1931-1937年間，蔣廷黻與蕭公權輪流擔任英文季刊《中國社會及政治學報》（Chinese Social and Political Science Review）的執行編輯（Managing Editor）。兩人對這份編輯工作有截然不同之態度。蔣氏積極刊登新出版史料之介紹書評，撰寫短篇研究心得，並協助費正清發表費氏的第一篇論文。其目的是向海外推廣以中國史料為基礎的中國近代史研究，同時促進此一領域的中國化與國際化。另一方面，蕭氏獻身中國政治思想史的終極關懷是回應「全盤西化」之主張。他缺乏如蔣氏那般向海外推廣自己研究領域之動機，在執行編輯的位置上略顯保守，自我設限於被動消極的編輯工作。蔣氏積極與蕭氏消極之反差，說明兩人在20世紀30年代社會科學中國化的道路上有著以往不易察覺的分歧。他們的歷史經驗或許可給予今日社會科學中國化的推動者有所啟發。

Between 1931 and 1937, Jiang Tingfu (Ting-fu Fuller Tsiang) and Xiao Gongquan (Kung-chuan Hsiao) took turn to assume the Managing Editor of the English quarterly, Chinese Social and Political Science Review. Each of them had quite a different attitude towards its editorship. Jiang actively published book reviews of newly released historiographies by Chinese authors, in addition to writing short research articles as well as helping John K. Fairbank publish his first paper. His intention was to promote internationally the history of modem China on the basis of Chinese historiographies; he would like very much to simultenuously stimulate both the Sinicization and internationalization of this field. In contrast, Xiao's ultimate concern was to dedicate himself to the study of the history and writing of Chinese political thought, though he found himself having had to respond to and to further refute the assertation of ＂wholesale Westernization＂ (Quanpan xihua) current at the time. He seemed to have lacked the sort of motivation that spurred Jiang to promote his own field overseas. He appeared passive in the position of the Managing Editor and chosed to confine himself to the editorship in a conservative sense. The contrast between Jiang's activism and Xiao's passivism shows respectively the perceptible differences in the road chosen for the Sinicization of social science(s) in 1930s. To a certain extent, their historical experiences should offer some lessons and inspire contemporary promoters of the Sinicization of social sciences.