Previous listings of African Studies offered at American universities have appeared each year in theBulletin, the last one being in March 1964. The Editors thank all those who kindly supplied the information on which this summary is based, and they welcome any suggestions for improving the usefulness of this annual presentation or of extending the coverage. Later numbers of theBulletin will include summaries of African Studies in Canada, Africa, Western Europe, the USSR, and Asia.

The summary divides institutions into two main classes. First, there are those with a formally constituted Program, Center, or Committee, where African Studies has some institutionalized existence. Second, there is a group of universities which, while having no formal African Studies Program, nevertheless offer, through their regular departments, courses dealing with Africa. The latter list does not pretend to be exhaustive; there are many other institutions which might have been included, but we have no information on them at the present time.

Students who are deciding to which school they should apply might bear in mind such factors as caliber of faculty, availability of fellowships (though the closing date for most applications for 1965/66 is already past), library facilities, other institutions in the vicinity, and research opportunities. Most scholars now agree that the area studies approach cannot exist without the more theoretical comparative approach, so that the presence of certain other scholars becomes very significant: in political science, for example, it would be advantageous to have available faculty who specialize in the comparative study of processes of modernization, or of revolutions, as well as those who concentrate on Africa as an area. Therefore, this guide merely outlines some of the main features of African Study Programs in the United States.

It is the purpose of this paper to summarize briefly the nature of current and prospective social science research on Africa conducted by the nongovernment research community. Part I is devoted to a brief description of the attitudes and aims of the private researcher and to some general considerations about his past accomplishments and present concerns in the field of African Studies. Part II discusses African research in each of five disciplines: political science, anthropology, economics, psychology, and education.

Chief sources for the paper are the relevant chapters of the forthcoming bookThe African World: A Survey of Social Research, edited by Robert A. Lystad for the African Studies Association (New York, Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., April 20, 1965). This paper is reproduced by the kind permission of Frederick A. Praeger, Inc. The authors of the chapters used as references in this paper are: Political Science, Harvey Glickman, Haverford College; Anthropology, Philip Gulliver, School of Oriental and African Studies; Economics, Andrew M. Kamarck, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; Psychology, Leonard Doob, Yale University; Education, David Scanlon, Columbia Teachers College. The present writer is solely responsible for the presentation and interpretation of their materials as they appear in this paper.

Ours is an association organized on an areal basis. What we have in common is an interest in a particular portion of the earth's surface. Yet every member of the society whether a practicing academician or not bears an affiliation of a different order, namely, membership in one of the standard academic disciplines--sociology, history, anthropology, or some other. This is formally acknowledged by the placing of an appropriate letter abbreviation after each name in our membership list, and it can normally be assigned without hesitation. The latter basis of group identification, that of discipline rather than area, seems in a real sense to be primary. It is older and better established, and, above all, it supplies the very framework of American academic organization, that into departments which normally are distinguished along the lines of division of the disciplines.

True, there are programs of African studies in a number of universities, just as there are other programs, both areal and nonareal. But after a period of initial enthusiasm in some quarters following World War II for the training of areal specialists as such and without primary reference to traditional disciplinary affiliation, it became evident that if a scholar was to be, for example, an Africanist and a sociologist, he should receive his higher degree in a sociology department. He would thus be a sociologist in the broadest sense of the word, but one with a special interest in Africa rather than an Africanist with a greater interest in the sociological than the other aspects of African life. Area study programs thus failed to shake the fundamental organizational basis of American academic life. In fact, today most African programs are interdepartmental as well as interdisciplinary and their staff members are usually at the same time members of established academic departments.

This is the second in a series of annual surveys of South African reference literature and follows the general pattern of the first review. Works published in 1963 which reached the compiler too late for inclusion in the earlier review are included in the present survey.

General Works. Among the generalia issued during the year was a second edition of E. Rosenthal'sEncyclopaedia of Southern Africa (London, Warne; R4-45 ). The South African Library Association issued aDirectory of Natal Libraries (Potchefstroom, The Association; 35c), one of a regional series, which will probably be superseded by a comprehensive “Directory of South African Libraries,” scheduled for publication by the State Library in 1965. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research published letters H and I ofPeriodicals in South African Libraries (Pretoria, The Council; R1O p. a.), which is a union list of serials held in South Africa.

Yearbooks. A very important reference work which appeared for the first time in 1964 was theStatistical Yearbook, compiled by the Bureau of Statistics (Pretoria, Government Printer; R4-15 overseas). The yearbook for 1964 contains 606 pages of statistical tables covering the period 1945-1963 and embracing the following subjects: population, migration, vital statistics, health, education, social security, judicial statistics, labor, prices, agriculture, fisheries, industry, trade, transport, communication, banking and finance. The last issue of theOfficial Yearbook of the Union of South Africa was No. 30 (1960), and later editions are still awaited. TheStatistical Yearbook fills a gap in this connection.

Previous listings of African studies offered at American universities have appeared in theBulletin, most recently in March 1963. This year the information is given in a slightly different form, as it is now possible to describe the general pattern of most African Studies programs in the U.S. If more information is desired, inquiries should be addressed to the directors of the programs. The Editor thanks those who kindly supplied the information, welcomes additional information and will be happy to include it in a subsequent issue of theBulletin.

Most universities and colleges which have an organized African Studies Program have some or all of certain characteristics, which are for convenience listed here, with individual variations described for each institution. The organization generally consists of a “Program,” “Center,” or “Committee” which is largely an administrative device to bring together members of different disciplines, and to systematize and expand existing courses and seminars. Participating faculty members come mainly from the departments of Political Science, Anthropology, History, Economics, Geography and Sociology. They usually offer such general courses as “Government and Politics of Tropical Africa,” “Problems in Economic Anthropology,” “Peoples of East Africa,” “History of West Africa” and the like. In addition, many institutions have some specialization in discipline and in regional emphasis: such specialization is indicated.

In the early years of decolonization, following North African, Sudanese, and Ghanaian independence, the new African governments seemed to have an encouraging stability and set off on democratic and constitutional paths which gave evidence of promising well for the future. The turmoil which developed in the Congo immediately after independence stood out in contrast to the relative solidity of other states and found its explanation primarily in the shortcomings of the kind of rule which Belgium had imposed. Elsewhere the nationalist leaders who had led the struggle for freedom from alien domination continued in power and enhanced the sense that the new Africa was making headway.

More recently, things fall apart. Mutinies, assassinations, coups and attempted coups, and military takeovers have shaken confidence in Africa's ability to make speedy and consistent progress toward the goal it has set itself. It seemed at first as if the transition from colonialism to independence, from older worlds to modernity, might be an easier process than was feared by the pessimists, among whom, on the whole, I would number myself. Where does one have to look to find the reasons for the interruptions in the advance, or at all events for the change in direction, of so many African states? A fruitful field of inquiry, I am sure, is an examination of some of the problems confronting the new governments which were the successors to the colonial regimes in Africa, and the conditions under which they entered the world and must carry on their business. If I may give away my theme at the start, it would be essentially that governments have in a variety of ways been overloaded and unable to carry the burdens which they have assumed and which they have had thrust upon them.