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.

The article presents information on the December 1, 1975 issue of the periodical "Rural Sociology." This issue of "Rural Sociology" follows the tradition of the December 1965 issue. A cumulative index for the 10 years 1966 through 1975 has been added as a separate supplement. The updating work was guided by earlier efforts of authors Sheldon Lowry and Nancy Hammond. An explication of procedures and contents is contained in the "Guide to Usage" section of the present index. A word is in order here about the regular issue of the journal. All of the papers were invited. The RSS presidential address is, of course, the usual open invitation to comment on whatever the retiring officer sees fit to his or her views and interests. President Harold Capener has examined the organizational context for application of scientific knowledge. His concern is to set out some guidelines to improve the chances of success for applied social sciences like rural sociology. Capener's remarks provide a fitting introduction to the rest of the issue. His observations help to remind the reader of the historical events and organizational handicaps within which the discipline operates. As he notes, that context is not unrelated to performance of tasks by the rural sociologist-the burden of the other three papers.

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.

The paper describes a frame of reference for rural development research with an emphasis on identification and assessment of consequences for people and communities of programs and policies undertaken in the name of rural development. It is suggested that rural development research is not an academic specialty in the traditional sense and that a tendency to regard it as such should be avoided. Development is political and concerned with values, and rural development research must be cognizant of those features. It is contended in the paper chat many of the features of a the prevailing ideology of development have produced outcomes which cannot be regarded as developmental: for example, vulnerability, excessive dependency, social costs associated with an emphasis on efficiency, inequality, excessive centralization of decision-making and control, and so on. Attention is also directed to the nature of knowledge produced by rural sociologists with an emphasis on the need for greater integration of knowledge around major policy and development issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

T. Lynn Smith analysed the rural class structure in America on the basis of 1959 census data. This paper correlates the proportion of lower class population with the prevalence of corporate farming, based upon an analyses of the proposition of total state agricultural production accounted for by the 31,000 largest farms (r = .76%). The implications of these data are that, with progressive expansion of large scale agriculture, the American rural population will develop into what Smith identifies as the two-class system. Note is also taken of some regional variation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article evaluates the productivity of sociologists in extension, teaching, and research. Prior to the evaluation, data were gathered from 111 individuals who work in or with the Extension Service throughout the U.S. and have at least a master's degree in sociology or rural sociology. In measuring the productivity of sociologists in teaching and research positions, American Sociological Review was used as the point of reference. The respondents of the study were then asked to indicate the number of each type of output, which they had produced from 1973 to 1975. Basing on these processes, the author of this article assumed that extension sociologists with the doctoral degrees would have greater exposure to traditional productivity scales than those with terminal master's degrees, due to the length of their academic training. The author concludes that the proposed productivity rating scale cannot be taken or used literally, however, the scales can be used as an evaluation measure for productivity output.

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.

Rural sociology confronts a continuing crisis of identity because of its failure to develop a sociology of agriculture. Historically, despite an initial focus on agriculture, rural sociology became deflected to the analysis of rurality. Recent emphasis of rural sociologists on the "turnaround" phenomenon is symptomatic but fails to deal with the fact that such turnaround represents the penetration of previously rural space by urban-based economic functions, Rural sociology could resolve its problems, as has agricultural economics, by providing ideological justification for land grant productionism or by developing a new constituency for itself. This would probably jeopardize its location in the land-grant system but in all likelihood represents the only way out of a closed and limited paradigm. Several Neo-Populist and Neo-Marxist developments in the sociology of agriculture hold promise for a revised rural sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As rural sociologists, we should be as clear as possible about our basic concepts and objects of study. From GaIpin (1915) on, defining the "rural" has preoccupied rural sociologists. Urban sociology recently faced a similar problem, and political economists reoriented the field by looking beyond the city to the social production of spatial forms. I apply a related critique to rural sociology, which has traditionally seen "rural' as cultural, ecological, or occupational. The two main explanations of rural culture, Germeinschaft and human ecology, are inadequate. The former is not specifically rural, and the latter obscures the structure of social relations. The recent proposal for a strictly rural ecology also fails in consider underlying political-economic determinants. I suggest in conclusion two constituents of rural: "capitalist space' in the form of uneven regional development; and the "mode of primary production" (including the occupational category). which is distinguished by its direct interaction with the natural environment. Rural sociologists have always focused on farming but are now beginning to treat agriculture, the other extractive industries, anti peripheral regions as crucial elements in the capitalist social system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociologists suggest that the substantial decline in public support for environmental protection on the basis of a panel study of Washington State residents may be an artifact of the research design employed. The available evidence does not support the existence of the strong age-environmental concern relationship assumed by sociologists, an assumption central to their emphasis on the effects of maturation. Apparently recognizing that readers might be skeptical that a maturation of only 4 years could account for the reported decline in environmental concern.

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.

Sociologist Charles Perry died earlier this year. Shortly before his death, the chief editor of the journal "Rural Sociology" sent him a letter telling him of the chief editor's decision to accept his manuscript for publication in "Rural Sociology." Although saddened very much by his death, the chief editor was glad to know that he knew his manuscript had been accepted by the journal. He will be eulogized by others, Perry was a first-rate scholar, a first-rate reviewer for the journal, and a first-rate human being. The chief editor will miss him personally and professionally rural sociology was better off because of him and will be poorer due to his absence. The manuscript that are being published in the September 1, 1986 issue of the journal was to have undergone some revision by him prior to publication. Since he could not do this, Forrest A. Deseran, deputy editor of the journal, and Mary C. Hester, the copy editor of the journal, undertook primary responsibility for making the needed changes. The manuscript itself, however, is still a product of Perry's, written, largely, in his own inimitable style.

This article presents information on the annual business meeting of the rural sociology section of the American Sociological Society. The meeting was held at the Commodore Hotel, New York city on 29 December, 1935. In the meeting, Mr. B.L. Hummel, Chairman of rural sociology section of the American Sociological Society, described the problems he had encountered in preparing the program for the rural section. He emphasized the difficulty of obtaining an adequate number of sessions because of the regulations of the general society concerning section meetings. 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 was also agreed upon in the meeting that those who are interested in discussing the promotion of rural sociology research in the experiment stations and those interested in the development of the research program in the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life will meet later at Room A, of the Commodore Hotel for an informal afternoon discussion with Dr. Carl Taylor.

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.

This article presents information on the establishment of the Rural Sociological Society which was founded in response to the conditions which resulted from the economic crisis known as the Great Depression. Rural sociologists have been involved in responding to social conditions created by the rural crisis of the 1980s which shares similarities with the social and economic conditions in rural areas a half-century ago. Rural sociologists have played key roles in the development of rural policy. In addition, rural sociologists have also come to occupy an increasing number of academic and research-administrator positions which have allowed them to affect research, teaching, and extension agendas relative to rural issues.

The current social and economic conditions of agriculture and rural America provide an excellent opportunity for rural sociologists to make significant contributions in research, teaching, and extension. There are, however, forces at work that are challenging the resource base of rural sociology. Rural sociologists need to initiate several actions to expand our program base. We also need to expand our linkages to the general scientific community and to increase communication among members of the Rural Sociological Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Approximately 75 rural sociologists who attended the annual meeting of the American Sociological Society were called into attend the special session conducted by Dr. George von Tungeln, Chairman of the Section on Rural Sociology, to hear the report of a special committee appointed in December, 1936, to consider ways and means of better organization for rural sociologists. The committee suggested certain changes to article VIII, Section 2 amendment of the American Sociological Society. The modified amendment now states that "A section of the society shall be composed of members of the society interested in a common field of sociological specialization, or may consist of an independent society or association devoted to a special field of sociology, a majority of whose members are members of the American Sociological Society. The constitution or by-laws of such an independent association must specify that it is a section of the American Sociological Society. Sections shall meet annually during the time of, and in the same city as the annual meeting of the Society."

The sociologist has for a number of decades been called upon to render practical service in fields of social maladjustment, especially in the fields of crime and poverty, and has for many years conducted researches and written books in the fields of normal social behavior and conditions, but by and large it has been only during the last eight years, beginning with the Hoover Commissions, and greatly increasing during the New Deal, that he has been called upon to render actual counsel and service in studying and guiding large public activity programs. Concerning the criticism and censure of sociology and the sociologist by other social scientists, there are probably two broad generalizations which will cover the situation. In the first place, sociology is always dealing with phenomena, which are also at least partially the phenomena of other social sciences, and sometimes with biological phenomena. The sociologist must therefore expect and should welcome the critical judgment on his work of these other scientists.

The contemporary energy situation raises new problems for rural development which require fresh thinking and perhaps some reorientation by sociologists. Five major frameworks for the sociological analysis of energy - rural development interactions in developing countries are critically evaluated. The frameworks are appraised in terms of their conceptualization of energy and its social significance, and the sociological variables emphasized. It is argued that despite the relative unfamiliarity of energy to many sociologists, an uncritical acceptance of the models. concepts, and assumptions of technological perspectives on energy is unwarranted. Energy reductionism. in particular, is a technological imperative that can have a very significant impact on the characteristics of sociological analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As reflected in rural Sociology textbooks, rural sociologists have typically believed that rural people in general and Farmers in particular, place a much lower value on formal education than do their urban counterparts (Bertrand, 1958:229; Rogers and Bertrand. 1972:152). Most of us have known this fact for so long that we do not remember where we learned it or in what studies this empirical generalization was first set forth. Thus, we argue that the notion of a lower priority among rural people for formal education has become part and parcel of our rural subdisciplinary wisdom. The purpose of this brief note is to question this traditional wisdom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judging from sources such as textbooks and journal indices, there is no such thing as the study of rural ecology. In reality, sociologists have long been studying ecological relationships in rural areas, but the term rural ecology has not been used as an umbrella under which studies in that field are grouped, synthesized, and built upon. The objective here is to propose a synthesis, under a single unifying framework, of some old and new efforts in rural sociology that focus directly on, or have as an important underlying dimension, the human ecology of rural areas. Such a synthesis is not only important in the development of rural sociology as a field of study, but is also basic to the work of increasing numbers of rural sociologists who have recently given emphasis In important areas of research such as agricultural sociology, rural development, and environmental sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article we argue that rural sociologists have, for the most part, pursued perspectives which largely ignore the actor's view of the world. We suspect that this has led to a form of theoretical-empirical myopia influencing what is known and can be known about the empirical world, including the concept "rural." We suggest that rural sociologists at least consider viewing the world as an on-going accomplishment rather than as a take-for-granted facticity. Our thesis is very much akin to Feyerabens's "plea for tolerance in matters epistemological," albeit with a "rural" twist to it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Daniel Patrick Moynihan's thesis that males in low income black families do not adequately meet the economic demand of their nuclear families was examined by investigating the effects of marital and parental status positions on male agriculture workers' earnings. Comparisons of these effects by race were also made to see how the earnings of black male workers compared with the earnings of white male workers. Generally the findings showed that black males earn more if they have a wife and child (or children). The effect of the marital position on earnings was significantly lower for blacks than for whites, however. No difference was found in the case of the parental position. In spite of minor differences by race, we conclude that the findings question Moynihan's thesis, since higher earnings were associated with the black males' family status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interest in community satisfaction as a research topic has been increasing among rural sociologists. Although the concept is promising, it offers a set of conceptual problems which must be addressed prior to application and measurement. The purpose of this article is to offer some suggestions which might place community satisfaction within a useful theoretical framework. Specifically, it is argued that community satisfaction can be profitably viewed as one dimension of the definition of the situation, where satisfaction refers to definitional and community a situational component. The theoretical implications and operational possibilities of such a perspective are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes the work activities of the extension sociologist, the relative advantage and disadvantage of extension roles in relation to teaching or research roles, and the relevance of sociological training and research for extension work. Detailed descriptions of the data base used in this article appear in the studies previously cited. Nevertheless, it is worth repeating that information was solicited from all 50 extension directors in 1975. The respondents were organized in four categories. First, those who received 50 percent or more of their funding from the Extension Service. Second, those who received minor funding from the Extension Service, 49 percent or less, with most funding coming from teaching or research. Third, sociologists in teaching or research who occasionally provided information to, or consulted with, those in extension but received no funding from the Extension Service. Fourth, those who worked extensively with sociological information but with graduate degrees from related disciplines.

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.