of his job as that of an educator. He must try to make the members of the team with which he is associated more sophisticated and sensitive to the purely human and social problems.

Many of the tensions will be due to a lack of knowledge on the part of the community itself as to what is happening or is likely to happen to the web of human and social relationships as the result of social change. Here the social scientist must think of his job as partly that of a diagnostician, partly that of a researcher, partly that of an educator.

The social scientist as educator must realise that no programme of social change will be successful unless the people concerned fully understand what is proposed and freely consent to the project being initiated. Just what particular group of people are the ones to be educated must depend upon research into the social structure of the community and into the overt and implicit lines of authority within the community. Sometimes it is all the men, sometimes the women in the family environments, sometimes the grandmothers, sometimes influential chiefs who are the key people to be educated-to the stage where consent is freely given. Research will naturally go far beyond the demarcation of lines of authority. Its exact emphasis will depend upon the technical change that is contemplated at a particular stage: whether health, agriculture or the like.

In study of the underlying dynamics of different social situations, the social scientist may develop a certain skill in predicting lines of tension that may become acute at different stages in the process of social change. Some of these tensions may be by-passed as the result of this knowledge. Others may be released by discussion with the community, or by changes in the impact of the action-programme. Because of this knowledge the programme should advance with relative smoothness. It should also take firm root in the soil of community life. In other words, it should permanently change the attitudes and the actions of the people concerned. This permanent change is the final and absolute measure of the success of an action programme.

I have not throughout this paper made any distinction between pure social science and applied social science, pure anthropology and applied anthropology. I do not think that this dichotomy is particularly significant. Some find their research problems from reading books, monographs or listening to inspired teachers. Others find theirs in so-called practical problems which they are asked to investigate as a preliminary to, or in the course of, a project designed to bring about social change. An approved scientific methodology and customary scientific techniques of investigation will be used in both cases. So long as the social scientist does not give advice that outruns his knowledge, nor scamp his research under pressure to provide answers, I do not see that he has become unscientific. He is certainly subjected to occupational hazards that will not worry his purely academic colleague.

International action in the field of social change is likely to continue for some years, perhaps just as long as there are governments and peoples in underdeveloped countries who wish to decrease their poverty, their ill-health and their illiteracy. Such change produces one of the more important challenges to the contemporary social scientist. In meeting it, it is surely a valid expectation that he will at the same time increase our understanding of the nature of personal and social relations.