on “methodological monism” in rural sociology

Rural Sociology 56(1), 1991, pp. 70-88Copyright © 1991 by the Rural Sociological Society

On "Methodological Monism" in Rural Sociology1

Douglas HarperDepartment of Sociology, State Univer.ity of New York,College at Potsdam; Pot.dam, New York 13676

ABSTRACT This paper is a briefoutline of the history of methods in ruralsociology which suggests that the dominant methodological practice resultsfrom institutional arrangements and the traditions of the academic culture,as well as commitment to a scientific sociology. I note oft-stated critiquesof the positivist model relevant to rural sociology's "methodological monism," including imprecise measurement, low levels of predictability, anda social psychological orientation. I suggest, in addition, that methodological homogeneity in rural sociology presents social life as social factsrather than social process, leads to a simplistic understanding of the interview, and separates the researcher from the experience of research. Awider methodological orientation would, I suggest, encourage the examination of a wider range of issues and encourage wider participationin a subdiscipline which, because of its particular history, has developedin isolation from mainstream sociology.

Introduction

In rural sociology's ongoing self examination (Bealer 1978, 1990;Christenson and Garkovich 1985; Falk and Zhao 1989; Lowry 1977;Picou et al. 1990; Picou et al. 1978a, 1978b; Sewell 1965; Stokes andMiller 1975, 1985), "methodological monism"-the dominance ofthe quantitatively analyzed social survey as the primary data sourceand analytic orientation-is well documented. For example, Picou etal. classify 91.6 percent ofall Rural Sociology articles published between1965 and 1976 as within the "Social Facts" paradigm, which drawtheir data from primary or secondary surveys, while 6.4 percent fallunder what the authors call the "Social Definition" paradigm which,broadly speaking, derive from qualitative methods (Picou et al. 1978a:564). Falk and Zhao (1989), in a ten year replication of Picou et al.,observe a slightly greater methodological diversity, but comment that"To no one's surprise, they [Picou et al.] found that rural sociologywas heavily dependent upon surveys and questionnaires. Indeed, virtually ever empirical article they analyzed used these sources for data.We, too, found essentially this same thing ... we calculated that over90 percent (as opposed to 100% of those analyzed by Picou et al.) ofall empirical articles ... used surveys and questionnaires (often involving secondary data)" (1989:590).

Stokes and Miller (1985), surveying the methods used in articlespublished in the first fifty years of Rural Sociology, find further evi-

1 The author thanks Thomas Lyson, Gilbert Gillespie, Karen Kline, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts.

Methodological Monism in Rural Sociology - Harper 71

dence pointing to a lack of methodological pluralism in rural sociology. They note that "Survey research has been unchallenged as thedominant data collection technique in rural sociology ... [and that]observational studies stemming from the social anthropological tradition have largely disappeared from the journal" (1985:542). Theauthors also note that while "personal interviews" were typical of thesurveys used in the early decades of research in rural sociology, thetrend in recent decades has been toward the use ofmail questionnairesor telephone interviews. They state that "after its peak in the midfifties and sixties, the movement away from face-to-face data collection techniques is clear" (1985:543). Stokes and Miller conclude thatthe various survey methods (either primary or secondary) produced92.2 percent of the research in the last decade of the study."

While the issue of methodological homogeneity has been recognized in rural sociology, little is typically said beyond the generaldesirability of greater methodological diversity. For example, Picouet aI. (1978b) assert that "the scientific importance of a plurality oftheories and methods has historically been rooted in the philosophyand sociology of science ... we suggested a dialectical relationshipbetween theories [in rural sociology] which would include conflict,phenomenological, exchange, symbolic interaction, functional analysis, etc., and corresponding methodological diversity" (1978b:599).Stokes and Miller speak of the "problem of methodological homogeneity with its accompanying informational limitations" (1985:566),and Picou et aI. (1990) complete their recent analysis of the disciplinewith the reflection that "rural sociology, in a manner similar to general sociology, has continued an attempted integration of theoretical,methodological, and subject-matter concerns within a positivistic partial paradigm" (1990: 108). Bealer (1990) sums his response to recenttrends in rural sociology with the observation that "You cannot getgood scientific theory without first having good data. By good dataI mean observations that bear some decent resemblance to how realpeople in the empirical world actually go about making their waythrough the maze and daunting puzzle of everyday living. Increasingly, however, one has the perception that rural sociologists (follow-

2 These numbers become even more striking when you look more closely at the data.For example, during the period reviewed by Falk and Zhao (1989), nearly all of thequalitative articles were published during the tenure ofJames Copp as Editor of RuralSociology, a rural sociologist noted for his eclectic orientation. In addition, most of thequalitative studies in Rural Sociology, such as the special issue on ethnography of smalltownlife [Vol. 43 (2)], Salamon's study of sibling solidarity and ethnicity on familyfarms (1982), her study of the role of ethnicity in the structure of agriculture (1985),and Bartlett's study of full- and part-time farming decisions (1986) were written byanthropologists.

Finally, while an occasional article such as Falk and Gilbert's ethnomethodologicalcritique of the concept of "rural" (1985) appears in Rural Sociology, it has not beenfollowed up by research driven by ethnomethodology or other qualitative methods.

72 Rural Sociology, Vol. 56, No.1, Spring 1991

ing sociologists more generally) are retreating from first-hand knowledge of our phenomena" (1990:98).

The debate in rural sociology, however, has primarily concernedmetatkeory, specifically regarding the question of whether rural sociology has evolved from functionalism to include conflict and structualist orientations (Falk and Zhao 1989). Much of the discussion,familiar to most rural sociologists, concerns the desirability of sucha transition, if indeed it has taken place (Bealer 1978; Picou et al.1978b).

My contribution to this discussion is to address the question ofmethodological homogeneity in rural sociology in its own right. Thistreatment is needed, since, while methods and theories are related,they do not exist in a one-to-one relationship. Social surveys, forexample, produce data which are employed in critical and structuralanalyses (Lyson 1989, for an example), as well as the common studiesin rural sociology which derive from a functionalist orientation.

This article explores seven unanticipated consequences of "methodological monism" in rural sociology. The first three concern therelation between research method and subject matter, the questionof measurement and predictability, and the typical (but not inevitable,as noted above) connection between social surveys and a social psychological approach in rural sociology. These have been acknowledged in the literature of rural sociology and will be briefly reviewed.I will then examine four additional themes which have not beenrecognized as part of the issue of "methodological monism". Theseinclude the separation of the researcher from the research, a onedimensional understanding of the interview, a distorted sense of efficiency in the research process, and a homogenization of the discipline which has led to a narrowing of research agendas and practices.Recognizing these issues is the first step to building a rural sociologywith a genuinely pluralistic method. Further steps toward a methodological pluralism will evolve only in a widened research practice.This analysis will be framed in a brief historical overview addressedto the evolution of method.

Why is there "methodological monism" in rural sociology? Themost direct answer to this question restates the commonplace understanding that rural sociology, as part of the larger quest in sociology for scientific progress, has adopted methods that most closelyapproximate the natural science model.P In rural sociology this hasmeant hypothesis testing using data largely culled from primary orsecondary surveys. Rural sociology, in following the example of em-

3 It is important to note that the quest for a scientific sociology, of which the effortsof rural sociologists are but a variation, has long been controversial. Note Picou etal.'s review of Giddens, Popper and other philosophers' rejection of a mechanistic,instrumentally rational social science (1978b:60 1-6).


pirical science, has settled on a single paradigm-commonly referredto as the "social facts" paradigm-which is fueled by the researchpractice of the social survey. The assumption that guides and supportsthis research practice is simply that it is the best way to do a ruralsociology which will yield testable propositions and, eventually, leadto laws.

The issue, of course, is more complex. Kuhn (1962) and othershave pointed out that scientists work within theoretical and methodological paradigms, which derive from traditions and institutionalforms of their academic cultures as well as from "value-free truthseeking." Most scientific activity is "normal science"-replications ofstudies using similar methods and based on similar assumptions, whichslowly extend the knowledge base ofa single paradigm. A crisis occurswhen research conclusions cannot be explained from within the theoretical assumptions of the operating paradigm. Kuhn's insights haveformalized what the history of science has demonstrated again andagain: that one "truth" is replaced by another as science evolves.

These insights have allowed us to understand such transformationsas occurred when Newtonian physics were replaced with theories ofrelativity, but they have not been wholly adopted by the "proto"sciences such as sociology, in which the coexistence of competingparadigms offer seemingly mutually plausible explanations for thesame phenomena. Thus, Picou et al. (1990) argue for a "partial paradigm" model of rural sociology. While these insights have nurturedan appreciation for coexisting research and methodological paradigms in mainstream sociology, they have not reached past the discussion of theory in rural sociology. This is the case, one can argue,because of the separate institutional development of rural sociology,which resulted from the early connection of departments of ruralsociology to the Federal government through the Morrill, Hatch andParnell Acts, the connection of rural sociology departments to theagricultural extension service, the heavily applied orientation of theresearch component of rural sociology, and the establishment of aseparate academic society andjournal more than fifty years ago. Copp(1972:526) and others have argued that regular connection to, andsupport from, the USDA have led to the "routinization" of researchinto problem solving of the theoretically middle ground. These institutional arrangements have tended to isolate rural sociology frommainstream sociology, insulating it from debates and reform in theareas of method that the parent discipline has experienced. Thedevelopment of this research practice can best be seen in historicaloverview.

History and methods

Research in rural sociology began as community studies which utilized surveys, census analyses, indepth interviewing and other qual-


itative methods. Prior to the "Farm Life Studies," which Charles J.Galpin began for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1919 (Galpin1985 [1936]), W. E. B. DuBois (1898,1901,1904) completed severalcommunity studies of black agriculture using historical documents,census materials, and description based on observation and interviewing. Three students of the sociologist F. H. Giddings at ColumbiaUniversity, during the same period, completed studies of agriculturalcommunities for their doctoral dissertations (Williams 1906; Wilson1907; Sims 1912), in which the researchers relied on participantobservation, indepth interviewing, and other qualitative methods inaddition to surveys. While Williams' community was restudied in 1934(Mather et al.) and 1954 (W. A. Anderson) using the same repertoireof methods, these pioneering studies did not establish multidimensioned community studies as the dominant research form in ruralsociology. The community remained the focus of the research, but,during this period, the large-scale survey began to replace the qualitative methods of the early community studies. Important early surveys included surveys of rural life carried out by the sociologist W.H. Wilson for the Board of Home Missions of the Presbyterian Church(county and community surveys in 15 states between 1910 and 1916),and surveys by the sociologist Edmund deS. Brunner, in the late teens,of 662 counties for study by the Interchurch World Movement (seeButtel et al. 1990: 14-16). Several of these efforts were coordinatedby Brunner in the 1920s, with the assistance of Charles Galpin of theUSDA and several land-grant rural sociologists, in a study of 140agricultural villages throughout the United States. The comprehensive on-site surveys were replicated in 1930 and 1936 to measure theeffect of the Great Depression on rural community organization.These and other important early social surveys, such as Lively's comparison of grain and dairy communities in the Midwest (1928), theUSDA's study of six agricultural communities during the Great Depression, and Carl C. Taylor et al.'s 1949 classification and survey ofagricultural counties in the United States, while moving toward thesingle-method technique, included indepth interviewing, "culturalreconnaissance surveys," and other qualitative methods (Taylor et al.1949).

By the 1950s, the core problems of rural sociology had moved fromthe community organization focus of early research to the questionof the diffusion and adoption of agricultural innovation (see Buttelet al. 1990:42-72). The unit of study evolved from the communityto the individual. The studies were designed to facilitate the effortsofagricultural extension agents to lead farmers to more modern and,it was believed, more effective farming techniques. This research,social psychological in emphasis, focused on such questions as whatfarmer characteristics or attitudes affected the tendency to adoptmodern farm practices. The research questions evolved to the study


ofattitudes, values, and psychological traits ofadopters and nonadopters, and the single method used to study these questions became thelarge-scale survey. The population and farm characteristics and behavioral outcomes (independent and dependent variables), werequantifiable indices of such elements as age, gender, income, andscales of attitude ratings. These changes in rural sociology were paralleled by the advance of social psychological research in sociologygenerally. In mainstream sociology, however, the "methodologicalmonism" of the survey gave rise to a lively debate about the suitabilityof the survey and the hypothetico-deductive method for attitude orother studies (Becker and Geer 1978; Blumer 1956; Phillips 1971).The result in mainstream sociology was the rebirth of the communitystudy (in urban, suburban, and small town contexts)" and the development of theoretical perspectives, such as symbolic interaction andethnomethodology which legitimated and fertilized qualitative methods."

Thus, as rural sociology developed, the eclectic research practicesof the early period have been, for the most part, abandoned. Whilethe community studies which gave rural sociology its seminal definition included field work, observation, and indepth interviewing, theoff-shoots of these traditions have primarily developed the social survey, increasingly done by someone other than the primary researcher.

Institutional explanations

Part of the explanation for "methodological monism" has to do withthe specific institutional development ofrural sociology. For example,as rural sociology evolved to its "sustenance relationship" with theUSDA, the social survey emerged as a tool well suited for gatheringthe kinds of information which shed light on the problems normallystudied by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (ButteI et al. 1990:43-72; Falk and Zhao 1990: 120). Others note the implication thatsuch funding arrangements narrow research agendas. Picou et al.(1978a), for example, suggest that "although rural sociologists gainedsupport and security within the confines of colleges of agriculture,freedom of inquiry was restricted by this external funding system....It is suggested that rural sociology is currently characterized by aform of paradigmatic hegemony ... this situation is reinforced andmaintained by a methodological monism reflecting USDA funding

4 The community studies tradition in sociology, generally thought to have gainedseminal definition in the Middletown studies (Lynd and Lynd 1929, 1937), has foundmore recent form in studies of rural communities (Ellis 1986; Erikson 1976; Gibbons1977).

5 Note, for example, the emergence in recent decades of sociological journals, suchas Symbolic Interaction, Qualitative Sociology, and Contemporary Ethnography, which publishprimarily qualitative sociology.


practices" (1978a:570). Another view would be that funding agencieshave come to regard the social survey as the most typical, reliable,and predictable method of data collection because of the practicalexigencies of survey research. Whether or not surveys measure whatthey set out to measure, they do achieve the image of science. Conversely, methods which yield data that are not easily used to formallytest hypotheses, such as indepth interviewing or participant/observation, appear to lack the formal attributes which constitute scientificactivity. Quantitatively based research proposals can be expressed asspecific activities to be carried out on specific schedules. The progressof the research can thus be evaluated as the completion of quitespecific activities and the results can be expressed in unambiguousterms which have potential implication for social policy (for example,to extend the example given earlier, if a farmer's education is correlated with a desired outcome, such as the willingness to adopt mod-

.ern techniques, then farmers should, through social policy, be encouraged to get more education).

Because the bulk of research in rural sociology comes from a relatively small number of rural sociology programs in land-grant universities, the research activities of these departments have becomepowerful socializing forces in the careers of graduate students. This,of course, is the case in all graduate training, but it may be morepronounced in rural sociology due to the research orientation of theseinstitutions, which leads to lowered teaching responsibilities, opportunities for funding, and the clear expectations that faculty do research and publish. Graduate students in rural sociology programsare often integrated into the research programs of their professorsas data collectors, whether through agricultural censuses, the mail,telephone surveys, or, less frequently, in person. These research experiences may inadvertently send the message that doing rural sociology means getting large amounts of data as quickly and efficientlyas possible in order to move quickly to data analysis-the real work.Of course, this scenario also occurs in many general sociology departments, and we should keep in mind that as rural sociology broadens its theoretical base, comparative historical methods such as employed by McMichael (1987) or structural, macro studies of suchtopics as labor force participation (Lyson 1989), or the political economy of agriculture" have worked their way into rural sociology. Butamong these new research orientations only the comparative historical approach comes with its own method.

As mentioned above, part of the success of surveys derives fromtheir relative uncomplicated nature. Put another way, their particular

6 From Buttel's voluminous research in this area one might begin with his essay onthe political economy of agriculture in advanced societies (1982) and Buttel and Newbys' collection of essays on the rural sociology of advanced societies (1980).


character more readily lends them to be made into discrete tasks andprocedures. Qualitative research, on the other hand, often bafflesresearchers precisely because it is difficult to separate into progressivesteps. One may outline a project, for example, to "complete andanalyze three hundred telephone interviews," with a clear expectationof what is required in terms of time, money, and human resources.The same quantity of research activity for a qualitative researchermay be most accurately described as "an extended period of observation and participation," which will become separate steps in theprocess of research itself. In addition, the paucity of qualitative research published in the main journals of the discipline are an additional and powerful deterrent to engaging in interpretive or qualitative research. Finally, while quantitative skills may be taught asstraightforward procedures, qualitative sociology requires skills whichusually emerge in mentor relationships with seasoned field workers(Powdermaker 1966:9-12; Spradley and McCurdy 1972). These practical, nuts-and-bolts issues, rather than the universal superiority ofsurveys and quantification, contribute a great inertia to the "methodological monism" of rural sociology.

What is the result of "methodological monism" in rural sociology?There are several effects of the methodological narrowness describedabove. Some of these have been discussed by rural and mainstreamsociologists, and they will be mentioned briefly before turning to theanalysis of previously undiscussed issues.

First, in the positivist model one often notes the reversal of theoriesand methods. Research problems may be selected by their "fit" toavailable and seemingly successful methods, rather than the reverseof selecting a method that is the most useful strategy for studying aparticular issue. The result, practically speaking, is that if a researchproblem cannot be approached with a survey, it is not likely to bestudied." Furthermore, from the most common sense kind of reasoning (as well as a sociologically imaginative one), even if a survey seemsto be an inappropriate tool, it will still commonly be used.

Secondly, imprecise measurement and low levels of predictabilityare an often discussed problem in survey research. Stokes and Miller,for example, note that "most studies in Rural Sociology give far moreattention to the practical dimensions of measurement than to theconcepts being measured ... almost one third of the articles [in afifty year overview] were judged deficient in this regard" (1985:53).The problem, simply stated, is that while some concepts are easilytransformed into numbers, many of the concepts are squeezed, pushed,

7 I note in other places in this paper, that the "new" rural sociology, largely concernedwith structural issues, draws data from a variety ofsources, such as historical documents,population statistics, and economic data. In this sense, the new rural sociology has ledto methodological diversity, but not in the direction I address in this paper.


shoved and distorted into quantifiable categories in order to makequantification work. Because rural sociologists seldom performtests of reliability or validity," Blalock has called this process "measurement by fiat" (1982:30). Because we may not be measuring theconcept in which we are interested, the predictive ability of the research is low. While this criticism is common in both rural and mainstream sociology, deep debate and innovative solutions to the problemsuch as are found in Lieberson (1985) have not penetrated ruralsociology. Thus, "methodological monism" leads to research whichmay carry the image ofscience but teach us very little in the meantime.

A third common critique of rural sociological research is that thesocial survey leads to social psychological research focused on theindividual, rather than social structure or social process. It is this issuewhich has led the "new rural sociology" into the study of structurecertainly a vitalizing process for the discipline. But while the studyof structure gets at the big picture, the micro processes of group life,which can best be studied through qualitative methods, remain eitherbeyond the pale of examination or distorted into fixed variables.

As suggested above, the issues of measurement and predictabilitycall for improved quantitative methods such as tests of reliability andvalidity. Response to the social psychological focus has led to a growing number of studies in such topics as the structure of agriculture,comparative/historical change, or rural labor market segmentation.But, taken as a whole, while these critiques have become common inrural sociology, they have not led to a sustained examination of research methods and the introduction of new ones.

The following discussion of the effects of "methodological monism" are related to the above themes, but extend the analysis intonew areas. I will suggest that the dominance of the social survey inrural sociology has led to the separation of the researcher from theresearch process, a one-dimensional understanding of the interview,a distorted sense of efficiency in research, and a limited view of grouplife. Finally, I will suggest that the research traditions, as representedin the publications of the major journals, have the unintended consequence of homogenizing the discipline, thereby discouraging crossfertilization with scholars of other research traditions who mightcontribute to a more broadly based rural sociology.

In and out of the field

As research in rural sociology has come to depend on data somebodyelse has gathered, an important experience (with its resulting insights)has been lost. Rural sociologists, separated from the process of datacollection, may take for g-ranted the human connection that is the

8 Stokes and Miller (1985:558) judge estimates of reliability and/or validity to be"almost nonexistent" in their review of fifty years of research in rural sociology.


basis of all data collection. Mining data comes to mean exploring anew data set rather than cultivating a productive and ethical relationship with a study population or an informant. Data collection maybe thought of as an essentially technical enterprise, to be carried outby someone other than the principal investigators. As a result, theresearcher does not experience the sloppy reality of life-that-becomesdata and the humility which accompanies it.

Because the researcher's knowledge is limited to the formal data(typically a set of statistical relationships), he or she will not havedeveloped what has been called the deep knowledge of the researchsetting from which to identify hidden variables, spurious relationships, or simple illogic that may be hidden in formal, statistical analysis. The logic which drives the investigation is derived from theoretical knowledge which precedes the study. It is fair to characterizethis as one-dimensional knowledge, quite distant from the social lifeit is to explain.

The lines between qualitative and quantitative methods, however,are not hard and fast, and the skills which direct the different formsof research all face the same challenge of transforming human talkinto objective categories. Doing a large number of identical interviewsmay require relatively less interpretation, but the researcher, nonethe less, must acquire the skill to phrase questions in ways which aremeaningful to an always heterogeneous study population. As methodsevolve from surveys to indepth interviews, to participant observation,to full immersion in the field, the human complexities of the researchprocess increase. The social survey draws on a relatively narrow dimension of human interaction (called objective talk, but certainly, asall who have studied the social interaction of the interview know,includes a full range of symbolic interactions), but participation observation or immersion in a cultural setting will call on a fuller repertoire of human interactions. The researcher must learn to listen,observe, and record a "representative sample" of the full flood ofhuman life which washes over the process of gathering data. In theprocess, the researcher must learn to place him or herself in the shoes,or behind the eyes of his or her subjects-understanding the naturalcategories of their social lives, while in the process of developing atheoretical understanding of what one has observed." But as the researcher takes on the risks and rewards of participation in a newcultural world, the dual role of researcher and the informant becomesextremely difficult to maintain. The most successful studies are thosein which the researcher has been able to draw upon his or her ownexperience, as well as his or her observations, as a source of culturalknowledge.

9 See Spradley (1972) for a particularly useful overview of the anthropological literat~re which led to "ethnoscience"-a systematic mapping of cultural language categones.


At these stages of research the lines between objective and subjectivetake on different meaning. While subjectivity is thought of as a personal bias to be avoided in quantitative work, it may mean, in qualitative studies, gaining knowledge of the subjective, emotional experience within a culture. Studies such as Briggs' (1970) explorationof the emotional life of an Eskimo band through the anthropologist'sinability to successfully negotiate their subjective culture, have provided worthy models for this type of research. But while anthropologists study these subjects in far removed societies, as well as in thosefew qualitative studies of rural life published in the journals of thediscipline (see Barlett 1990; Fitchen 1990; and Salamon 1990 forspirited advocacy by anthropologists of qualitative methods for ruralsociology), rural sociologists do not investigate such research questions closer to home.

Finally, the complex and important issue of reciprocity and ethicsin data gathering is generally lost on researchers far removed fromdata collection. The stimulus-response model for sociological interviewing assumes that the subject will come forth with informationwhen stimulated by a question. But what is the reward (extending thebehavioralist model) for such behavior? The best that most researchers can offer is that one's participation in a survey will lead to knowledge that will have a positive effect on the subject's social situation.This is a very abstract reward, and it may not even be true-researchresults may hasten the demise of a lifestyle, for example, as well asdefend it. But given the assault on time and privacy that both mailand telephone surveys represent, and the increasingly privatized nature of American culture, it may seem surprising that there is eventhe low level of low-quality participation which results from mostsurveys. Certainly, there is little motivation to participate and evenless motivation to participate in a thoughtful, penetrating, or honestway. Most qualitative sociologists find that there is greater potentialfor "giving back" in some meaningful way the nearer one is to hisor her subjects. While reciprocity in research is difficult to preciselydefine, it may evolve from physical, material, psychological, or emotional contributions to those we study.'? As one becomes a part of acommunity or a group with the intent of understanding the point ofview of that group, natural ways emerge through which one may giveas well as receive. The result may include more balance in the researchbargain as well as better data.

The interview as stimulus response or social interaction

An equally important result of the dominance of survey methods isa simplistic understanding- of the interview itself. For example, Stokes

10 See Fitchen (1981) for a particularly telling report ofthe complexities ofreciprocityin field work.


and Miller speak ofthe "rising costs offace-to-face interviews, coupledwith improvements in the methodology of mail surveys" (1985:542)as the reason for an increasing dependence on mail, telephone, orself-administered surveys. On one hand, such a view is a reasonablereflection on the standardization of survey methods. On the otherhand, given the generally dismal response rate of mail and telephoneinterviews and the low levels of predictability in resulting research,such a view is incomplete.'!

The interview, implicitly viewed in the above comments as a stimulus-response interaction, has been increasingly understood in otheracademic discourses as a problematic, subtle, and complex social interaction. For example, Phillips (1971), speaking for the need ofmethodological reform in the social sciences, notes on the practicallevel that the setting of the interview and the gender of the interviewer strongly influence interview outcomes. This is particularly thecase in circumstances in which the researcher is interested in attitudestoward deviant behaviors or the deviant behaviors themselves. Mishler (1986) extends this analysis by suggesting that we see the interviewas "discourse ... meaningful speech between interviewer and interviewee as speakers of a shared language" (1986:10), rather than asstimulus-response interaction. Mishler suggests that seeing an interview as interaction leads one to recognize interviews as structuredspeech events with several types ofnormative rules concerning syntax,semantics, and pragmatics which "guide how individuals enter intosituations, define and frame their sense of what is appropriate orinappropriate to say, and provide the basis for understanding whatis said" (1986: 11). The typical response given by survey researchersto these problems, namely making better questionnaires and traininginterviewers better, does not address the culturally situated meaningof discourse. Because we cannot assume that contextualizing factorswill be spread randomly, testing for significant differences acrosspopulations may, in fact, measure different patterns of cultural interpretation rather than different rates of occurrence of the phenomena under study.P Mishler's full analysis, which goes beyond the

II This point can be illustrated by examining any issue of Rural Sociology. Lookingat recent issues of the journal, I note that Fortmann and Kusel's study of forestenvironmentalism was based on a 76 percent return rate (1990:216); Goudy's studyof community attachment was based on an overall return rate of 78.2 percent (withresponse rates in surveyed communities ranging from 67.7% to 88.9%) (1990:182);Thomas et aI.'s study of the adoption of integrated pest management was based on a76 percent return rate (1990:400); Belyea and Lobao's study of the psychosocial consequences of agricultural change was based on a 67 percent return rate (1990:64);Anosike and Coughenour based their study of farm decision making on a return rateof 71 percent (1990:9); and Godwin and Marlowe's study of farm wives' earnings wasbased on 20.2 percent overall response rate (1990:31).

12 I recall, several years ago, in an epidemiological study of American occupationalgroups who were being trained to mimic by copying a tape recording, an English


scope of this discussion, includes an understanding of the interviewas a narrative which can be analyzed in terms of the structure of theexchange (textual), the referential meaning (ideational) and the rolerelationships between speakers (interpersonal).

Understanding the interview as a complex social interaction ratherthan a stimulus-response, one-dimensional exchange leads to a reappraisal of taken-for-granted ideas about efficiency in the researchprocess. While researchers note the trend toward an increasing sizeof samples and study populations in rural sociology (Stokes and Miller1985:547), which by their very nature require ever more separationof the researcher from data collection and ever more objectifiedsurvey techniques, the suggestion that we look more intently at asmaller study population with one of several forms of research techniques implies a very different notion of research efficiency. A telephone interview may be finished in five minutes, coded immediately,and placed into electronic memory almost instantaneously. In an ongoing study of diversified rural livelihood strategies (Gillespie et al.1990a, 1990b), for example, a single interview must undergo transcription, verification, preliminary analysis, and coding and generallyembodies, at the preanalytic stage, at least twenty-five hours of labor.To complete such research requires a redefinition of the complexityof the interview process, a radically different notion ofdata collectionefficiency, and deep involvement in data collection and recordingfrom those who will complete the final analysis.

Finally, the simplistic understanding of the interview steers ruralsociologists away from emerging forms of research interviewing whichhave been very important in other areas of social science. The intellectual energy currently expended on redefining ethnography (seeClifford and Marcus 1986; Van Maanen 1988 for an introduction)seems lost on rural sociology. Novel forms of interviewing such as"photo elicitation" (Harper 1987 for an introduction), or RichardQuinney's (1990) social autobiography which stresses the meaning ofrural life, remain beyond the boundaries of the most widely usedresearch strategies in rural sociology.

interviewer who said, for example: "Do you usually bring up phlegm from your throat?"When I asked Boston policemen this question they typically looked blankly at me andasked: "Do you mean, do I 'hack lungers' (or 'spit clams')." Once we had identifiedthe substance, however, there was the problem of the word "usually." Apparently, inEngland where the studies we were replicating were begun, there is a common understanding of what "usually" means. It did not seem to have a taken-for-grantedmeaning to most of our populations, which led to a series of clarifying questions whichwere also open to interpretation. Finally, Howard Becker (private communication) hasnoted that the emphasis we put on any given word in an interview question profoundlyinfluences the meaning of the sentence. (For an illustration, ask the phlegm questionseveral times putting emphases on different words in the sentence.) Certainly, theBritish version of this question in which "phlegm" was stressed had a quite differentmeaning in American English.


Social life as social process

Discontent with the focus on the individual in social psychologicalsurveys in rural sociology has led to, as indicated above, a new ruralsociology with a macro and critical focus (Tigges and Tootle 1990;Winson 1990 for recent examples). What remains is to take the critique ofsocial psychological surveys in another direction-to questionwhether the essential nature of social interaction can be studied usinga survey. The typical survey is well suited to identify rates of occurrence in a population and to associate those rates with characteristicsof the population and to test an hypothesis stated in terms such as"X" (population characteristic) is hypothesized to vary with "Y" (behavioral outcome). There are, however, several implications to hypothesis testing in human research. For example, it is implied thathuman behavior is caused by knowable and measurable variables, adeterministic view disputed by social scientists who see human life asconstantly created through meaningful interaction. As social groupsare understood as "coordinated lines of action" (using symbolic interactionist terminology), group life appears to be more accuratelycharacterized in terms of change rather than characteristics. Stokesand Miller, for example, assert that "it is commonly theorized thatmost social systems are open fluctuating systems and thus cannot berepresented adequately by nonstochastic or deterministic models"(1985:555). This does not mean, however, that social research mustbe reduced to situated, atheoretical descriptions. Glaser and Strauss(1967) outline a "dialectical cycle observation/theorizing" which continually redefine theory in the process of research discovery. Blumer(1969) contributed to this orientation by suggesting that concepts be"sensitizing instruments" which provide reference and direction inlonger term rather than "one-shot" data gathering exercises. NeitherBlumer, Glaser and Strauss, nor others working from perspectiveswhich acknowledge the situated and continually evolving nature ofgroup life suggest an abandonment of theory. Quite the opposite,they suggest ways to formulate a more complex and yet tentativetheory which more closely asks and answers questions about sociallife as it is most basically understood. From this view, the researchtraditions of rural sociology have excluded the discipline from thevigorous and ongoing debates about the proper role of science whichcharacterize nearly all other social sciences.P

13 Lincoln and Guba (1985: 15) suggest that social science has, in fact, moved throughseveral "paradigm eras," described as prepositivisr, positivist, and postpositivist. Thepostpositivist, rather than a rejection of science, is a widening of method called fordue to the failure of positivism to adequately describe or predict human behavior.They assert, from a "postpositivist" perspective, that "the positivist position, whilediscredited by vanguard thinkers in every known discipline, continues to this day toguide the efforts of practitioners of inquiry...."


The homogenization of rural sociology

I close with the observation that rural sociology, because of its particular institutional history, as well as its subject matter and methodological orientation, is an unusually independent subdiscipline. Thepoint has been made that these forces have homogenized rural sociology to an unusual degree. One must ask whether "rural sociologists" are limited to those sociologists who are trained in graduatedepartments of rural sociology, who publish in the well known journals of the discipline, and who fund their research through opportunities inherent in the land grant system; or, whether rural sociologists may include a larger and more diverse population of socialscientists from several familiar locations in the intellectual terrain. Itis true that a small number of anthropologists (such as Salamon,Fitchen, and Barlett, cited above) have contributed an importantqualitative voice to the discipline, but these contributions, importantas they may be, have not inspired the development of a qualitativerural sociology. A more broadly positioned set of methods could drawon not only the new ethnographic experiments cited above, but froma wide range of intellectual areas such as rural folklore (Bauman 1972;Glassie 1982; Jones 1975), cultural geography (Berger and Mohr1967; Blythe 1969), or popular culture (Klinkenborg 1986; Stadtfeld1972). A richer rural sociology would be the result.

References

Anderson, W. A.1954 Social Change in a Central New York Rural Community. Agricultural Ex

periment Station Bulletin 907. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AgriculturalExperiment Station.

Anosike, Nnamdi, and C. Milton Coughenour1990 "The socioeconomic basis of farm enterprise diversification decisions." Rural

Sociology 55 (1):1-24.Barlett, Peggy

1986 "Part-time farming: saving the farm or saving the lifestyle?" Rural Sociology51 (3):298-313.

1990 "Qualitative methods in rural studies: basic principles." The Rural Sociologist(Spring):3-14.

Bauman, Richard1972 The La Have Island general store: sociability and verbal art in a Nova Scotia

community. Paper presented at the Conference on the Ethnography ofSpeaking, University of Texas, Austin, TX.

Bealer, Bob1978 "A skeptical view." Rural Sociology 43 (4):584-94.1990 "Paradigms, theories, and methods in contemporary rural sociology: a critical

reaction to critical questions." Rural Sociology 55 (1):91-100.Becker, Howard S., and Blanche Geer

1978 "Participant observation and interviewing: a comparison." Pp, 76-82 in Jerome G. Manis and Bernard N. Metzer (eds.), Symbolic Interaction. Boston,MA: Allyn and Bacon.


Belyea, Michael J., and Linda M. Lobao1990 "Psychosocial consequences of agricultural transformation: the farm crisis

and depression." Rural Sociology 55 (1):58-75.Berger, john, and jean Mohr

1967 The Fortunate Man: The Story ofa Country Doctor. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Blalock, Hubert M., Jr.1982 Conceptualization and Measurement in the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills:

Sage Publications.Blumer, Herbert

1956 "Sociological analysis and the variable." American Sociological Review 21(December):683-90.

1969 Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, Nj:Prentice-Hall.

Blythe, Ronald1969 Akenfeld. New York: Random House.

Briggs, jean L.1970 Never in Anger: Portrait of an Eskimo Family. Cambridge: Harvard Uni

versity Press.Buttel, Frederick H.

1982 "The political economy of agriculture in advanced industrial societies: someobservations on theory and method." Pp. 27-55 in Scott G. McNall (ed.),Current Perspectives on Social Theory, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: jAI Press.

Buttel, Frederick H., and Howard Newby (eds.)1980 The Rural Sociology ofAdvanced Societies. Montclair, Nj: Allanheld, Osmun

& Co.Buttel, Frederick H., Olaf F. Larson, and Gilbert W. Gillespie, jr.

1990 The Sociology of Agriculture. New York: Greenwood Press.Christenson, james A., and Lorraine E. Garkovich

1985 "Fifty years of Rural Sociology: status, trends and impressions." Rural Sociology 50:503-22.

Clifford, james, and George Marcus1986 Writing Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Copp,james H.1972 "Rural sociology and rural development." Rural Sociology 37:515-33.

DuBois, W. E. B.1898 "The Negros of Farmville, Virginia: a social study." Bulletin of the Depart

ment of Labor, Vol. 3, No. 14:1-38. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

1901 "The Negro landholders of Georgia." Bulletin of the Department of Labor,Vol. 6, No. 35:647-777. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1904 "The Negro farmer." Pp. 69-98 in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Negros inthe United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Ellis, Carolyn1986 Fisher Folk: Two Communities on Chesapeake Bay. Lexington: The Uni

versity Press of Kentucky.Erikson, Kai T.

1976 Everything in Its Path. New York: Simon and Schuster.Falk, William, and jess Gilbert

1985 "Bringing rural sociology back in." Rural Sociology 50 (4):561-77.Falk, William, and Shanyang Zhao

1989 "Paradigms, theories, and methods in contemporary rural sociology: a partialreplication and extension." Rural Sociology 54 (4):587-600.

1990 "Paradigms, theories, and methods revisited: we respond to our critics." RuralSociology 55 (1):112-22.


Fitchen, Janet1981 Poverty in Rural America: A Case Study. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.1990 "How do you know what to ask if you haven't listened first?: using anthro

pological methods to prepare for survey research." The Rural Sociologist(Spring): 15-22.

Fortmann, Louise, and Jonathan Kusel1990 "New voices, old beliefs: forest environmentalism among new and long-stand

ing rural residents." Rural Sociology 55 (1):214-32.Galpin, Charles Josiah

1985 "My drift into rural sociology." Rural Sociology 50 (4):489-502. (first published in Rural Sociology 1:1, 1936.)

Gibbons, Boyd1977 Wye Island. New York: Penguin Books.

Gillespie, Gilbert, Douglas Harper, and Thomas Lyson1990a Reciprocal work relationships as diversified rural livlihood strategies. Paper

presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Association, Norfolk, VA.

1990b Earning a living among limited-resource farm households: a continuous process of strategizing. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the RuralSociological Association, Norfolk, VA.

Glaser, Barney, and Anselm Strauss1967 The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Glassie, Henry1982 Passing the Time in Ballymenone: Culture and History of an Ulster Com

munity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Godwin, Deborah D., and Julia Marlowe

1990 "Farm wives' labor force participation and earnings." Rural Sociology 55 (1):25-43.

Goudy, Willis J.1990 "Community attachment in a rural region." Rural Sociology 55 (1):178-98.

Harper, Douglas1987 Working Knowledge: Skill and Community in a Small Shop. Chicago: Uni

versity of Chicago Press.Jones, Michael Owen

1975 The Handmade Object and Its Maker. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Klinkenborg, Verlyn1986 Making Hay. New York: Nick Lyons Books.

Kuhn, Thomas S.1962 The Structure ofScientific Revolutions. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Lieberson, Stanley1985 Making It Count: The Improvement of Social Research and Theory. Berke

ley: University of California Press.Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba

1985 Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Lively, C. E.

1928 "Types of agriculture as a conditioning factor in community organization."Publications of the American Sociological Society 23:35-50.

Lowry, Sheldon G.1977 "Rural sociology at the crossroads." Rural Sociology 42:461-75.

Lynd, Robert S., and Helen Merrell Lynd1929 Middletown. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.1937 Middletown in Transition. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Lyson, Thomas A.1989 Two Sides to the Sunbelt: The Growing Divergence Between the Rural and

Urban South. New York: Praeger.


McMichael, Philip1987 "Bringing circulation back into agricultural political economy: analyzing the

antebellum plantation in its world context." Rural Sociology 52:242-63.Mather, W. G., T. H. Townsend, and Dwight Sanderson

1934 A Study of Rural Community Development in Waterville, New York. Bulletin608. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station.

Mishler, Elliot1986 Research Interviewing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Phillips, Derek1971 Knowledge from What: Theories and Methods in Social Research. Chicago:

Rand McNally.Picou, J. Steven, Evans W. Curry, and Richard H. Wells

1990 "Partial paradigm shifts in the social sciences: twenty years of research inRural Sociology." Rural Sociology 55 (1):101-11.

Picou, J. Steven, Richard H. Wells, and Kenneth L. Nyberg1978a "Paradigms, theories, and methods in contemporary rural sociology." Rural

Sociology 43:559-83.1978b "Reply to Bealer: the skeptic as ritualist." Rural Sociology 43 (4):595-609.

Powdermaker, Hortense1966 Stranger and Friend. New York: Norton.

Quinney, Richard1990 Journey to a Far Place. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Salamon, Sonya1982 "Sibling solidarity as an operating strategy in Illinois agriculture." Rural

Sociology 47 (2):349-68.1985 "Ethnic communities and the structure of agriculture." Rural Sociology 50

(3):323-40.1990 "Farming and community from the anthropological studies of families." The

Rural Sociologist (Spring):23-30.Sewell, William H.

1965 "Rural sociological research, 1936-1965." Rural Sociology 30:428-51.Sims, Newell Leroy

1912 A Hoosier Village. Columbia University Studies in History, Economics andPublic Law, Vol. 46, No.4. New York: Columbia University.

Spradley, James1972 Culture and Cognition: Rules, Maps, and Plans. San Francisco: Chandler.

Spradley, James, and David W. McCurdy (eds.)1972 The Cultural Experience: Ethnography in Complex Society. Chicago: Science

Research Associates.Stadtfeld, Curtis

1972 From the Land and Back. New York: Scribner's.Stokes, C. Shannon, and Michael K. Miller

1975 "A methodological review of research in Rural Sociology since 1965." RuralSociology 40:411-34.

1985 "A methodological review of fifty years of research in Rural Sociology." RuralSociology 50:539-60.

Taylor, Carl C., Arthur F. Raper, Douglas Ensminger, Margaret Jarman Hagood,T. Wilson Longmore, Walter C. McKain, Jr., Louis J. Ducoff, and Edgar A. Schuler

1949 Rural Life in the United States. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Thomas, John K., Howard Ladewig, and Wm. Alex McIntosh

1990 "The adoption of integrated pest management practices among Texas cottongrowers." Rural Sociology 55 (3):395-410.

Tigges, Leann M., and Deborah M. Tootle1990 "Labor supply, labor demand, and men's underemployment in rural and

urban labor markets." Rural Sociology 55 (3):328-56.


Van Maanen, John1988 Tales ofthe Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.Williams, James M.

1906 An American town: a sociological study. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University.

Wilson, Warren H.1907 Quaker Hill. Ph. D. Dissertation, Columbia University.

Winson, Anthony1990 "Capitalist coordination of agriculture: food processing firms and farming in

central Canada." Rural Sociology 55 (3):376-94.

on “methodological monism” in rural sociology

Documents