to produce upon a competitive as compared with a co-operative basis. Other studies in the series have been concerned with such problems as the perception of the leader's role and the formation of group standards as they are related to productivity.
As the functioning of a group is dependent upon the exchange of communications and the spread of influence within the group and between groups, the Center has given this area of study high priority. A major part of this work emerges from a study of group formation and communication within a housing project. The findings and hypotheses developed have led to a series of laboratory studies of the critical factors. Recent projects in this series have been concerned with the distortion of communication and perception when there are pressures toward uniformity, the influence of the leader and the group upon the opinions and performance of members, the factors determining the anchorage of opinion in a reference group, and the channels for spread of communication in groups having predetermined structure. Research in established social groups has permitted the verification of findings from laboratory experiments.
The problems of intergroup relations form the core of a third program of research. The objectives have been to seek out the sources of conflict, prejudice, and hostility between groups and to develop some understanding of the bases for more positive relations. The settings for research in this area have included fraternities (the modification of attitudes regarding discriminatory practices), communities (the reduction of hostilities between a housing project and the surrounding community), schools (relations among parents, teachers, and students) and an international conference (national and professional affiliations as they affect functioning).
Group processes are mediated not only by communication and spread of influence but also by social perceptions. These are interrelated phenomena, which can be isolated from each other only for certain purposes of analysis and experimentation. The Center has given specific attention to the study of social perceptions — the factors that influence them and their effects on social behavior. In a field study of a formal organization, an investigation was made of how perception of membership with others in informal groups relates to readiness to communicate with others, to value their contributions, and to be attracted to activities with them. Specialized research on the nature of social perception has been undertaken. One project has examined the influence of a person's expectations and preconceptions upon his view of other people's behavior, and the secondary effects of such perception on subsequent personal interaction. The stability of these relationships has been investigated in a training workshop and in a classroom.
An important area of research has been that of developing methods for improving group functioning and of utilizing group processes in ways to maximize member adjustment. Exploratory studies are in process on the influence of basic personality characteristics on the type of participation in and learning from discussion groups. Another study has shown that children with a background of emotional maladjustment fail to perceive accurately what is expected and appropriate in a new group and so become rejected and powerless. Experimentation is under way to test methods of helping rejected members become accepted. A comparative study of the development of group structure and social influence patterns in two contrasting summer camps has clarified some of the determinants of pathological group functioning. Two studies of training programs for personnel from other countries have dealt with the special dynamics of the "overlapping group membership" situation in which the learner faces conflicts in loyalty to the present situation and to his other reference groups.
The Center is aware that a distinction must be made between knowledge about optimal conditions for group functioning and knowing how to produce such conditions and for this reason has established a program of research upon the process of change itself. One of the methods most commonly used by groups to improve their own functioning, and on which the Center has conducted research, is to train "key" members holding responsible positions. In co-operation with the National Training Laboratory in Group Development, a series of studies has been conducted on various features of leadership training.
Other activities of the institute. — Although the Institute was established primarily as a research agency, it was recognized from the beginning that it would have other functions. Professional training has increasingly occupied the attention of the Institute. Initially, the Institute undertook to provide a few formal courses within the instructional programs of interested departments and schools. This work has expanded until there are eighteen staff members engaged in regular teaching of twenty-five courses in seven departments and schools.
The Survey Research Center in 1948 established an annual Summer Institute in Survey Research techniques, which attracts a number of professional students for intensive training. The Research Center for Group Dynamics has collaborated in sponsoring the annual National Training Laboratory in Group Development to acquaint leaders in various fields with techniques for dealing with problems of group functioning and interpersonal relations. The provision of research training and experience has been fostered particularly by the employment of advanced graduate students. Approximately fifty of these are currently on regular staff appointment, and thirty-one doctoral theses have been completed with the use of Institute facilities and data. The opportunities for training and research experience stemming from the Institute have been a factor in the emergence of the University of Michigan as one of the leading centers for graduate training in the social sciences.
The Institute was conceived as a research agency organized so as to permit dealing with major research problems regardless of the traditional disciplinary boundaries. Thus, projects, which are broader in their orientation and methodological approach, than would ordinarily occur within a single discipline have led to active collaboration by the Institute with various academic departments. Both the Institute and the departments have benefited by such collaboration.
The Institute has assumed that research results will have their full effect only if they are generally available. It has held to the practice of undertaking only those projects which are of general scientific and social interest, and, within the limits of its resources, of making public the main findings of all projects. Thirteen major research monographs and approximately 350 other documents and journal articles have been issued. Staff members participate broadly in public speaking and teaching activities related to the reporting of research and maintain contacts with other individuals and agencies having interests in common with those of the Institute. Visiting scholars have access to research in progress. Human Relations, a quarterly journal edited jointly by the Research Center for Group Dynamics and the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London, is now in its sixth year of publication.
The research of the Institute has been collaborated on and sponsored by a great variety of agencies. Most prominent have been the agencies of the federal and state governments that have sought the services of the Institute to conduct basic research relevant to their administrative problems. The Federal Reserve Board, the Office of Naval Research, the Civil Defense Administration, and the National Institutes of Health are among the agencies having continuous collaboration with the Institute over a span of years. Within Michigan the state government has worked with the Institute on problems of conservation and industrial development. Schools, churches, labor unions, and welfare agencies have been the location and the source of financial support for studies. Private business organizations have been prominent in the research work of the Institute, and continuing research partnerships have been developed with such firms as General Motors Corporation, Detroit Edison Company, and the Michigan Bell Telephone Company.
The growth of the Institute since its origin in 1946 has been reflected in its staff, facilities, and financial resources. From a nucleus of a dozen people who came to Michigan in 1946, and the six key members of the Research Center for Group Dynamics, who came in 1948, the staff by 1954 numbered more than three hundred persons. Housing has kept pace with this growth in staff and volume of work. At first housed in the basement of the University Elementary School, the Institute was transferred in 1949 to larger quarters in old University Hall; when this historic building was demolished in 1950 the Institute was moved to the building formerly known as West Hospital, at 1131 Catherine Street. For laboratory research the Institute has the use of special rooms equipped for observation of group activities and wired for the recording and transmission of sound.
The initial financial support of the Institute (then the Social Surveys Project) consisted of two contracts with government agencies, with the University providing some compensation for teaching and related services. Financial resources have been obtained at all times to keep the organization intact and productive. The total budget for 1946-47 was $233,863; for 1950-51, $852,711 and for 1952-53, $744,636.
The Institute is still a changing, adapting organization. Unexpected new ways to serve the broader objectives of the University have been found. The basic problems of integrating a research agency into a University community to best advantage are not entirely solved; the full advantage of programmatic research closely allied with instructional programs has not yet been realized. But with constant exploration of these problems, and with a conviction that a close alliance between teaching, research, and public service is desirable, it is expected that the Institute will serve an increasingly useful role within the University of Michigan.
Stanley E. Seashore
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
President's Report, Univ. Mich., 1950-54.
Proceedings of the Board of Regents…, 1946-54.
The University of Michigan, An Encyclopedic Survey Supplement, pages 1549 – 1558
