Search

This article comments on the position papers in the June 1967 issue of Rural Sociology. The author asserts that the papers are a mark of growing maturity of the rural sociology profession. It took years before the state universities and colleges assumed the dominant role of that they have achieved in the development of rural sociology. Contributions of the early sociologists to the applied field are presented to emphasize their historical value.

Rural sociologists are concerned about the present status, the crucial issues, and the future of their group. In 1963, the Committee on the Development of Rural Sociology developed a preliminary list of major issues facing rural sociologists. With the approval of the Council, the members of the committee decided to prepare a set of working papers on some of these major issue areas. These papers would attempt to define more clearly the assumptions, dimensions, and issues, to present different points of view, and to suggest alternative definitions or positions and their probable consequences. Thus, it was hoped that the working papers would provide a structure from which more effective discussion would develop.

Research on communities often fails to meet two important criteria which permit valid generalizations from the findings. First, studies generally fail to apply the scientific comparative approach and the techniques of multivariate analysis in their design and execution. Second, theory fails to distinguish between properties of communities and properties which are properly classified in other systems. Sociologists who study communities do not share a precise definition of community, nor do they agree how observations about community phenomena are to be incorporated into sociological theory. The discussion that follows will be facilitated, however, if one can make reasonably clear the sense in which this paper deals with the sociological study of community. Community is viewed in this paper as a territorial system. The more comprehensive territorial definitions of community view it as a form of social or ecological organization arising from the fact that people share a common area for their daily activities.

This paper tells the story of how and why five rural sociologists were invited to spend a year attached to an American embassy "to study the rural life" in five different Latin-American countries. This paper attempts to report what the sociologists planned to do, to what extent they were able to carry out their plans, and why they could not always do so. The value of such broad types of studies is appraised by the rural sociologists who participated in this enterprise, and their knowledge of the sociologically significant carryovers resulting from their work is reported. The author conferred or corresponded with all who participated in the studies and feels confident that he has faithfully reflected or reported all of the ideas which space has permitted him to present. For the appraisal of limitations of the methods used and the special emphasis given by the different analysts, he accepts sole responsibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the article is to afford an additional medium of expression for scholars in the field of Rural Sociology. Rural Sociology has always been the joint responsibility of the professional organization of rural sociologists and a sponsoring university. Its history is intimately intertwined with the history of the Rural Sociological Society and its predecessor, the Rural Sociology Section of the American Sociological Society. The history of the journal may be summarized in four periods: (1) the prepublication period when decisions and plans were made; (2) the first five years (1936-40), at Louisiana State University; (3) the next eleven years (1941-51), under the sponsorship of North Carolina State College; and (4) the years at the University of Kentucky (1952-57), four of which fall in the 20-year period covered by this index. Moreover, it will be the policy to solicit manuscripts from workers in foreign countries, although it is intended that all such papers shall deal with some phase of rural social life.

The article reports on the eighteenth biennial congress of the Institut International de Sociologie (IIS), held in Nürnberg, Germany from September 10 to 18, 1958. The congress was attended by 295 participants including 221 from 31 countries. Several hundred papers were discussed during the first four days. After these sessions, the members traveled for five days to see postwar Germany. They viewed the reconstruction of Kassel, East Germany and West and East Berlin. The receiving station at Marienfeld in the West Berlin was also inspected. It is the place where peoples who flee from East Germany are held until their placement in West German industries and occupations. IIS is the oldest sociological organization, founded by René Worms at Paris in 1893. Scientific papers may be written in English, French, Spanish, Italian, or German. They are printed in bound volumes for distribution to the members. Membership is elective but national quotas are limited to prevent one country's domination. Eminent sociologist, Professor Hans Freyer, was president of this congress. Professor K. Valentin, general secretary of the U.S., was host this year.

The article presents announcements and news notes regarding the call for papers for 1970 annual meeting. Plans for the 1970 Rural Sociological Society meetings to be held in the Sheraton Park Hotel in Washington D.C. in August are progressing. Some guidelines have been established for the submission of papers for the 1970 program. Completed papers and an abstract of each paper must be submitted to the Program Committee no later than April 1, 1970. The theme for the 1970 annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society is "Societal Change". Rural Sociological Society policy on participation will apply to all sessions other than general sessions; each author is limited to a single paper on the program unless he is a joint author of two papers; a sole author of one paper may also serve as chairman, discussant, or panel member of the same or one other session on the program; a person not listed as author or co-author of a paper may serve as a chairman, a discussant, or a panel member of two sessions or any combination thereof.

A unique feature of rural sociology as a discipline is the number of professionally trained staff members who are primarily engaged in applying sociological knowledge and skills to social problems. The purpose of this paper is to analyze this practitioner role. Particular attention will be directed to understanding certain conditions long associated with the role of the sociologists in Extension, i.e., low prestige compared to that of research staff, lack of relevant knowledge to approach some situations, barriers to communication between the researcher and the practitioner, and inappropriate graduate training for those who take on the applied role.

The article presents a restudy of Tepoztlán culture and criticizes the folk-urban hypothesis. Certainly there are phenomena that represent social disorganization; but the term has been used so commonly for social reorganization that perhaps it should be abolished. The study of man has demonstrated few things more clearly than the universality of socio-cultural change. Change need not be confused with the idea of progress, but neither should it always be labeled "disorganization." Both in this paper and in his major work, Sociologist Lewis Writh has presented us with many provocative ideas. Although one cannot concede that he has given final answers on all points, he has made constructive suggestions which represent important contributions to anthropology and, in at least some degree, to sociology. Lewis suggests that Robert Redfield's earlier study of Tepoztlán was directed primarily toward testing the folk concept rather than at producing a reasonably complete ethnography. This seems a legitimate comment; but Lewis's assertion, at least by implication, that his book is an attempt at a complete ethnography approaches correctness only if his work is read in connection with Redfield's. Even so, a complete study of Tepoztlán material culture has yet to be published.

The article explores the nature of the "rural-urban fringe" in the light of what is known, and to suggest, if possible, plausible hypotheses for investigation. The rural-urban fringe is currently a subject of rowing interest to sociologists. In the United States today, the "fringe" not only includes a substantial portion of the total population; it is also the most rapidly growing element in the population. Sociologists have customarily subdivided the total population into two parts: rural and urban. By doing so they have conceptually created two "worlds," presumed to differ from each other in culture and in mode of life. But there are some indications that the growing rural-urban fringe fits neither of these classifications. Furthermore, there are those who regard "rural" and "urban" as simply two aspects of a single continuum. It would appear that at this stage three hypotheses are possible: (1) The rural-urban fringe represents a position on a continuum within a single rural-urban distribution. (2) The rural-urban fringe represents an overlapping of two distinct distributions-the rural and the urban-providing a scrambled confusion within the area of overlap. (3) The rural-urban fringe represents a third distribution with some characteristics of both the rural and the urban, but with some new ones found only in the "fringe."

The article presents information and announcements related to the field of rural sociology. The Social Research Center of the American University in Cairo announces openings for sociologists, anthropologists, and economists on its research staff. Research will include problems of social and economic developments social aspects of physical planning of the city of Aswan, labor problems the High Dam, Nubian resettlement, demography and family planning, settlement of nomads, and marketing. The article presents announcement about the fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of rural sociology at Cornell University, which will be observed with a dinner program in April 1965. The Council of the Southern Mountains is seeking a research director for a project under a Ford Foundation grant. The article reports on new projects as like the Farm Population Branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is cooperating with the University of Kentucky in the preparation of a monograph on the rural aged in the United States. The article also reports that sociologist Ismail Ajami has returned to Iran after completing his Ph.D. work at Cornell and Fuad C. Baali has been appointed Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Florida.

This article discusses several developments related to academic activities and appointments in field of sociology, from various universities and colleges in the U.S. Howard W. Been, the University of Kentucky's head of the Departments of Sociology and Rural Sociology, is in New Delhi, India, serving as a community development adviser to the Indian government. He is employed by the Ford Foundation. He is expected to return in July, 1959. John H. Mabry has been appointed associate medical sociologist in the University Medical Center and associate professor of sociology. He was formerly on the staff of the Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, New York. In Mississippi State University, at the invitation of the Department of Sociology and Rural Life, a review panel visited in October to discuss and make recommendations about the research program. In Ohio State University, Robert M. Dimit, associate professor, has been promoted to the position of extension leader in research. He replaces Harold R. Capener, who is in India for two years as part of the Ohio State-India team. Dimit has recently completed a study of membership relations in the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation.

This article presents news related to rural sociology as of March 1, 1936. The annual business meeting of the Section on Rural Sociology, American Sociological Society, was held at the Commodore Hotel, New York City on December 29, 1935. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman of the Section, B.L. Hummel, at 9:45 a.m. Minutes of the 1934 meeting were read and approved. Several members of the section suggested the need for improved publication facilities for rural sociologists and for an improved and enlarged annual program to include material of interest to teachers of rural sociology as well as the research and extension personnel.

It is informed that the subdivision of sociological research known as diffusion has proved to be a prolific area of study for rural sociologists in recent years. The general approach to the problem has been similar to that followed by researchers working in the area of social participation-- namely, delineating factors associated with the dependent variable. The factors utilized have been at varying levels of generality and include economic and sociological variables. In some studies, researchers have been able to account for 50 per cent of the variance in the dependent variable. It has been stated that these studies are for the most part characterized by a dearth of sociological theory, with no systematic treatment of group values and personality traits in relation to the adoption of farm practices. A recent study by E.M. Rogers made use of conceptual variable analysis but was able to account for only 16 per cent of the variance. Recently Rogers has attempted to correct the deficiency alluded to by Herbert F. Lionberger and examine the personality correlates of the adoption of technological change.

The rural-urban fringe appears to be the object of a three-way tug of war among the human ecologists, who discovered it, and the rural and urban sociologists, who are both trying to appropriate as much of it as they can lay their hands on. The idea that there is a continuum of social organization which runs all the way from a pure urban type to a pure rural type is better, since one can thereby conceptualized the kind of social organization found at any intermediate point. The author finds that the fringe population does not fall hail way between the urban and the rural means on a number of characteristics. Rather, this population is very much like the urban population in some respects and very much like the rural population in other respects. This hints at a selective process, which may be a creative process. Perhaps the fringe society can learn to choose the best of the two worlds and amalgamate these elements. In view of this possibility, the duty of the sociologist seems clear, he should study carefully various types of fringe situations and should determine under what conditions the creative solutions of the problems of adjustment between the rural and urban worlds are emerging. This would be a real service to the present time.

A word concerning the March 1946 issue of the journal Rural Sociology is in order. Sociologist Bruce Melvin, for many years closely associated with sociologist Dwight Sanderson at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, was the first to suggest that one issue of Rural Sociology be devoted to articles concerned with the life and work of Dwight Sanderson. At the 1945 annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society in Chicago, Illinois sociologists called together all former students of Sanderson, who were present, to determine what form the memorial should take. At this meeting it was decided that a series of articles should be written. A delegation then requested that sociologists Carl Taylor and Lowry Nelson organize the issue and get the manuscripts in. To these two men, neither of who were students of Sanderson but both of who were among his closest friends should go the credit of organizing this issue. Originally sociologists planned to have one of those who knew Dwight Sanderson and his works best, organize an integrated article, which would analyze Sanderson's conceptual scheme and contributions and relate them to those of other outstanding sociologists.

The utility of metropolitan and urban dominance constructs for dealing with patterning of noneconomic and nondemographic factors in hinterland areas is explored by examining attitudes toward selected aspects of traditional morality within a large (N=11,465) sample of Pennsylvania adolescents living in farm, open country, and small town residence categories. In general, as miles from city centers increased, the degree of adherence to traditional attitudes also increased. The patterning in correlation terms was equal to that shown in others' research for economic and demographic variables. The dominance measures compared favorably to place or residence as explanatory factors. It is suggested that ecological dominance be explored more vigorously by rural sociologists interested in trying to understand rurality in America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study provides an analysis of the characteristics of membership in the Rural Sociological Society (RSS). The data were obtained from membership records of the Society. Two variables, membership status and geographic location, provided the basis for the analysis reported. It was noted that the membership of the RSS is composed largely of 3 member types: practicing professionals; associates; and student members. Professional members were contrasted by region of residence.

This article relates the author's experience of receiving his doctoral degree after successfully completing his thesis. The author recounts that members of a high level, government task force in the U.S. were trying out a new change agent strategy to counter poverty in the rural areas of the southwest and they wanted to know if it was working. He relates that he was asked to do the study because of his fluency in Spanish and his training in field research methodology. The study was to be located in a rural, economically depressed county in the southwest. In coming up with the subject, he found that the change agent concept suggests some form of intervention in the normal operations of an organization resulting in a restructuring of events.

Rural development is seen inferentially as a normatively defined policy goal rather than a theoretical construct. Although rural sociologists have assumed that their discipline is central to rural development, their contributions have been minor because of deficits in substantive knowledge and symptom-oriented emphases on infrastructure and provision of services within recent federal administrations. The retardation of substantive knowledge growth is traced to the socialization role and social milieu of rural sociologists. A number of problem areas meriting attention are indicated, all of which appear to be core concerns of the discipline in its macrosociological mode. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Problems of cross-national research transcend the realm of pure methodology to include a crucial political dimension. The implicit assumption that cross-national studies involve an active agent dealing with a relatively passive setting must give way to their definition as interactions between researcher and a dynamic social environment. Four main types of cultural settings are outlined. Absence of reciprocity, as reflected in six specific areas, is analyzed as the main cause for growing suspicion and hostility toward U.S. sociology research abroad. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article briefly describes about various meetings and workshops; programs and projects of various universities; published and follow-up theses and dissertations; and research personnel and personalities. It reports that the Rural Sociological Society Development Committee met on the campus of the University of Missouri at Columbia on April 15 and 16, 1970. It reports about different grants and awards presented by the Colorado State University to different research personnel for their recent research works in the field of rural sociology. Researcher David Freeman has received a grant from the Agency for International Development to study the diffusion of water management technology in West Pakistan. Awards and grants of various other universities of the U.S. are reported here, which were presented and announced to various contributing researchers in the same field. The article presents information regarding appointments, promotions, and successions of various personalities associated with the field of sociology. Some of these personnel are: Louse A. Brown of the Appalachia State University; Eleonora A. Cebotarev from the Pennsylvania State University; and Yun Kim of the Utah State University.

Rural sociology is a subdiscipline of sociology that is becoming more theoretical while the parent discipline is becoming more applied. Its development as a discipline depends on general agreement of the members of the field on a common approach to its science and practice. While search continues for a scientific conceptualization of "rural," rural sociology is now developing a greater unity of approach. Relationships between theory and practice of rural sociology are becoming clearer with the realization that "rural" designates one of the arenas in which sociology is developed and applied. Rural sociologists recognize a need to work with scientists in other discipline toward the solution of major problems and toward the unification of science.

The article discusses various developments and announcements related to sociology field. One of the News Notes presents information about the professional opportunities abroad, where the American educators have been approached for various positions. The s

The article discusses Rural Sociological Research done in the last few years and the focus of these researches. Until now the accomplishments of rural sociology and sociologists have been towards the development of the field and to indicate its achievements, its failures, and its future opportunities. The study can be divided in three periods or three decades. The first ten years, 1936-1945, could be characterized as the period of crisis-the Great Depression and World War II brought to the fore many problems for rural society and rural sociologists The second decade, 1946-1955, was a period of recovery for the whole economy and saw striking changes in communication, transportation, mechanization, and urbanization which greatly affected rural life and the work of rural sociologists. Finally, the last decade, 1956-1965, has been a period of affluence for the society as a whole and one in which the postwar trends have continued at an accelerated rate to bring about sweeping changes in rural society, including the development of agribusiness and factories.

The article presents a discussion of rural sociology in the U.S. There are two school of thoughts in the country. The first is the "Empirical School," represented more by the older men and concentrated on studies of the more descriptive kind with a minimum of jargons and the second is "Theory School," represented more by the younger men and made extensive use of technical terminology. It is viewed that U.S. rural sociologist believe that absolute precision is necessary in the formulating of social theory and their ideas about constituents of theory were muddled. In some cases, this word was used loosely to mean simply something other than fact. There is indeed a great deal of work in American rural sociology. There is a wealth of sociological material available in almost every state. Extension officers are well informed about the ramifications of their local community as they have been provided with basic statistic of population, school drop outs, employment, and many others. American rural sociologist contributes to the public educational programs and cooperate in schemes as Rural Area Development and the Area Redevelopment Administration.

Sociologist George W. Barclay cites two formulas for use in describing population growth and in making simple population estimates-either by interpolation or extrapolation of constant growth rates. Barclay shows that for some values of P1 which is population of an area at an initial date, P2 which is population of an area at some subsequent date and n is the number of years between the two dates represented, these two formulas will yield different values for r is the annual rate of growth, the annual rate of population growth. He explains this by stating that formula that represents a growth by regular increases, each one equal to r-computed one year apart just as sociologists compute the accumulation of interest and principal over a period of n years; and that formula represents the population growth as a continuous process rather than a set of periodic changes. Unfortunately Barclay's interpretation and his illustrations lead to considerable confusion among students and others who may try to use these formulas in making simple population estimates either in interpolation or projection.

The increasing participation of rural sociologists in research and consultation in foreign countries justifies a careful consideration of the comparative method of social research. Methodological problems in the use of the comparative or cross-cultural method are analyzed in an attempt to develop a more systematic framework for the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data which cuts across group lines and geographical boundaries. The proposition is offered that the comparative method attempts to introduce time and space factors as intervening variables which modify generalizations about human behavior. A basic consideration in the use of the comparative method for this purpose is the equivalence of concepts and their operational indices. Some technical suggestions are offered for increasing the probability of securing comparative data of greater reliability and validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article throws light on problems affecting regional project organization and data comparability by the rural sociologists. One of the basic problems in regional research is finding other professional people who have strong interests which are sufficiently similar to permit the development of a common project to which all can fully subscribe. This suggests that the interests of the individual researchers need to be recognized and incorporated into the project in sufficient detail to permit professionally meaningful and useful data to be obtained. Efforts to include such detail will be recognized as a potential source of friction. The apparent conclusion is that there are obstacles which must be overcome to achieve a high degree of comparability in this type of project because of the many individuals involved and the turnover of personnel. The organization of the project to achieve maximum comparability involved a variety of patterns of responsibility allocation for each step in the project, depending upon the degree of technical sophistication required and the skills and facilities available to the researchers involved.

Sociologists can learn as much as they may teach through involvement in agricultural development. Agricultural development is a top priority today among people in many cultures. Except as a particular academic interest is pursued in a variety of cultural settings, it is virtually impossible to distinguish between truly universal principles, on the one hand, and generalizations that owe their relevance only to certain aspects of the particular social setting in which they are observed to hold true, on the other. Sociology, however defined, needs involvement in human group activities in a variety of cultural settings in order to winnow what is universal and intrinsic from that which is parochial and derivative. The author is not at all sure that social organization and interaction are any more intricate or complex for a dynamic society than for one that is relatively static, but certainly they are different. Development involves the breaking of old social patterns as well as the emergence of new ones. The problems change as development proceeds. The author know that for economics this requires differences in research emphasis and content.

The problem of change has been of continuing interest to rural sociologists. However, most of the concern for change has been directed toward specific topics such as family living, farm technology, rural institutions, and industrialization. There has been little attempt to relate change in these specific areas to general theories of social change. This has probably been due no less to failings on the part of students of rural life than to the inadequacy of existing theories of change. In a recent article, Wilbert Moore, attempts to show that social change is a respectable topic of concern for sociologists. He would move the chapters on social change from the end to a more central position in textbooks of sociology. Talcott Parsons, after dealing with the structural aspects of society, has become more concerned with its dynamic aspects. He is now teaching a seminar on "Societal Evolution," which is certainly an innovation in the curricula of sociology. These and many other efforts indicate a growing concern for the study of change on the part of sociologists.

In comparing rural and urban life sociologists have usually taken into account differences in the nature of social relationships as well as differences in occupation or division of labor. A classic statement by Pitirim Sorokin and Carle C. Zimmerman, sociologists stresses the wide area of contact, and the impersonal, short-lived, and differentiated nature of urban, as compared with rural, social relationships. Earlier in the same work, these two writers point out the importance of occupational differences, and conceive of this as an independent variable giving rise to other differences. The association between social relationships and occupation in a rural-urban context has recently been demonstrated by Albert J. Reiss, a sociologist. He found, in comparing the interpersonal contacts of people in a metropolitan area, that the agricultural-nonagricultural distinction appears to discriminate better with respect to differences in personal contact than does the rural-urban residence distinction. The general hypothesis tested is that involvement of these farmers in nonfarm work is associated with their having visiting relations similar to those characterized by Sorokin and Zimmerman as urban-like and visiting relations with city people.

The article illustrates the process of adoption of new idea by farmers. The author opines that the first step in this process occurs when the individual becomes aware that the innovation exists, then develops interest, evaluates, tries, and perhaps adopts the innovation. This article informs that the rural sociologists have concentrated their research efforts on the investigation of factors related to the time at which a farmer adopts a new idea relative to the time at which other farmers adopt the same idea. Farmers have been categorized as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards on the basis of their relative time of adoption. The time dimension is also involved in another aspect of the adoption process which has not been carefully explored to date. The dimension is the period of time which an individual requires to pass through the adoption process, that is, from awareness to adoption. This length of time required for the adoption process to take place is called the adoption period. The article contains the methodology for the study and its finding.

The agricultural problem stems, on the one hand, from rapid national economic growth which causes a relatively unfavorable income position for farmers. On the other hand, a major cause of the problem has been the rate of technological advance, which has caused food output to increase more rapidly than it can be absorbed by growth in the population and national income. The farm problem can be solved only over a longer period, as agricultural output is adjusted through transfer of labor resources out of agriculture and through a decrease in the number of farms. Also, farming in general must be made more flexible and more adaptable to relative changes in demand for agricultural commodities as economic growth continues. More than ever before the solution of the problem depends upon research and education in the social sciences. Quite obviously a whole complex of sociological problems revolves around the needed adjustments and their effects upon the community and the family. The help of rural sociologists is urgently needed in solving the basic structural problems of agriculture as well as the secondary problems which arise. Rural sociologists can make important contributions in providing better insights into the attitudes and values of farm people, desirable goals and patterns, acceptable rates of change, communication between educational institutions and farm families to prepare them for changes and to help them make wise choices, employment services to facilitate change of employment, and help with many other aspects of the problem. The rural sociologist has never had a better opportunity to assume his rightful place among other agricultural and social sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fragmentation of holdings denotes the situation in which the average farm consists of numerous small parcels scattered haphazardly about in the area within a given rural community. In Spain as a whole there is an average of 17 separate tracts per farm, and the phenomenon is particularly acute in the northwestern one-fourth of the country where the number of parcels per farm runs as high as 84 in the Province of Soria and averages above 40 in Burgos, Cuenca, Guadalajara, Segovia, and Zamora. Most of the social and economic effects of fragmentation are adverse, although the spreading of risks and the diffusion of a family's interests to all parts of the community in which it resides may be advantageous. As sociologists from the United States accept professional responsibilities in other parts of the world, many of them are forced to deal in one way or another with the phenomenon of fragmentation of agricultural holdings. This constitutes an intellectual challenge of the first order of magnitude since this subject has seldom figured in the contemplations and writings of the sociologists in this country.

Rural sociologists have pioneered in the development of a public policy discussion emphasis within the Agricultural Extension Service. They encouraged it as an educational method for coping with many of the problems of an increasingly complex society, as a means of citizen involvement and of increasing citizenship participation in public affairs, and as a way of dealing with many social and economic problems of a rather highly controversial nature. The importance of this emphasis is now officially recognized in the Extension Services Statement of Scope and Responsibility. Because of this recognition it is now doubly important that rural sociologists take a fresh look at the situation, lest the use of the discussion method become generally accepted as just another method of communication or be limited to areas of economic concern. Public policy discussion is one of those terms that has different meanings to different people. Professional workers at the national or state level, who are encouraging this emphasis, undoubtedly view it as a means of encouraging large numbers of people to acquaint themselves with national and state issues.

There is a large potential demand for research of a sociological character for use in connection with decision making by action agencies (including those which reach or attempt to reach rural people), but relatively few individuals are employed as professional sociologists by federal or state agencies. If qualified sociologists do not meet this demand, others, perhaps less well qualified, will no doubt do so. Much of the research conducted by rural sociologists is potentially of interest to some action agency, but it appears that investigators frequently design their studies without consulting the agency to learn its problems. When this happens, the study may not be focused on the problems to which the agency is sensitive and the findings may be largely disregarded. No systematic studies have yet been made to find a scientific solution to the problem of how best to increase the use of sociological research in connection with decisions affecting agency policy, procedures, or organizational structure.

This article presents information on various research bulletins and books. Some of these publications, considered here, are: "Population Change in Michigan: With Special Reference to Rural-Urban Migration, 1940-1950," by J. Allan Beegle and J.F. Thaden; "Rural-Urban Population Change and Migration in Ohio, 1940-1950," by Wade H. Andrews and Emily M. Westerkamm; "Older Youth in Rural Louisiana: Their Number, Characteristics, and Needs," by Alvin L. Bertrand; and "Use of Rooms in Farm Houses by 53 Pennsylvania Families," by Francena L. Nolan and M.E. John. The two bulletins by Beegle and Thaden and Andrews and Westerkamm, reportedly, report the first regional experiment station project organized by rural sociologists in the United States in June, 1949. The project entitled "Population Dynamics in the North Central Region and Related Rural Social and Economic Problems" was approved under the Research and Marketing Act of 1946. The authors of both bulletins have presented facts related to rural sociology for their states. The book by Bertrand, on the other hand, is a study of rural youth which is designed in a way to give basic information which will be useful in action programs. The book by Nolan and John presents a study undertaken to determine the variety and extent of the activities carried on in farm houses, and also the ways in which the patterns of family living are related to various factors such as family characteristics and the size and arrangement of rooms.

This article focuses on causes of rural migration by exploring levels and trends of migration in the U.S. Migration is supposed to be a major factor which bear directly upon the growth of population. The other factors are fertility and mortality rates. The cause of migration in the U.S. has been studied, by sociologists, over the years concerning, the rural-urban exchange of population; the interregional movement of rural people; farm-to-farm migrations within any given area; and the annual and seasonal flow of migratory agricultural laborers. Most important aspects related to rural migration for sociologists' attention, suggested here, are: the measurement of the amount of migration to and from the specific states, counties, and cities which go to make up the nation; the nature of the selective processes at work in the rural-urban exchange of population and in other types of migration; factors associated with the variations; the absolute and relative importance of the movement of operators and from farm to farm within a given area; and vertical social mobility, and other social, demographic, and economic phenomena related as causes or effects to the shifting of families from farm to farm.

Lack of sharpness of the concept and lack of agreement on definition have led investigators to study two divergent areas which they commonly call the "rural-urban fringe." These may be designated as the limited fringe and the extended fringe. Both the static and the dynamic aspects of fringe development are the proper province of study for all sociologists; however, the interests of rural sociologists lie more in the extended fringe because of the more numerous contacts between rural and urban peoples and the predominance of rural elements. The extended fringe may be an ideal laboratory for the rural sociologist studying social processes. As an example of the kinds of research which may be carried on in the extended fringe, a current study being made in Connecticut is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents brief descriptions of several events and developments in colleges and universities and governmental agencies and a note on the life history of American sociologist, Luther Lee Bernard who died on January 23, 1951. It reports that the Department of Sociology and Anthropology of the Boston University has initiated a program in criminology and correctional treatment of offenders. The program offers a general plan of study in criminology designed to be of value to those working in the fields of crime prevention, probation, probational parole, and correctional administration. Researcher Lloyd Warner of the Sociology Department of the University of Chicago has received a grant of $10,000 from the Hill Family Foundation of Saint Paul, Minnesota. The Foundation awarded him for a study of social mobility in American business. The United States Department of Agriculture has announced on June 1, 1951, that around six hundred agricultural specialists from all parts of the United States are needed to represent this country abroad in technical cooperation programs, including the Point Four program, under present plans of expansion. The Department's Office of Personnel is developing a national roster of professional agriculturists to be used by the Department, and other Federal and public international organizations, in recruiting personnel for foreign assignments.

This article gives major results of a study of the training given to sociologists who were candidates for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree (Ph.D.) and who majored in the sociology of rural life in the U.S. Presented in the study are jobs held by majors in rural sociology, the major fields of concentration required for Ph.D. with a major in rural sociology and the minor course work taken by rural majors. In conclusion, the importance of teaching in rural sociology is emphasized with recommendations on how to improve teaching in this field.

In 1911, the College of Agriculture at the University of Wisconsin decided to add a staff to the Department of Agricultural Economics who would devote energies to research and teaching in the field of country life. It is necessary to find that person who can plan fact-gathering and fact-organization by using scholarly methods in research, and someone who could also exhibit a spark of originality. In this article, it is the intention of the author to examine the reasons why Charles J. Galpin was chosen for the position, when in fact, he has no formal training in sociology. Furthermore, Galpin's method in studying rural social forces in action, as he illustrated in his sketch of a map of the village of Belleville, New York and the surrounding area, is presented and analyzed.

This article presents information on several announcements related to rural sociology. Community Service Inc. at Yellow Springs, Ohio announces the fourth printing of Arthur E. Morgan's book "The Small Community: Foundation of Democratic Life." Available in quantities at a substantial discount, this book is a valuable guide to the study of small community problems. A meeting of administrators and rural sociologists was held in Chicago on May 1 and 2, 1947 under the sponsorship of the Farm Foundation, acting on suggestions from several sources in the Land Grant Colleges and in the United States Department of Agriculture. Sloan Wayland has been appointed instructor in rural sociology at Columbia for the coming academic year. He succeeds Alan Westerman, who becomes Assistant Trade Commissioner for Australia to the United States. David E. Lindstrom, rural sociologist, was one of four Illinois leaders cited for distinguished service by the Illinois Welfare Association at its 51st conference held November 17, 1946 in Peoria.

From the beginning of his career in sociology, sociologist Dwight Sanderson was committed to the conception of this discipline as a science of the forms of human association, thus taking his stand with the formalists. As the so-called "formal" school came under attack, Sanderson admitted that sociology might indeed deal with phenomena other than forms of association, but "whatever else it may include," he wrote, "sociology deals primarily with the phenomena of groups or the forms of association." Sanderson's ideas about the social group were expressed in fewer publications and they have stimulated less response from sociologists than his views about the community and the family. In a bibliography of his sociological writings, only two of 94 titles refer specifically arid solely to the social group. His work on the community has been taken up and is being advanced. A host of workers are moving ahead in the sociology of the family, but there has been no rush of students toward the group-classification idea.

According to the author, his first personal contact with sociologist Dwight Sanderson took place sixteen years ago when he came to Cornell University, Ithaca, New York to complete work for the Doctorate under his direction. The author has been an intimate associate of his for each of the succeeding years until his death. In the first year the author gained an impression that deepened with the years of companionship. He came to know him then, as he knows him now, a man with a dominant passion for the building of a better rural life through the development of the science of rural sociology. According to the author, one of the most interesting things to him about Dr. Sanderson's career is that it arrived at its final goal through a process of long time development. The "Chief" did not begin his career of work for others in the broad human field where he finally completed his work. To the author, Sanderson was a true social builder who possessed what the Chinese teacher said the true social builder must have, the head of the scientist, the hand of the farmer, and the heart of the religious devotee.

According to the author, Dwight Sanderson was a scientist and not a propagandist. In attempting to evaluate his contribution to the field of the family it is both necessary and illuminating to look at his entire career. Here was a man well trained in the biological sciences and one who had made an outstanding success in his chosen profession at the time he definitely moved into the field of rural sociology after having completed his work for the doctorate in this field at the University of Chicago, Illinois. The author say that Dr. Sanderson was a scientist and not a propagandist because his main approach to the study of the family was a scientific one with a fine feeling for what needed to be done in making sociological contributions to the family practical and useful, but at the same time understanding that no ultimate improvement could be made unless it were based upon a sound scientific foundation. It is difficult to review the contributions of a man with so many diverse interests, but one outstanding regret seems to cling to author's mind with reference to Sanderson's contribution to the field of the farm family. He did formulate a sound scientific framework within which research should be done.

According to the author, it is his conviction that sociologist Dwight Sanderson was one of the most scientific sociologists of all time. That this is not more widely recognized is probably due to two things, that he worked in the field of rural sociology with which so-called "high power" sociologists are not too familiar, and that the vast majority of sociologists have not been concerned primarily with the patient and painstaking type of work required to develop a science. Sanderson came into the field of sociology with a training and experience in exact science and brought with him not only an appreciation but also an exact knowledge of scientific methods. He began immediately, and never ceased, to use that knowledge and training in social research and in his teaching and writing. His first theoretical wrestling with the problem of social science was in his doctor's dissertation, The Rural Community: The Natural History of a Sociological Group, published in 1921. According to the author, Sanderson's comments on planning are interesting and consistent. In Rural Sociology he said, "There is fundamental need to change our attitudes toward social change from one of desire for absolutes to a willingness to regard life as an adventure and to try social inventions with the experimental attitude of science."

In summary, maximum contribution of rural sociological research depends upon three basic needs: (a) a more decisive orientation of research workers, (b) more effective research methods, and (c) a more appreciative and informed public. It is suggested that the ruling concern of rural sociology be that of human relations. Concentration will be focused not on human relations as such but on social interaction in particular areas of living as in the family, the school, the neighborhood. Both interpersonal and inter-group relations will be appropriate areas for research, and specialists will develop special areas. The primary and final objective will be to make human relations creative of healthy personalities and of a rural culture which provides maximum support to wholesome personality growth at all ages. New methods will be devised to meet the new problems. Research will be done under the general guidance of carefully chosen advisory committees. These committees will help to bridge the gap that now exists between the sociologist and the general public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents developments in the rural sociological societies in the U.S. Researcher Negley K. Teeters associate professor of sociology at Temple University made a four month study of the prison systems of several Central and South American countries. Sociologist George Henery Von Tungeln, professor of sociology at Iowa State college was one of the early pioneers in rural sociology. He was closely associated with the expansion of rural sociology in the United States. Professor Carle C. Zimmerman of Harvard University begun giving his regular courses of rural sociology. The annual meeting of the American Country Life Association was held in Chicago, Illinois, in April, 1944 in conjunction with the American Country Life Conference. The Midwest Sociological Society held its annual meeting at the Kirkwood Hotel in Des Moines, Iowa, during April 21-23, 1944. The Southern Sociological Society met in Atlanta, Georgia, March 31 to April 1,1944. Rural Sociologists participated in the program of the Western Farm Economics Association held June 22-29, 1944 at Los Gatos, California.