The field of research in rural sociology

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The field of research in rural sociology
Physical Description:
Unknown
Creator:
Rural Sociological Society of America
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture
United States -- Bureau of Agricultural Economics
Publisher:
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics ( Washington, D.C. )
Publication Date:

Record Information

Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 028445234
oclc - 20874717
System ID:
AA00017426:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
\. jAI*~


'~C~ k'
I


/

i 'K UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Bureau of Agricultural Economics


THE FIELD OF RESEARCH IN RURAL SOCIOLOGY



Prepared by a

Committee of the Rural Sociological

Society of America

and the

Bureau of Agricultural Economics


JU b tu -. -


Washington, D. C.
October 1938


r^



































Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
University of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries with support from LYRASIS and the Sloan Foundation


http://archive.org/details/ruralsoc00rura














This re: -rt, issued- by the Bureau of --,ricultural 'oiomics, rk presents
an attempt at an appraisal of what rural sc.ciclogy has accomplished in t-e
.st and what it can a:d should mean to a.-riculturc anw rural life in the
.*. reort id its or_-, nt the .iddwe:tern Conrfoercnce en I ovulation
-Frsearch, hcld .u the -nivcrsity of Missouri in I'ay 1_. "7 At that tiic),
Carl C. .>ylor, Chairmfn of the Cono'eruroe, appointed a ccnariittce ccnristing
" C Lively fi Ohio `-to U'-ivorsity, Chairman, ILvight Sandcrson cf
rnomll University, _nd L-vrry '. son of the niversit- of .inimensta, to form-
ulate a r:.- ort on the outstau1diii- ;ntributions of rural so Aicl cical research
in the }..t a-Ad us i-wcid and c:mpre1Iensivc a state.:ent as possible ef the most
fr .tf'.l areas of research for tha future.

+... result. report ias pr-scnte! for discsion at the annual meeting
o0I thIe u1-ol a oE-iolrg, S0,ecticn of t mri n Soci*lc ical So ciety on Decem-
ber "'2, i..7. It was the belief of t-:e rural sccioloijists '-rec:ent that th3
committee should be continued an the rs.crt prepared for publicatiion in the
liC..t of the s '-, slions made at th-at time, and after further discrssicn am -.,:
the members of the c.mTittee. Ih. -itee nt in 'shing2ton, D. ,
'r. Taylor taking the place of Dr. Kielson who :as in ipe, and this publica-
tion is the composite result of their vork.

_.e major purpose cf this report iz to point nut ere rural ocly
ray make r contributi-n to the practical rblens of agriculture and rural
life, t the sar.e tir. ai Lr.n its scientific int,-.-ity and purpose. It
attc-.nts to a.r ise the enti re scope and >r,-.se of rural 1 sociology as a
science and as a method to i`'.rove rural life.

r-rt f.'-. contains a formal definition ef the subject and a delimitation
of the field as outlined l, th, committoc. In a-rts Two anu Thirec, reset rroh
of -.,': last 25 years and current research arc reviewed, part Tvr1 was written
chiefly by D:i,- .t Sanderscn and 7-.rt Three by Carl C. r.ylcr. .rt cur by
C. Livly looks torxrd the future, stating what may be xpectod cf ri; pcarch
in rural sociclogy in the light of 1hat has thus far bocn accomplish i.Liic
tho several .'-ts of the r:pocrt w,-r coach prin:arily the responsibiliiy Cf crne
of t' coritteu i'embers, t e entire report was thoroughly discussed !: them
as a group and re'.rescnts a joint product.
















itrt "".... TIE F.I. OF RT1`.'L S'CiTOLOGY


.Intr-due ti on


2ur.rl Sociol.:y is one of the most recent additions to the sciences
engacged in research for agriculture. The primary aim cf rural sociolr:" is the
ir:-.rovc.'r.t of the social conditions of the people on the land. It originated
as a disci1lin-- in teaching and research lcss than 25 years ago as a part of
the general impulse to ir:Arcve American agriculture, technologically, econom-
ically, a.id socially.

cTen years after the Country Life Commission had made its study and re-
ported to 'resident Theodore Roosevelt, the Honorable David F. Houston, then
Secretary of A'iriculture, appointed a committee nf representative rural leaders
to adviseJc him on the scope of "Farm Life Studies." This committee made its re-
port in June 1919. It stated that "the grov.'th of national vrwealth makes possible
the improvement of the conditions of life in the farm houses and rural con-
r-uritics as well as in tovnis and cities," and submitted a list of topics "as an
outline of the subjects which should be studied vith the viev to facilitating
advancement in the life of American farmers and their families." *

The most direct result of the Committee's report was the establishlaent
of the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life in the Burcau of Agricultural
Economics of the United States P'xpartmont of Agriculture. As both direct and
indirect results of the Com-ittee's report, studies in practically all of the
fields listed by the Committee have been carric d on by State Agricultural
_:.':.rimcnt Stations, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and a number of other
agencies and institutions.

7.he first department of rural sociolcg,,, to be established separately
fro.-:. agricultural economics or general sociolo.y at a Land Grant College was
called a '-partment of Rural Social Organization. This department was es-
tablished at ::w York State College of Agriculture, Cornell 'r.iversity, in
1915. 'The name of the -depa.rtnr.cnt was representative of the field of research
aid study as seen by those who were interested in improving farm life and who
believed that -rrarizr.tion was the touchstone to tr.t improvement, but who felt
that rural people were not at that time acquainted with tho new science of
sociology '.hich was still mostly or largely a theoretic, academic discipline.

?c cause it was the impulse for the I Lr:,vt:-,, of rural life that gave
rise to research work in the field of rural sociology in agricultural colleges
anr.d in the U. S. tc-p.artmont of A.-riculture, a wide range of such issues as the


* .rpcrt .f co:i4ttee apTointed by the S',.crctary of Agriculture to consider
the sub-iect !f F.rm Life Studies as one of the Divisions of research work of the
rrcp-cs-`. 5-re,.u of ;,C, za -.acmemnt and Farm, Economics. Circ. 139, 'fiicc of the
Secretary, 7:. S. rcpt. gr., June 1919.








-2 -


improvement of health Ponditions, library service, rural schools, and similar
matters of importance in the ii'.prcvcrrcnt of farm life, whether strictly within
the realms of sociology or not, have been subjects for research. Iow, however,
sociology has developed better methods of research, and the scope of its
activity as one of the agricultural sciences has become more clearly defined.
The old field of "agriculture" was split up and is now represented by the
special sciences of soils, agronomy, farm management, etc. In like manner,
rural sociology has come to be recognized as a specialized science, dealing
with a body of knowledge and a method of research that makes it a uiost important
discipline for studying the human problems of agriculture.

In a way, all science is one, for science is but a method. Different
sciences establish themselves in fields of research on the basis of different
methods of analysis and on the basis of the phenomena with w-hich they deal.
It is the purpose of this report, among other things, to set forth the primary
phenomena which rural sociology studies.

Sociology is the description of the forms of human association, the
factors influencing the origin, development, structure, and functioning of these
various forms, and of their cultural products. Rural sociology is the study of
these forms of association in the rural environment, and describes their
differences from and relations, to those of towns and cities. By "forms of
association" are meant all describable types of human association, whether they
be institutions, co0.nunity or neighborhood organizations, cultural patterns, or
trade or class organizations. .By "the origin, development, and functioning of
these forms" are meant the conditions under which, and the processes by which,
different forms of human association have coie into existence, tend to maintain
their existence, and function in relation to their own life processes and the
environment in which they exist.

Other sciences study these phenomena, but with different objectives in
view and sometimes by different methods from those used by sociology. For
example, economics studies such forms of human association as corporations,
trade unions, and cooperative societies, but is interested in them primarily
from the standpoint of their efficiency as means of production and the exchange
of wealth. Sociology studies them with regard to the differences in their
structure and function and with regard to the processes that account for their
origin, maintenance, and change, and their effect on the whole life of the
people who constitute their monrbeors. Because the habits, customs, traditions,
and attitudes of the members are important to the effectivoloperation of
economic organization, sociology makes a practical contribution-to the analysis
of situations that are often thought of as purely economic.

Similarly, the land economist or soil specialist studies the relation-
ships of the people and their institutions to land use adjustment and soil con-
servation primarily from the viewpoint of right land uses and best adapted
agricultural practices. The sociologist studies these same situations in terms
-f the cultural history, the standards of living, and the institutions of the
people living withinn the areas being analyzed. Both types of analysis are
necessary for deterrini:-L_ what adjustr.ents shall be undertaken.









-3 -


In like manner, the science of hone economics has recently 1-r'-.donod its
field :*f interest to include all phases of family life. It is therefore in-
terested in the sociolc.-y and T ych.loi.y of family relationships, as related tn
the physical and biological factors necessary for satisf' c-tory hone life. It
vill makec use of the sociological method in the study of tho frn ily as an in-
stitution and of family relationships fr'";. the standpoint of the ir.tor-sts of
the family. Sociol.yy also deals with the fr-.ily as the primary fcrnr of human
association and endeavors to sh-w how it is influenced by other grou.z and
organiz-.tions, and other factors in the social -.ix.vironmcnt, and how they in turn
are tffeeted 'y the types of fa-.ilies or changes in the family as an institution.
F.th disciplines deal with the sane subject .atter, but in different francs of
reference. They are co.plccrntary and only through both methods of analysis can
the total reality be revealed.

-:;e of the interesting features of the relation of the sciences is that
the phen:;.7:CaQ thr.t arc of conmon interest to related sciences, the "border-lands
of science," are often the most fruitful fields for research. This is well
illustrated in the recent cooperation of economists and sociologists in the
study of the problems of land use and resettlement, in which knowledge of the
quality and uses of the land, the kind of people inhabiting it, their social
ties and social characteristics, is necessary for the development of a sound
prcgrl-i cf orcccrdur..

Rural sociology is but one of the sciences by which we are attempting to
build an adequate and satisfying rural civilization. It uses the scientific
method for studyinC the ways in which rural people associate, with the con-
viction that thr. ud'h the application of the methods of science which have in-
proved their material conditions, imen nay be able to improve their relations to
each other, for it is in these relations, whether they be of competition or
ccs per.aton, of co.ulict or fellowship, that they find their deepest satis-
facticns.

Areas of Research Frhasis

The field of rural sociol'-ry does not consist neroly of the application
of the categories of ,-rcneral sociology to rural life. ikatior it arises as an
attempt to solve certain social problems of rural society. Rural sociology
must make a ccntributicr. both to the solving of rural social problems and to
thn acciu.ulc.tion of a body of scientific knowledge in harmony with the tenets
cf general sociology. Consequently, with the practical problems of agri-
cultural E-..justment and rural-life improvement on the one hand and the cate-
gorics a.! concepts of theoretical sociology on the other, it may not al'.'ays
bs clear rrecisoly where and in what marne.r rural sociological research can be
r.odr.jtrd to bst advanrtaQe. To harmonize this apparent discrepancy is one of
the tasks of this report.

The problem of the proper research r-:rh; sis in rural sociology raises at
once +hc entire question concerning the scope and purpose of the subject itself.
This rrp rrt sh-ul.d assist in answering this question. In Part One, formal









-4-


definition of the subject and delimitation of the field are presented. In
Parts Two and Three, a review oe past and current research is offered for the
purpose of appraising the work of the last 25 years and formulating some judg-
ment of its significance. Part Four expresses judgments on the directions that
rural social research should take in the immediate future. Scarcely anyone who
reads this summary will be likely to escape the conviction that rural sociology
is on its way.

Any list of projects or titles, such as those reviewed in Parts Two and
Three, may be organized in various ways, depending upon the conception of the
content of the subject and the general categories held in mind by the individual.
It has been necessary, therefore, for the Committee in Charge of this report to
posit a group of categories that may be regarded as covering the field of rural
sociology. The Committee does not claim theoretical perfection for this outline.
Rather it is believed that it represents a good compromise between academic and
practical considerations. On the one hand, it will serve to organize completed
work and that which is now in progress. On the other hand, it will provide a
basis for classifying future projects and for planning research emphasis. In
addition, it should prove helpful to agricultural extension workers by assist-
ing them to develop a more adequate conception of the content of Extension work
in rural sociology. The following outline of major categories is, therefore,
proposed and their major subdivisions are indicated. *


An Outline of the Fiold of Rural Sociology

I. Population
A. Numbers, distribution, changes, predictions
B. Composition and characteristics
C. Vital characteristics
D. mobility

II. Social Organization or Social Structure
A. The spatial pattern of rural society
1. The community
2. The village
3. The neighborhood
B. Rural Groups
1. The family and other primary groups
2. Special interest groups
3. Class groups, including farmers' organizations
4. Ethnic groups
C. Institutions and Service Agencies
1. The school
2. The church
3. The library
4. Health agencies


* For more detailed discussion of the categories, see Section IV, pp. 28-29.










-5-


5. Rjcreotional and r.-.octional agencies
C. A-ricultural extension
7. 7conoir.ic institutions
8. Gover'.o::trl and j.-litical institutions
9. 1 cl -.re agencies
D. Social Stratus
1. ,tarl..rd -f living
2. Tenancy
3. Farnn labor
4. T7":c youth problem
Social Participation -xtcr.t to which individur.ls and families
participate in the common life of the
community and of society at hrJe.

III. Social Fsycholc',-y
A. Attitudes and opinions
B. Leadership .
C. 'a s ..S r~y
D. Personality and socialization
I.s+tit'ticr;t.alization

IV. Social Ecol-;-y
A. The social geography of rural life
B. Regions ard subrcEions
C. Social correlates of land occLmanoy

V. Anthr:r:.,_-.cal .srects
..0 F',:lk culture
B. Culture history

VI. .Social Change
A. C-.ar-rrs in social orgarnization
B. Factors influencing change
C. Processes involved in chan, e
D. Social trends or direction of chanc-
SPlaxncd social change such as conununity organization,
area plarJ-.i.g, etc.

'211. Social Pathology
A. Poverty. and de-rrnIcncy
?. 3D l:-.q-er.y
C. Social and personal disorra-rizetion
-. Rural slus
-. Si:-! rehabilitation









" 6 -


Part Two WTTAT HAS RESEARCH IN RURAL SOCIOLOGY ACCOMPLISHED?


Research in rural sociology conducted under the auspices of public re-
search institutions has come of age. It is 22 years since the first research
bulletin (1) in this field was published by an agricultural experiment station,
which was 7 years after the first textbook (2) on rural sociology was published.
It is fitting, therefore, that, as this work-enters its young adulthood, it
should survey what it has learned in its childhood and adolescence and what a
record of its past behavior may indicate as to the promise for its future use-
fulness to the world as it becomes more mature. *

.'hat, then, are some of the more important contributions it has made to
a scientific knowledge of rural society and what is their practical significance
in showing means for rural improvement? In the main, the answers to this query
are based chiefly, but not exclusively, on the research of the Federal Department
of Agriculture and the State agricultural experiment stations, as they have been
the agencies responsible for most of it. Io attempt has been made to give a com-
plete picture of research in rural sociology, but rather to call attention to the
more significant categories and outstanding pieces of research. For this reason,
some of the categories given in Part One (pp. 4-5) are not mentioned, either be-
cause no research work has been done on these topics, or because it has been of
minor importance; and many worthy researches are not included, because a complete
catalog is impracticable.

I. Population. One major field of research in which rural sociologists
have done pioneer work is the study of the composition of rural society the
number and characteristics of the different classes of the rural population as
revealed by Federal and State censuses. Not until 1920 did the Federal Census
enumerate and publish the farm population separately from the rural nonfarm
population by counties. By the special tabulation of unpublished census data.
Galpin and Larson (40) did a pioneer work in making a rather complete tabulation
of the characteristics of the farm population of eight representative counties,
and showed what might be done in the analysis of the census data of the rural
population as regards its more important characteristics.

Beginning with an analysis of the distribution, composition, and
changes in rural population in -ce: York State by Melvin (41), similar studies
have followed for 10 States (42-52), each of them giving information with re-
gard to the growth or decline of different types of rural population, age and
sex distribution, marital status, etc., which are of fundamental importance to


* Two similar reports were written in 1928 "Rural Sociological Research in the
United States," by C. J. Galpin, J. H. Kolb, Dwight Sanderson, and Carl C.
Taylor, and "Rural Sociological Adult Education in the United States," by C. J.
Galpin, C. E. Lively, B. L. Hummel, and C. C. Zimmerman, both prepared under the
direction of the Advisory Committee on Social and Economic Research in Agricul-
ture, of the Social Science Research Council.









- 7-


a d-.inistrc.tive c fficcrs of all kincL. in F1r.rjing national, State, county, and
local prcgr-:.i of work. For the -rtion as a whole, the outstn-iia-. work of
W. S. Thr...pson .r. 0. E. Pal:r in the analysis of population trends and the
sc'ci:,l i-.lications of differences of asc and sex composition of rural and
urban population, had its origin and motivation in the work of the former in
rural sociol-?y and of the latter in the study of the o" -;o ..f aeri-
culture. Tc-:-.-son and his colleague P. K. V.,LC:lpton (53) have become leading
aulthcrities on the future trend of population, .rL.dlc:Eng a. static population
in the near future with all of its soci:l 1 and economic consequences, and they
an-d ?.k:r 'L:.ve shovm the icpenccnce of cities upon the countryside for re-
rl-cr -.i:i-g their population and the debt -.:hich cities owe to the country for
the nurture and education of an excess of farm children which makes this
pcEsible.

The cxtcnt of migration, to and fro, between a'.rms and towns and
cities is of considerable importance in determining current trends in rural
life. Long-tir.e trends may be determined by the decennial Federal censuses,
cut 'ctw.ce!% census years the annual estimates made by the Bureau of Agricultural
Economics are the onl,- source of information, and have been wTidely quoted and
used for various purposes. ".ailton (56) has studied the rural-urban migration
in "crth -arolina for the past decade. The streams of migration of rural pop-
ulation from one State to another in succeedii.r decades have been mapped by
calr- ir: and cnr.ny (54), and have been analyzed for 'lev York by Anderson (55) and
for :.orth Carolina 'by Hamilton (56) with results that have attracted public
interest.

Actual mobility of the rural p.rulation cannot be determined from
census data and is of considerable importance as affecting the support of rural
institutions -.r-.- the strength of social control of local groups. In Ohio,
Lively (57) .-rdu (in ly28) a field survey of the movement of open-country fam-
ilies in four counties representative of different arocs of Ohio, 'i.hich was re-
peated in 1955 (58). Other studies of mobility and migration have been made in
several States (E9--4). Through the Federal E:,ergcic. Relief Administration,
and later the Bureau of .ricultural Lconomics, Resettlement Administration,
and ,c.rk:- Prcgr,_ss Administration, Lively and Taeuber have stimulated similar
studies in other States, u..hich will have particular importance in sh-v.'i'ng the
effect of the depression on mobility.

Th-:ze anr-lyses of rural population by rural sociologists have been
bL.sic data for the new State and national planning boards and have been widely
used by them; in'de.d, in some cases they have been the moans of inaugurating
such studies (43). In brief, it is safe to say that our kn:,'wledgo of the
charac-.eristics-and trends of the rural population for particular States and
c.u-.ties has come chiefly from the work of the rural sociologists in analyzing
ar.d interpretin- the data of the Federal censuses.

II. Social Orga.i.ization, or Social Structure. Studios of population re-
veal the human c?'r-,. sition of rural society, but tihe nature of its social or-
.rrnization, of the interrelations of various groups and institutions to Vwhich
rural people belcnr, has 're.r. the chief area cf research in rur 1 sociology.









- 8-


A. The Spatial Pattern of Rural Society.

First in order of time, and probably in significance, arc the re-
search studies on what may be termed the spatial pattern of rural society, its
gross structure as related to spatial arrangement.

1. The community. First and most important was the pioneer study
of C. J. Galpin (TT, wh1os7hed the interdependence of the village and its
tributary territory in a relationship that has come to be knoym as the rural
community. Galpin invented a method of delimiting community areas, which has
been improved, and the nature of the relationships involved have been revealed
by quantitative measurements in the studies of Kolb (3) in WVisconsin, Sanderson
(4-6) in New York, Li.rrgan (7) in Missouri, Brunner (8;9) in his studies of
villages throughout the United States, and their assistants and collaborators.
The concept of the rural community, which was fully analyzed in its historical
and comparative aspects by Sandorson (10), has been and is being increasingly
accepted by the general public. As a result, the thinking as to social ob-
jectives has hcen changed from the individualistic emphasis that characterized
the pioneer heritage to a feeling of responsibility for maintaining community
institutions and services that are essential for the common welfare. Thus, the
organization of consolidated rural school districts and the function and pro-
gram of the school in relation to the community, the community relations and
objectives of the church, the local units of farm organizations, and the pos-
sibility of more functional units of local government, have all been vitally
affected by the results of these studies which have revealed the nature,
structure, and relationships of the rural community.

2. The village. These studies showed that the village is the
central nucleus of the rural community, and have incited research as to the
social phenomena characteristic of the village in contrast to those of the open
country. The role of the village in rural life has been the subject of exten-
sive surveys of a sample of some 140 villages throughout the United States made
by E. deS. Brunner and his collaborators (12-13), which have been twice re-
peated at 6-year intervals (1224, 1930, 1936)*, and thus furnish the best body
of knowledge concerning the changes in rural life in the last two decades.
They have clearly shown an increasing tendency for rural society to center its
institutions and activities in the villages, and that the larger villages are
holding their position even though suffering in some respects from city compe-
tition. Other studies of the service agencies characteristic of villages of
different size by Jolvin (14), of service relations by Kolb (137), and of the
changes in distribution and-population of villages by Zimerreman(15), Lively
(16), Landis (17-18), and T. Lynn Smith (19) have given a comprehensive picture
ofthe place of the village throughout particular States, A study by Oyler
(136) in Kentucky dealt with both community and neighborhood groupings as they
evolved in a given county.


* See also references 8 and 9.









- 9 -


These studies have given a basic knowledge of the gross
structure of rural society in its g&.orraphical relationships, but the g-.graph-
ic.al relationships o:' all rh,ses of the social structure are also studied from
the ecocl'gical -.int C- viewv, as mentioned below under IV, Social Ecol'cy.

3. .The ..- iib:.'rh_.,I. Incidental to his study of the rural com-
munity, Dr. Ga.iL. cz.ca..c -.f the significance of the rural noig,1.borhood
and i:.sti-ated a series of studios Ly Kolb (3), Sanderson and Thompson (4-6),
l.-rg--n (7), and others, which have brought out the structure and functio- of
the rura-neli .borhood and the tendency for it to decline in importance as the
rural community becomes better integrated. Important data on rural neiA.c.r-
hc.-ds have also been contributed by Brunner (8-9) and his colleagues in their
stucics of villarc areas. But oily a little intensive study has been given to
rural neig':b r-': -s in those areas of the South vrhere they are still more im-
portant as units of social crgaf..i.ation.

P. -ral (---ups.

Within :'.c spatial pattern of rural society there are numerous
.grups. The description of these groups, h1ir relationships and behavior, is
the distinctive function of sociology.

1. T,.c f.r'ilv and other primary groups. As the family is the
primary group, its pr::ler. r..ve irnit.d. ro-5.-arch as to its standards of living
and as to family relationships. Research on the family's standard of living is
discussed belrw.

The increasing number of divorces in cities and the changing
attitudes toward f _ily relationships have incited research as to wv.t factors
produce stability and satisfaction in the farm family. A good beginning in
developing methods of research in this field has been made by the studies of
1.r.-rson and Foster (83j), r:urrvi (84), Beers (85), Kir:.trick (77 and 86),
and Loomis (?), but ..uh remains to be done in perfecting techniques be crc an
adequate bcd', of data can be -cthered from which generalizations can be made,
alth-rg., these studies have already produced important hypotheses that challenge'
further research. The facts so far obtained have been eagerly used by those en-
gCagc in parent education and child guidance, by ed1ucators, social workers, and
the rural clergy.

2. Sp. -cia. in.-reit grc-'-s. I.rdern rural soci i.y is characterized
by an incrcasir.r :.._r :r vlur.'' r-, .:.ecial interest groups, such as parent-
teacher associations, fr'--crnal ort".nirations, clubs of various sorts literary,
rusical, athletic. The number and -varic.-. of these groups, their relationships
to each other, their leadership, .d the f.ctcrs influcncirii! their oric.__.,
grcv't., dcCline, and dca-h have 1'-r. studied Trv Kolb arnd Filedon (95) in
:'-sconsin, Th.re have beon too few intensive studies of particular kinds of
r-.ran i.ations common in rural life, but outstr.r.ing examples of their practical
rt% ;e (97), and Lnsr (98) or.
value are sh-,wn by the vwcr: of i:.rris (96), ruthie (97), and Lindstrom (9) on
S Club .









- 10 -


3. Class groups, including farmers' organizations. The dis-
tinctive farmers' organizations such as the Grange, the F.r-' Pureau, farmers'
clubs, and cooperative asscciatiGn8 have also received t-oo little investiga-
tionr. Manny made a study of the Farm Bureau in Ohio (99) and of cooperative
marketing associations in th3 South, and "etreau (100)lstudied the Farm Bureau
in California, and revealed social factors affecting its success or failure.
Willson (101) has also studied the role of farmers' clubs in North Dakota.
These few -studies have indicated that sociological analysis of the organiza-
tional setup, membership relations, leadership and social role of these farmers'
organizations may contribute knowledge for their improvci,,enrt.

4. Ethnic groups. Rural sociologists have given little study to
ethnic groups. Brunmer (27) has investigated a number of imnmigrant communities
and recently Johanson (29-has reported on immigrants and their families in
South Dakota. Various studies of social organization deal with them incidentally

C. Institutions and Service Agencies.

In addition to the various organizations and groups in rural
society, there are such institutions as the school, the church, and the library,
and such services as those of health and recreational agencies, which play im-
portant parts in itz life.

1. The school. Although with the rapid development of rural high
schools in the last quarter century the school has rapidly come to occupy a
central place in rural life, there has been relatively little research concern-
ing it by rural sociologists, possibly because so much has been done by students
of rural education. Hayes (115-116) made important studies of the community
relationships of the consolidated school in the Middle Wost and South, Kolb
(105) has studied the rural high school, and Kumlien (117) has described its
influence in South Dakota.

2. The church. The church is the most important voluntary in-
stitution in rural society. The studies conducted by the late Warren H. Wilson,
first of the role of the church in a rural community (88), and followed by
numerous surveys of rural churches in various areas (87, led to the compre-
hensive surveys conducted by the Interchurch World Movement in 1920 (90), and
by the Institute of Social and Religious Research during the next decade. Im-
portant studies of the rural church have been made in Virginia by Hamilton and
Garnett (91), in Ilissouri by Sneed and Ensminger (92), in New York by Mather
(93), and in.South Dakota by Kumlien (94). These studies have produced-infor-
mation concerning the factors that aff-ct the success of the rural church and
have had a profound influence on the policies of Oencmirinational administrators
and of both clerryandI laity in redirecting the organization and program of local
churches.

3. The library. The need for more public libraries for rural
people led to surveys of the rural-library facilities in Missouri (118), Mon-
tana (119), New York (120), and South Dakota (121-122), and for the United
States by Nason (123).1








- 11


4. -L.+ agcncics. tu 'ies of-the availability and cost of
medical l care have .:; :.,'c in hiio Lively and :. ck (102), in Ic.: York by
San.dcrson (IC0), and in South :J]::a by :Kumlicn (104), anrY("of hospital facili-
ties by KoIb(lI') in isconsin. Those *:x-l oratory studies did much to reveal
the needs for better rural health services and stimrulated more extensive studies
- the problems involved by public health services and private agencies.

5. Recreational and avocational agencies. The growi-".; interest
ir. better recreation facilities in rural areas led to zurvys of recreational
facilities by Lively (107) in Ohio, ::7rg_.n (108) in Missouri, Frryser (109)
in South :arolina, and Gardner (110) in W'est Virginia, and '"hottcn (11i37-n
-'r.octicut, and of community houses and their organization by i-:-on--l),
a0--: others.

6. Economic institutions. The study of econoi..ic institutions has
been left mostly to t-;. cccn':izts, but they have a sociological aspect that
is not usually considered by the economists. Two examples of research in this
-ield are c".ny's studies of cooperative marketing associations for potatoes
(147) and for cotton (148), and the report on rural factory industries (149)
L _._. V-r.' ,oi .

D. Social 'at-us.

Cnc of the chief factors affecting community -.rga-.ization rand the
v'"..-le pattern of rural society is that of social and economic status. One of
the best iu.dices of status is the standard of living.

1. St-.:.:'ard of living. Prior to the first study of Kirkpatrick
(65) "r:.-ctically nothing was knovm concerning the standard of living of farm
f'-.ilies in this country, and our present knowledge of this subject has come
r.iefly from. the work of rural sociologists, Zimmerman (66-69), Lively (70),
Anderson (71-.), :.irkpatrick (74-78), and others, although recently much has
been done ". .'-.. economists. *'uch of the analysis of the standards of living
Iy s-rcil- ject has been to discover the cultural -..ttcrn of different classes of fam-
ilies the relation of the non-material to the material goods in the standard
of life :-' the farm family. T-ow the st.<. .ard of living and relationships of
t'. family characterize distinct culture patterns has boon clearly brought out
by Zimnnerman and Fr'..pton (79) by contrasting the culture of the '".rk mountain-
eers with that of New 7 .ela-nd mill villagers, and by Nelson (8C- -.) for the
Mormon culture in Utah.

T'..i whole movement has resulted in a new r: ; reciation of the
:r.e.s f the farm fr.:.i~y and in redirecting the interest of the farmer toward
-ssi:- the i:.- rr'-.'-.'-.t of the farn business as a means to better family livi'.g
rather than as an end in itself.

2. Tc:.cay. The economic .--.cts of tenancy have been exten-
sively st. X i% e by t%. economists, but too little has been done to show the
effr. t of tenar.cy on the family, rural institutions, and community life.








- 12 -


Von Tungein, KIirkp:..trick, Hoffoer, and Thaden (153) studied the social aspects
of farm tenancy in Iowa in 1920. Taylor and Zi;hcrman (152) and Branson and
Dickey (154) made pioneer stvdics of the social aspects of tenancy in -.crth
Carolina; VWoofter (157) has recently investigated tenancy as related to the
plantation system of the South; and Vance (158) has shown the place and
effect of tenancy in cotton culture. Altho ughthere are numerous comparisons
of owners and tenants with regard to various socio.l rhcnoinrna, there has been
no general study of the social effects of tenancy in the Middle TTest.

3. Farm labor. The social position of farm laborers has been
practically neglected by rural sociologists and only recently has a Lerinning
been made in studying the problems of migratory labor on the Pacific Coast.
These studies were instigated by relief agencies. A report has been made by
Landis (160) for 1'ashinrgton, and several reports have been made on the sit-
uation in California. Paul Taylor has made sor.me valuable studies of Mexican
farm laborers in the Southwest as well as of migratory farm laborers.

4. The youth problem. On account of the increased number of
older youth in rural communities resulting from the decreased migration to
cities during the recent depression, there has been a demand for information
as to what can be done to nake life more satisfying for them. Studies of the
activities and interests of rural youth have been made by Morgan (108) in
'issouri, Thurow (124), Andersen and Kerns (125) in 1e.c York, and DeTnis (127)
in Pennsylvania. Those have proved of practical value to extension workers,
high-school teachers, and various organizations concerned with youth problems.

E. Social Participation. Extent to which individuals and
families participate in the cormon life of the cormnunity
and of society at large.

The ultimate object of all social research is the improvement of
human relationships and individual personalities. Sociological research has
shown that individuals who do not have a normal amou.nt of contacts with ;tbers
in groups tend to be self-centered, dwarfed personalities, who impede social
progress. How the individual may be socialized through group contacts is a
basic objective of sociological research. An important aspect of the study r'f
group relations has, therefore, been that of determining the amount of par-
ticipation of families c.nd individuals in various Groups, the factors affect-
ing their participation, and the consequence to then and to society. Im portant
contributions to the measurement and interpretation of social participation
have been made by Hawthorn (129), Hypes (lO),'Fry (131), Burt (132), Geddes
(133), Kirkpatrick (77 and 876-7 Lindstrcm-T34), and ot-hers (135.7 They all
go to show that individuals, families, and coi,.zunities which have a low index
of participation in organized groups are baclsward and retard social progress,
so that determining the index of social participation is a basic factor in the
diagnosis of any social situation, and in determining how it may be improved.

III. Social Psychology. Although much has been done on the. structure.
of rural society, we have had but little research on its dynamic aspect, on the
social psychology of rural behavior, of how various groups, institutions, and











fjrms :.f association behlve and ,why th:y do so. The works of 1.illiams, cited
below, v:wrc rionecr studies -in this field. A mere be:.irn.in has been trade in
thi study cf' rural leadership (17S), and the sa:,c is true of faniers' atti-
tudes (179-181). Until more isTn'vm,-n of what motivates and controls the be-
..avior of rural society, rural sociology will have a limited function in
attCO:..pto to meet the m.--.y practical _r-)blemas of rural social orgr.niz-ati.-r.,
regardless of the contribution it nay :.akc to a better insi-t. into social
relationships.

IV. Social lc'-1 :-y- In addition to the spatial aspects of the gross
patterrn of rural -ccicty 1,ee II, A, above), the social organization of rural
life -.ay. be studied with rcgcrd to the relationship of geographic, cli:rtic,
and other fr.ctors of the hyhsical environment, such as soils, and vegetation,
whichh is known as social ecology. Just as the agronomist maps agricultural
(or crop) areas and soil areas, so the sociologist studies cultural regions,
areas, or sections.

.:ota.ble example of descriptions of social characteristics of
rcci:-.s are those of Manny, Garnett, and Hocker (22) of the Southern Appala-
chian =.ig:-lJnds, of -c'.: and Forster (23), of Wakeley and Loscy in Iovwa (25),
and of :'u and his collaborators for -Me South (31). These studies have in-
dicated the social problems that are characteristT-c of whole regions and the
L.ctors wit;. thich they are associated and which must be dealt with by any
practicable plan for J-.pr:vei.ent. Hypes (39) and his collaborators have done
pioneer work in studying t}' rel-tion of soil types to settlement and cultural
Vor .*-thr.!',:- cn A *

V. ..r.tr.r-lgil As-ects. Rural sociolc'ists have not, as yet,
given much attention specifically to folk culture and culture history, althou},.
these aspects are -iven consideration in many of the studies in social .r n-
ization r-.-.'iously cited. '.'.rlcs S. Joison's study of ,c -ro culture in his
"The -.adow of the Plantation" (26) is one of the best excmplcs of this typ., of
research. Tru_'2-cr usc-' this r..t'. in a study of colonies of forei n-born
fanr:Lers in this cou:.try (27), a:.:. the studies of J. :;. TPilliams (175-177) of
fa.rm life in central .: York illustrate its value. ',clson studied the origin
of the v'rmon village fromn this standpoint (28), and recently Johansen has
studied the __-irgrant nationalities of South Dakota (29). ".';rren H. YTilson's
"!'r. "'1_1 (=P) is larg-ly a study of culture history.

VI. Social Th.ar'w. If rural sociology is to have predictive value,
it must stuc, ti.c processes of social change that have occurred in the 7rc-t
and those that are occurring today.

A. CO:a.4-es in Social Crjar-1zation.

The repeat+-. studies of Or:,i-ge Tvrnship, Blackhawk County,
Ic/a, made by Von 'urj-'in (171-172) and his associates, and the study of rural
c'-T:.unitics and neigborho*':-: i: '.'alviorth County, '-isconsin, by Kolb and
Pclscn (170) have given important data on c-hanuc in rural cc:..itions in the
[iddl! '.st. TrIe, first resrcarch on rural social cl.ar.nc made in this country


- 13 -








-14,


was reported in Williams' American Town (175), which has recently been brought
up to date by I ather, Tovmsend, .and Sanderson (168). A considerable volum- of
data on social change may be found as an incidental- product of various studies
of social organization. More synthetic generalization of such data on social
change, of the sort made by J. M. Williams in his Our Rural Heritage (176) and
The Expansion of Rural Life (177), is desirable.

B. Factors Influencing Change.

Practically no research has been given to specific factors
affecting social change, although the influence of automobiles, hard roads,
telephones, and migration is given definite consideration in many of the
studies cited .bove, and particularly in those of Williams.,

C. Processes Involved in Changeo.

Definite processes of social change arise through the effects
of specific factors as, for example, industrialization and urbarnization. An
important contribution to the effect of industrialization on social change in
a rural county is the study of Allred (169) in Sullivc.n County, Tennessee.

Particularly in the industrialized areas of the northeastern
States, there has been a movement of people from cities to the nearby open
country that has introduced a now element into rural society in areas easily
accessible to towns and cities by automobile. The social consequences of this
new movement have been studied by Whotten and Doveroeu: (20) in Connecticut,
and by Tate (21) in New York. The reports reveal an inttr-lngli g of rural
and urban int-rosts which will doubtless increase in the future.

D. Social Trends or Direction of Change.

When social changes pursue a consistent or uniform direction,
we describe them as social trends. The recent report of the President.'s CoM.-
Mittee on Social Trends is an outstanding example of investigation in this
field. The volume on Rural Sbocial Trends by Drunner and Kolb (12) was par-
ticularly significant, as the authors were able to compare the social surveys
of villages and counties made at an interval of 6 to 10 years, and this com-
parison has since been carried further by a study in 1936 of the changes which
have occurred during the depression in the same sample of villages and reported
by Brunner and Lorge (13). These comparisons have clearly indicated the im-
portance of repeating s-ch studies at stated intervals. Many of the studies
cited under Population deal viith social trends i.n the composition and distri-
bution of population.

E. Planned Social Change Such as comAunity organization and
area planning.

Social planning is becoming popular and indicates a growing
belief in the possibility of effecting social change through planning. Before
the idea of social planning had been derived from the ideas of city and regional








- 15 -


pl:.:.ii:--, sccioleoists had b-,Fun research on community organizationon, as a
:.cr...S of effectinr plarncd social chanrLc.

Out of the study of tn rural community and of the many groups,
institutions, and interests competing for public support within it, has come
the desire for their better integration for advancing the common welfare and
the concept of community or.-arni.ation, or a study of how desirable social
chances in the rural community may be affected. Methods of community organ-
ization have been studied by Kolb (137) in Wisconsin, 'by Hummel (138) and Burt
(15-140) in [issouri, by Ira:-.c (141-142) and Rapking (143) in 'est-Virginia,
by Garritt (1,14-145) in Virginia, and by others. Although no general formula
for this process can be established, important methods of procedure and of
-.oasuring r r:rress have resulted from these investigations and have formed the
basis of many rrcgramns of community improvement carried on by extension services,
schools, churches, and other social agencies.

VII. Social Pathology.

A. Poverty and Dependency.

The recent depression compelled the attention of rural sociol-
ogists to rural dependency, which had previously seemed of minor importance and
which had been studied chiefly by the U. S. Children's Bureau and other social
welfare s.gcnrcies. Wit! the unprecedented extent of rural dependency caused by
the derr.-ssion and successive droughts, the Federal Emergency Relief Adcministra-
tion arrar.-cd with rural sociologists in moany States for cooperative research.
As a result there has been a large number of reports on the social and economic
con.ditions and the personal factors affecting dependency issued by the FPRA and
the T.-PA (23, 24, 157, 162)*, agricultural experiment stations, and State relief
ad=inistraticns. The data obtained by these investigations have been invaluable
as a basis for formulating policies of relief administrations and of the Re-
settlemnent Adiinistration, now the Farn Security ,Iriniistration. These studies
'.av c"eer- very useful for the purposes of diagnosis and have shown that so-
ciol:-gists are well equi~pcd for investigation" problems of dependency, but
w:.et;-.cr they have made ary permanent contribution to a knowledge of the causes
o.f deprndency and means for its prevention and treatment, remains to be deonon-
strat c d.

B. Delir.querncy.

'.' table studies on delinquency in rural areas have been made
by investigators of the Childrcn's Bureau (182-184), but rural sociologists
have left this field almost entirely to the i'.l welfare workers and crimin-
ologists.


* TL. prir.ted and mi-.c -rap?.c, reports from the various States are too num-
erous to cite hero.








- 16 -


C. Social and Personal Disorganization.

Social and personal disorganization has been studied by rural
sociologists only incidentally in their research un various topics of social
organization.

D. Rural Slums.

The study of rural sluz has also been neglected by rural
sociologists. A vivid account of one made in the Virginia mountains (185)
illustrates the importance of their study.

Rotrospoct and Outlook. Yet in spite of these limitations in its
accomplishments, rural sociology has advanced far enough to block out rather
clearly its field of usefulness, and the results of its research have already
had a largo influe-lce even if indirectly on the policies and prygrcr.s of
national and State organizations and agencies governmental, religious,
educational, professional, and economic as well as on those of local com-
munities and organizations. Furthermore, through the teaching of this now
knowledge of rural society, individuals arc being given a better orientation
to their rural social environment and are learning how they may modify it to
meet their desires.

As it surveys the lessons of its youth, rural sociology becomes in-
creasingly aware that if it is to be of permanent value it must devote more
attention to the discovery of the fundamental principles of sociology which
will reveal those facts about rural society which are not evident to ordinary
common-sense observation, while at the same time it must demonstrate its
utility by contributing factual data toward the solution of the immediate
social problems that confront us as a result of maladjustments and the desire
for the improvement of rural life.








- 17 -


Part Thrcc TYPES OF RRL,_L SOCL'.L Rr'S.RCi IN PhR,"G:S` 1T l'Vl7


The fields of rural social research during the calendar year 1937 re-
mained vcry much as they had beeoon in the past. "ot all typcs of projects that
had been carried on at one tine or acmother vere in process duri_-. the year, but
a fc: new areas or fields were ad,.!e,. 'Thin fact that a great r.any fan-i la."-
ilies were on relief or rehabilitation, an'. the fact that certain large pro-
grr.z.s :.f so-called governmental activity w(.rc being carried on, such as the
A..ri.:ultural Adjust-..r.t pr.'crar., the Soil Conservation program, and the 7'urm
,.icurity program.., gave rise to newv areas of concern and stimulated considerable
e:-.phasiz. u.-. the problems with v:.'.1ich those p'.rc..rams dealt. This section of
the rc-. rt does not attempt to rive a cc.-;lctE enumeration of all rural re-
search in pr2&ress during the year. It does, however, resent a thorou:-h
ercul-h canvass of research projectss to make it possible to analyze the major
areas or fields beit.,- studied durir-. the year.

As in the case of Section Two of this report, the list of categories of
projects set f.-rth in Section Onei will be followed in su m.iarizing types of
projects under way during the. yc.r.

I. F:.:ul.ati:.. Research in all four fields of pw ulation was carried
on by one or more .jL:-.ciCs and institutions, studios of the numbers, cistri-
bution, and clhn.es, f.i. studies of nobility or migration of population con-
stitutin., about four-fifths of all population research projects. Studies in
population composition a.. characteristics, ane vital statistics were con-
tinued, r... v:-.t pro.iscs to be some outstar.dinr specialized findings should
ap'cr.r frr.. these studios. Thc foll-owing research projects arc i.-r'icr.l of
those in rr.-coss.

A. unbers, Distributions, Chanrfes, and Predictions in the
Trnr.ds of ?o.pulction.

In this category, such State studies as the following arco rep-.-
resentative: A Study of Char.-es in the ?a.:.g P. nationon in Iorwa; Rural P,'-
ulation (rlr.:.res in the State of 7. ashirn.ton; Social History of Population
Chnr.-cs in South Dakota; Arizona -opulation Trends; Amnnual Estimates of Fam
?:.7ulation in Ohio; Far, P -ulation Cr:.a-.res in Oklahoma; and The History of
Montana Population Dcnzity ar.n' Distribution. In addition, the annual cs-
timates :ere made of the farm- --*pulation of the United States l1y the -ureau of
.rricultural 2c'..n-.:.ics, U. S. Depart-.ent of -.riculturc.

B. 1--,.;ulation Cc.mposition and Th.racteristics.

Studies of this aspect of p:-,pulation were made for the farm
peculation of the United States, dcalinr chiefly with composition and distri-
bution, and in Louisiana, a study was made dealing with the composition and
chaner.,s of the :.pulation of that Stc.ate (52).









- 18 -


C. Vital Characteristics.

In Oklahoma, the vital characteristics of a segment of the
population were studied under tle title, A. Comparative Study of the Thysical
Defects of Farm and Ionfarri. College Women Students at Oklahoma Agricultural
and liechanical College. Birth rates, death rates, and natural increase of the
farm population of the United States were also studied.

D. Mobility.

Examples of projects in population mobility carried on in the
States include: Marriage Rates and Rates at Leaving Home of Rural Youth in
Ohio; Study of Rural Population Liohility in Iowa; Population mobilityty in
:.onrcna; Rural Population MVobility in Arizona Irrigated Areas; Social MoLility
in the Farming Occupation in South Carolina; and Rural Population Mobility in
Southeastern Lissouri. Work was also completed on a Study of migration and
Mobility of the Rural Population in the United States.

II. Social Organization or Social Structure. As has been the case from
the beginning of rural social research, the ii--j.d of social organization and
social structure received major consideration by the rural sociologists. As
will be seen from the following list of representative projects, the spatial
patterns of rural society ana the social status of various farm groups re-
ceived major attention during the year:

A. The Spatial Pattern of Rural Society.

The partiall pattern of rural society has been of interest to
rural sociologists since C. J. Galpin's study of "The Social Anatomy of an
Agricultural Community" (1)0 Similar studies are still bei-g carried on.

1. The community. The community was studied under tl-hc follow-
ing typical project titles: The Social Organization of c-.ij York Rural Com-
munities; Crgi.nizations of Rurral Conmiunities in the United States; Community
Adaptation to Population Changes ii .L[ichigan; The Community and the Depression;
and High School Con=iunities in M5ichigan (11).

2. The village. T'o studies may servc as -.amles of research
on the village carried on during the ;car: Factors of Detormininig the Effect-
iveness of Rural Organizations in Seloctod Iowa Counties and Utah Farm Village
Studies.

3. The neighborhood. An example of neighborhood research is
the project, Neighborhoods and Communities in the Lansing Th'gion in Michigan.

B. Rural Groups.

Studies of various types of rural groups dealing with the
functional as versus the spatial aspects of group life are a constant concern
of rural sociologists, and a number of projects in this field were in process









- 19 -


Aduri..- l,3 7.

1. The f'nily and other primary groups. The only primary
gr7up i-riven major considcratio.n during the y.acr i.z the family. Two examples
are: The Scciol:Ly of the Rural Family (Ncw York), and The Rural Family and
the Social Adjustment of Its Aicribcrs (Iowa).

2. Special interest groups. No studies were being made of
sxcci l interest ,r':.ups ., loss y',uth studies listed under "The Youth Problem"
be cor.ntd as special interest group studies.

3. Cla-ss groups, including farmer-rs' org.niz.tio:'.s. Farmers'
organizations were c,, o.ly class grcupc_ wlic., reccivwd att.,-ti:!. by rural
sociologists in 1537. Th r.enbhorship of farmers' organizations was studied
in ULv- York Stac.te and more general studios wore also made of farmers' organ-
izations in the United States as a -;,hole.

4. Ethnic groups. A good example of res.-arch concerning ethnic
groups is I.-:igrcnt .'-ttlcments. and Social Organization in South Dakota (30).

C. Institutions and Service Agencies.

St'-dics of specialized institutions have not been as prevalent
in recent as in past years, the rural sociologists apparently having turned
slightly in the direction of the analysis of processes and trends, vjhoreas in
the early stares of development, many studies were ,.ade of r er' i c'urches and
a number made of other rural social institutions.

1. 3. The school, the church, the library. Pr-r -tly, no
specialized studies of rural schools, churches, or libraries ', '- con-
ducted. Considerable information was undoubtedly being gathered se
rural institutions in community and standard of living studies. Cn. '-udy in
the State of 7'.""shington was made on rural social institutions in general.

4. Health agencies. The U. S. Department of Agriculture
issued, during 1937, an cnuirely new Farmers' Bulletin on Hospitals for Rural
Communities (10__) prepared in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

5. Recreational and avocational agencies. The Bureau of Agri-
cultural lcnr.C-ics has completed an ntircly : F'e-r' Bulletin on Com-
munity B'uildings for Farm Families. Two other examples of research on recrea-
tional and avocational agencies are: Rural Conmunity Buildings in Illinois
(112), and recreation and the Use of Land in W',ashington County, Rhode Island
J14).

6. Agricultural extension. A Michi-.igan study will suffice as
an exan.ple of research i:n the fi-eld cl agricultural extension Sociolorical
Factors Involved in the Methods and Pesults of Agricultural Extension Work in
U.ichiLan Counties. Elaborate analyses were also made by the agricultural ex-
tnr.sior. staffs in various States in conjunction with the Agricultural Adjust-








- 20 -


meant program planning work. Many of these analyses really constituted research.

7. Economic institutions. No specific studies were apparently
being carried on dealing with economic institutions during 1937.

8. Governmental and political institutions. In the past, rural
sociologists have studied political institutions particularly irf terms of local
government, and economic institutions in terms of farmers' cooperatives. Few
of these studies, however, were in existence during 1937. Two examples may be
cited: Characteristics and Costs of County Government in Arkansas (150), and
The Farmer and the Cost of Local Rural Goverrnment in '.issouri (151).

9. Welfare agencies. A fruitful field for research on welfare
agencies is becoming increasingly important because of the vast relief programs
of local, State, and Federal welfare agencies, but apparently little was done
in this field during 1937. One study may be cited Some Factors Affecting
Social Welfare in Rural Areas of Alexander County, Illinois (141).

D. Social Status.

Social status of various classes within agriculture is becoming
more and more a subject for research, although analyses of these classes are
not always stated in terms of social status. The depression has undoubtedly
heightened concern especially about the disadvantaged classes in agriculture
(186) and therefore more emphasis was given to this field of research than in
previous years.

1. Standard of living. Numerous studies have approached the
question of social status by attempting to discover the standard of living of
farm families. Some of the analyses of this kind made by State agencies were:
Levels of Living of Farm Families in Missouri; An Exploratory Study of Farm
Family Living in Colorado; The Standard of Living for Staridard Loan Cases under
the Farm Security Administration in South Dakota; and St.i2r.c.rds of Living of
Farm Families in Oklahoma. In addition, studies have been made of the standards
of living in resettlement communities; sample villages in New 'cxico, California,
and Illinois; and in sample areas in Virginia, South Dakota, and the Lake States
Cut-Over.

2. Tenancy. Interest in tenancy in the United States has given
rise to elaborate analyses of its accompanying problems from many different
aspects. Only a few examples are listed here: Recent Changes in the Social
and Economic Status of Farm Families in North Carolina (155); Farm Tenancy in
North Carolina, 1880-1935 (156); Social Status and Farm T-nure- Attitudes and
Social Conditions of Corn Be-t and Cotton Belt Farmers (159); Study of Social
Correlatives of Farm Tenure Status in Oklahoma; Social Aspects of.the Planta-
tion Tenant Economy in Louisiana; and a Study' of the Economic Significance of
Different Farm Leasing Systems in Texas.

3. Far labor. The same is true of research in farm labor,
which was carried on to a marked extent in 1937, particularly where migratory







- 21 -


labor was an i.-p'rtant factor. Soue such studies yoere: The Far Laborer in
Arizona; 7lired Labor Requirements on Arizona Irri ated i L-rrn.s (%l); Study
of Leasir.. and Labor Arran-e-(-cnts in the Suar Cane Producing ..roe of Louisiana;
Hop Tor.:crs in the Yakima Valley in V.ashiington; Occupational and Territorial
abilityt y of arim Laborers in '..azshington; and Transient Laborers in Selected
;6ricultur.l Industries in i.ichiran.

The research in farm labor by the Bureau of Agricultural
Eccnoneics devoted more attention to social and economic conditions of fam
labrcrs an.- th,-ir fandlios, their participation in the life of the community,
and the extent to which farm laborers have tended to become a fixed class in
agriculture. In cooperation with the Works Pro.Lrcss Administration Pnd the
Far.. Security :"' inistration, a number of field studies in various sections
of tl-.e country hsvc recently been completed, and more sociological studies of
farm lab rcrs and farTL labor are under way (187),

4. The youth problem. The y.-uth problem has been dealt with
in the follc:in,- studios: Survey of County Youth Organizations in Ohio; Scope
f 4-H Club Tork Can Be Fr,:.adened to Include Imnrovenont of Personal C:u-.lities
(Illinois); Rural Youth and Agricultural Villages in the United Stc.tcs; Es-
ti-.ateS of Renlacc-nnrit Requirements of Gainful Workers in Agriculture in Chio
fror. Death and Rctirement, by Sub-Areas; Situatio!,s, Problems, and Interests
cf Urn.arric. R'ral Young People, 16-25 Years of Age (5 '1aryland Counties and
4 Oregon Counties); and Occupations of Sons and Daughters of :'ississippi Cotton
Farmers (128).

E. Social Participation.

The extent to which individuals and families participate in the
con.on life of the community and of society at large, is a field represented by
the following studies: Factors of Determining the Effectiveness of Rural Or-
ganizations in Selected Iowa Counties; Organizations of Rural Comnunities in
the L'nited States; and The Effects of an Organized Fr.ogram of Adult Education
and Recreation on the Comnunity Life and Social Participation in Certain Rural
.r as.

III. Social Psychology. The field of social psychology is a relatively
new field of research in rural sociology. Psychological data have been .-athered
in the past as a part of other projects, but it is only in recent years that
specialized projects in social psychology have been carried out and these, for
the nost part, have been attitude studies.

A. Attitudes and opinions.

Attitudes and opinions were the focus for these two studies:
The Social Attitudes of Rural People (Nieui York), and Social Status and r.n
Tenure Attitudes and Social Co.nditions of C.-.rn Belt and Cotton Belt Farmers
(159).







-22-


B. Leadership.

Leadership, an increasingly important element in rural life,
has received comparatively little attention. One specialized study carried on
in 1937 was A Study in Rural Leadership in Minnesota.

C. Mass Psychology.

Mass psychology is probably of growing importance in the field
of agricultural activity, but thus far no studies have been attempted in this
field.

D. Personality and socialization.

The process of socialization is studied somewhat in the par-
ticipation studies, and personality and socialization analyses are generally
a part of family studies, but thus far no specific projects in personality and
socialization, as such, have been set up.

E. Institutionalization.

Many rural institutions have been studied in the past, but thus
far there is no project under way to study the institutionalization process
itself.

IV. Social Ecology. Most research in social ecology has to do with the
social geography of rural life and the social correlates of land occupancy,
relatively little having been done with regions and subregions during the year.
Typical examples of all three phases will be cited here.

A. Social Geography of Rural Life.

The social geography of rural life may be said to have been the
chief focus of these two studies: Rural Social Organization and Physical Re-
sources in Minnesota; and A Type-Study of Some Selected Social Aspects of Land
Utilization in Weld County, Colorado.

B. Regions and Subregions.

Regions and subregions were dealt with in Social Problems of the
Drought Area (24), and in Planimetor Ieasurement of Land-Use Areas on Maps Pre-
pared by County Planning Boards, and Preparation of Bar Graphs to Show Percent-
age of Each !Area in Virginia.

C. Social Correlates of Land Occupancy.

This field is probably best represented by the following studies
completed last year: A Study of Beltrani Island Forest Reserve Resettlcr.ement
Area (:lirLnsota) (32); Family Living on Poorer and Better Soil (Mississippi)
(33); L:.an-Land Adj'`stment, A Study of the Family and Inter-Family Aspects of







- 23 -


Lan4. .ctire:.Ln-.t in the Central Wisconsin Ian' Purchase Area (.4); Rich Lzand -
F-.,'r Feo':le ("issouri) (35); The r.'ffcct of Soil rTpletion on Livi:,i- S*:. crds
Studies in Illin.is (36);- Fc?'plo l'ov to Poorer Land in 'eprcssion Years
(Illin.'is); and Eccn..r.i-c and Social History of the Pecan Creek WJatorshod,
..Luskc.cc Comunty, Oklahoma.

V. \ nthrtopolo'iical sots. This field, cor.prising the phases of folk
culture andt-culture history, ha7s Teen little explored by rural sociologists in
the past, but is now being penetrated by the-. to some extent.

A. Folk Culture.

This should be a fruitful area for research, but thus far no
speccific studies have bc.cn made in it by rural sociologists.

B. Culture History.:

The only cxanr-plc that can be cited here is, Rural Societal
fvTClution in the Palouse Country of Eastern ".Ishin, ton.

VI. Social Charnce. The field of social charE-c was approached last year
chiefly fra.i the standpoint of trends or plans for change.* Little has been
done in the various phases of changes in social or,;"Aization or in processes
involved in char.c. Exa:..ples will be given here of the three phases of social
change that have bc- studied.

A. Changes in Social Organization.

Changes in social organization is the subject of: Social Or-
ranizatior.s and Ag4'Encies in North D'.kota, a Study of Trends, 1926-1936 (173);
and researchh ic-iorar.du. on Rural Life in the Depression (174).

B. Factors Influencinr Change.

Factors influencing change are discussed in this typical study-
:.:cth.-ds of Gr-v:.ing Celery, an Index of Cultural Chan-ge Anc.,ng Hollanders in
:.:ichigan.

C. Processes Involved in Change.

Social trends have been subjects of analysis by rural sociolo-
gists for sc.-ic time, but thus far the detailed procusscs involved in -.l:a-:gc.
have r-:t been isolated for study in any specific projects.

D. Social Trends or Direction of Change.

This tType of research :-i.y be exeri:,lified by Sturdies of S.',-
urbanization in Connecticut; Wilton, A Lural Town 1car .'etropolitan :c v' York.;
.n..r.,ich, .n Industrial Part-Tine r-.. r:, in. Area.







-24 -


E. Planned Social Change.

Planned social change such as community organization and
area planning, has increased in importance as an area of research. A few of
the studies that have been done in this field are: Rural Cultural Areas in
Missouri; Summarization and Presentation in Graphs and Tables of Program
Planning Data Prepared by County Planning Boards in -1937 in Virginia; Analysis
of Detailed AAA Data in Four Sample Counties and of State Sunmiaries for All
Counties, for Program Planning in Virgirnia; Collection, Tabulation, and
Presentation of Materials from Miscellaneous Sources (Virginia); TVA soil
surveys, aerial photographs, State planning board reports, farm management
studies, sociological surveys, Demonstration Farms of the Soil Conservation
Service, and Farm Credit, as a Basis for County Program Planning in Virginia.

VII. Social Pathology. The field of social pathology, which for 25
years has been a subject for numerous detailed analyses in urban life, has
only recently become a field of research inr rural sociology. The recent de-
pression gave rise to a number of studies, examples of vhich are given below.

A. Poverty and Dependency.

Poverty and dependency, which received the major emphasis in
social pathological research, are treated in the following representative
studies: Studies of the Rural Relief Situation in Iowa; Studies of Rural Un-
employment in the United States; Completion of Analysis of Relief Statistics
in the United States; Cooperative Studies between WPA and Colorado; Education
and Rural Relief in Colorado; Educational Testing of Children from Relief and
Non-Relief Rural Households; and Study of Public Assistance Extended to House-
holds in the Drought Areas; Relief in Rural Households in South Carolina; Study
of Rural Families on Relief in Oklahoma; The Rural Family on Relief in Mass-
achusetts; Relief in Massachusetts with Emphasis on Family Type; The Extent of
Dependency on Old Age Assistance in South Dakota (164); Survey of the Aged in
South Dakota; Research in Social and Economic Factors Related to Old Age
Assistance in Iowa; A Study of Historical and Sociological Influences Which
Have Made the German-Russian of Colorado a Social Problem; Comparisons of
Occupations and Conditions of Dwellings of Relief and Non-Relief in Fope County,
Illinois; An Analysis of a 25 Percent Sample of All Rehabilitation Cases in the
State of Virginia; An Analysis of the Relief Situation in Thirteen Sample
Counties in Virginia; The Administration of Public Relief in Selected Rural
Counties in .MIichigan; Emergency Agency Expenditures in Montana; Rural Relief
Trends in Wisconsin, 1954-1937; Rehabilitation Case Work in the United States;
and Rural Youth on Relief in the United States (163).

B., C. Delinquency, Social and Personal Disorganization,
and D. and Rural Slums.

No specific research studies have been made in 1937 of the
fields of delinquency, social and personal disorganization, and rural slums,
as such.







- 25 -


F. Soci.l R, ; .i',ilitation.

Social rc,: bilitation has not been studied as a roco's, '.t
it has b'. tf.. chief objective of sc,,rvl of the relief studies which have
rcvcaled the capacity of relief clients for rehabilitation, and a study of
-art-time ia".r...'g in the Southeast vas made to evaluatee it as a means of rc-
.aLilitation. Th. rou.-h stu..ies of the results of rehabilitation policies and
:.cth.2ds for. a field for h. future with large practical significance. Some
c"' the reports -ublished OurirgC 1937 were: Farmers on relief and rehabilitation n
in t1.c United States (165); Relief and Rehabilitation in the Drought Area (166);
and :'art-'3i.. Farri.g 7--the Southeast (167).


"MethDo'd .logy

7.ural sociologists, because their science is young, feel the need of
d..cfinite :'r..-cts in the field of methodology in addition to studies of social
l.en:.-.c:c. A.t least three such projects were in progress during 1937.

Cne of these consisted of a series of cooperative projects between the
Bureau of .'.ricultural Economics and a number uf agricultural experiment stations,
in connection with the annual estimates of farm population. The established
method for obtain ing data for this annual estimate is by means of questionnaires
circulate' b,- the urcau through their crop and livestock reporters. The new
methods bci:-. tested are: (1) In three States, attempts are being nade to secure
i .vf.ation concer'-irg changes in the farm population for definitely delimited
sa-rle g-ographic areas '-y both the regular quetionnaire ncmethod and personal in-
tcrvic'ws; (2) In two States, the railed questionnaire is beig followed up
through rsomal visits, to ascertain whether different infrm-ation is given by
c .rrespondence and by personal interviews, and whether different respondents
interpret the questions differently; and (3) In a number of States, others than
crzr. and livestock reporters are receiving the mailed questionnaire, in an
atte..-t to f.scertain whether different data are obtained and vary with the ty'-.
of rep--rtcr used to circulate or fill in the questionnaire.

M ret>.dol,.gical project dealing with the determination of sub-areas has
leen carried out at Ohio State t university (38). Starting with all available
county indices of social and economic variation, the c,-rrclation techniqu.- was
used to deteor--ir.o.e relationships i':-', them. By this method, the most important
ir-.iccs those havi:. the largest number of ri,ilficant intercorrelations -
were selected and used for sub-area determination.

A third methodologic.l study is being carried out by the Pural Pesearch
'nit, division of Soial searchc, 7Xorks Progress AdmIinistration, in which an
aLtte-- t is beir-.r made bC various statistical techniques to .ac- the socio-
economic regions of the Nation by c :ur.ties or groups of counties.








- 26 -


Part Four FUTURE NITEEDS AND PROSPECTS FOR RUAL SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH


One of the chief reasons for studying the past is the stimulation it
provides for reflections upon the future. By means of such reflections man
is often able to recogn-ize desirable objectives and to organize his efforts
to attain then. Rural sociologists are no exception to this generalization.
Although they have been engaged in rural sociological research for a com-
paratively short time, on more tian one occasion have they. found it helpful
to reflect upon the results accomplished and the nature of the task ahead.
The trend of public affairs, public sentiment, public support has a way of
shifting sharply at tines. During the recent short span of years covered by
the economic depression, previously accepted attitudes have been changed and
new emphases have appeared in the realm of social thought. This attempt to
consider once again the current status of rural sociology as a body of social
thought and as a technique of social investigation with a view to charting the
course for the years immediately ahead is therefore timely.

General Considerations

One can scarcely reflect upon the happenings of the last 20 years in
the field of rural social thought and investigation without drawvring certain
significant conclusions with respect to rural sociology. Some of these may be
stated here.

1. Attempts to improve rural life, to build a rural civilization and
particularly to extricate the far-i population from the depths of the recent
depression, have been handicapped by a scarcity of basic sociological infor-
mation concerning farm people and their social organization. Since 1930, pub-
lications have been read and sociologists have'been besieged with requests for
pertinent information which up to that tine had been regarded as either unim-
portant or too difficult to gather. TuL:erous research projects have .been
hurriedly launched to meet this need and administrativo fact-finding has tem-
porarily taken precedence over more fundamental types of research.

2. For nearly 20 years, but particularly since 1930, rural sociologists
have proved themselves useful in collecting and supplying m-uch of the socio-
logical information desired about the rural population and rural life. Not
only have they possessed much useful information but they are trained in the
technique of collecting and analyzing sociological data. Following 1930, a
sudden scarcity of trained personnel in this field developed and the scarcity
still persists. The number of institutions conducting rural social research
has increased and the volume of published materials of a sociological nature
has been greatly augCrnted.

3. As a result of need felt during the recent depression, an attitude
that is more favorable to rural sociological research has developed in many
quarters. Institutions formerly doing nothing in this field have undertaken a
modest program, and still others are becoming interested. There is now a







- 27 -


keener ap-reciation of th1 necessity for some rural social plRnuii'.g. There is
a growir .C conviction that rural leadership must deal increa-ir.:ly with the
hu.an factors in agriculture along with factors of a technological nature.
iLencc, the trained person who is concerned primarily with the human factor in
agriculture is now regarded with r.'.ore reLpcct and confidence than ever before.

4. As a result of the attempt to grapple with the larger problems of
agricultural and rural-life adjustment during recent years, major effort in
rural social research has been diverted from more purely local studies toward
the analysis of the larger problems of State and nation. Projects have been
enlarged in geographic scope and in volume of data collected. More attention
has boon ptid to st.ampling procedure with a view to ascertaining the range of
validity of any conclusions drcvrn. Some regional and interstate research has
bccn attcrmptcd. Thus, the trend of affairs has compelled rural sociologists
to look at the gross picture of rural life in the United States and to concern
themselves with M-ajor adjustments in the larger arena of State and Nation.
Rural social research is now definitely geared to State and National as well as
to local levels.

As one reflects upon the meaning of the events and trends just cited,
certain conclusions appear to be varrantcd.

1. Rural social planning is now upon us. The P"tion has embarked
upon a lon.g-timne prcgrarm of agricultural adjustment and reorganization that
will probably take us far from. the scone of 1930. The problem of reorganizing
agriculture so as to bring gr(ater benefit to both the rural and the urban pop-
ulations has beeoon undertakl:cn. By implication, the nation n is now committed to
the building of a better rural civilization and to the attempt to better in-
tegrate this rural civilization with that vwhich urban society has fabricated.
Put is -th( re yet sufficient wisdom to build a civilization by administrative
procedure and rlanr.cd effort? The answer seems doubtful. Certainly much more
factual information and sociological insight than are now possessed will be
fou.d erser.tial to tir.is task. I.s the program gets under vway, increasing r.';:d
for socioloLical assistance will be felt and rural sociologists must be able to
:.ot that need.

2. Rural social research began in terms of monographic studies of
local areas or problem situations. I.'any of these displayed a hiirlh quality of
vwcrkr. ship and their results have been decidedly useful. Similar studies
will continue to be useful for exploratory purposes and for per,,rses of neeti'!g
the needs -f local situations.

But the too-frcqurnt tendency to generalize the results of such
studies, withoutt the proper sacn.pling knoledge for doi,.C so, must be curbed.
If the research foundation for a broad program of rural-life ir-ir.r v :-.on.t, such
as is no ir.dica.tcd, is to be laid, the scope of many social-research projects
must be broadened and the limits within which the conclusions apply nust be
more clearly defined. This suggosts a thorc.u-h knvle-dL'-e of the social and
cultural geography of rural life as a prerequisite to scjliir procedure.








- 28 -


3. If the swing of the business cycle is to continue (and it seems
reasonable to suppose that it may), rural sociologists should prepare diligently
during periods of prosperity if they would be of maximum usefulness during
periods of depression and social crisis. This implies a long-timec program of
fundamental research as contrasted with short-run administrative research.

Social research is like all research wvrith respect to the time
required to do it. To dig deeply into the mysteries of any subject worthy of
research is time-consuming. It cannot be done in the face of impending crisis,
This is why Charles F. Kettering makes the statement that "if we wait to do
research until it is needed, it is too late to do it."

It is not intended to imply that short-time, so-called "practical"
research is of no value. Such a program is often essential, generally advis-
able, and should be geared into the local situation. Such research has been
apti- styled "administrative fact-finding," for it is generally undertaken to
acu.t in the development of some administrative policy or the promotion of
sc,,-: organized program. The demand for this type of social research ebbs and
flov- with the tide of economic and social conditions. In times of depression
or ciisis, the demand reaches its maximum. At such times, the sociologist is
most fortunate if he can bring to bear both the results of quick administrative
fact-finding and the fruits of long-time fundamental research upon current
problems, for it is only when this is done that he can speak with some con-
fidence about solutions.

The student of rural sociology will recognize at once thQt the
basic content of the subject is encompassed by the first throe subdivisions of
the outline presented in Part One of this report population, social organ-
ization or Oocial Structure, and Social psychology. The category, "Population,"
covers the field of demography and includes whatever analysis can be nrde of
the bio-social basis of society. Population is the basis of social organiza-
tion. Its changes and trends profoundly affect any social structure. The.
rural sociologist is not interested in population because of its intrinsic
value. his chief research interest is not population itself, but the relation
of population to social organization and social processes. Because of this
close relationship, however, he is equipped to do population research and often
finds it necessary and advisable to make such studies as foundation work for
studies of rural social organization.

Social organization or social structure includes social forms,
the structure of groups and institutions, social status, and social participa-
tion. Social psychology deals with the psychological side of social organiza-
tion. It includes such phenomena as attitudes, nass movements, personality.,,
socialization, leadership, and the mores of the people. These three cate-
gories, and particularly the second and third, are the very heart of rural
sociology.

The remaining four subdivisions, Social ecology, anthropological
aspects, social change, and social pathology, may be regarded more particularly
as approaches to the general problem of the structure and functioning of rural







- 2E -


society. Each of thcso subdivisions 11] necessarily develop a : ecicl con-
tent, h.Vr, because of th. j-:i qucrness of the approach and because of so cial-
ization. For thcse reasons, th are rLCgar-c2 as of sufficient importance to
be stat SL--rately.

Social ecol1:,y represents the r h.. r io ao-roach to the study of social
:rcanizati -.. The occurrence cf social forms in relation to land occupancy,
an- the sv-,.tial relationships of these forms to each other are included.

Anthr -L"l:o-ical aspects -f rural sociology reprcs<:,.t the historical-
cultural a'c:r,.ach to the -tudy of rural society. Detailed analysis of the
-attern-s of fol': culture and how they came to be elaborated in their existing
forms is u.'ertaken. Folk psychol-:'jy constitutes an important aspect of this
a":'r:ac'.

Social change as an ap-roach to the study of rural society is little
concerned vith the analysis of currtr. social forms and functions, as such.
The pri.-ary concern is vith the process of chan-e, per se, with changes in form
a:.d function that have occurred, changes that are likol-to occur, and the
factors a.d processes involved in these changes. Thus, it represents an ap-
proach to social dynoz.ics.

Social pathology consists of the special study of maladjusted in-
dividuals, _roups, classes, and institutions.

Rural sociologists recognized the categories of this outline in a
&cnoral wmy before 1937, but they did not distribute their research efforts
evenly a:-.zr. the various subdivisions. When the references cited in the
sunary :f research acco:-.-lishlied (see ,r.rt "." of this report) are ca-talogued
accLrdi.g to the subdivisions of the subject-matter outline, it appears evi.lcnt
that before 1'37 the major research emphasis was placed upon social organiza-
tion. It is true that the list of references cited lays no clai.- to complete-
ness, but it is also true that these references are of unequal importance and
that Unny of then contain the subject matter of r.ore than a si--gle classifica-
tion. It does nrt appear, however, that a more detailed and exhaustive attempt
at classification would change the above conclusion, namely, that before 1957
the research .rcblens that occupied the attention of rural social fists lay
chiefly within t.he area of social org-:-ization. Population studios ranked
second in emphasis. Little attention vmwas given to social psychology, social
change, anthr-pj.lo.ical aspects, and to certain phases of social pathology.

T'-c resea-rch projects for the year 1937, listed and classified in Part
Ti.re,-, showed no fu da:..-tal cha...-e in the disposition to emphasize rural social
,rg nization. In ters of number of rejectsts reported, social or,'.nizrtion re-
ceived first -,hc.sis with population again second. Little v.'-r1: was undertaker.
in socii psyc.:1Logy ar 2 in anthropological aspects. Social change, in terms
of stucics :rcli.-.ir.ary to plannrc' social change, received some attention. A
r.,tab-le c-'.hasis occurred in the area of social pc.thclogy. There, the recent
dcIpression r.:ti4vatod an increase in number of pr-jects and in rese,.rch activity.








- 30 -


Upon the basis of these classifications of past research and current
projects, it nay be said that past and present emphasis in rural social re-
search has been placed upon social organization. That the present tenCdency
is also in that direction is indicated by reports from a number of leading
rural sociologists who contributed their views regarding research needs for
the ii.mediate future. Because of the divergent manner in which these views
were expressed, the statements were somewhat difficult to classify, but per-
haps no violence has been done by attempting a classification. ..:oro than half
of the suggested projects, or types of research, fell in the area of Social
Organization. Population and Social Psychology were second with about an
equal number of suggested projects. All other categories received some, but
v.ithal, minor emphasis.

Ranking first .iong the new topics sugrestod for emphasis was that of
cultural areas which falls under the head of Social Ecology. Interest here
extended both to subareas within the State and to larger areas or regions.
Social interaction, dynamic studios of rural social psychology, and the social
processes involved in social change and trends were also mentioned. Far. iliar
topics suggested for additional emphasis included the disadvantaged classes,
particularly farm laborers, the social effects of tenancy, and youth groups.
There was also some interest in the historical study of communities patterned
after the Lynds' Mi]ddletown and Villiais' American Town.

The implications of the above classifications of research emphLasis
appear to be clear. Over a period of years, rural sociology has been finding
its place and defining its field by the process of accretion. With greater
certainty than before, it is possible to say (1) that the objective of rural
sociology is rural welfare; (2) its subject matter is the social relationships
and culture of rural people; (3) the areas of work consist of the seven cate-
gories with their subdivisions as outlined in Part One. Among those areas of
work, that of Social Organization has received major emphasis in the past.
Whether or not it retains first rank in the future, it is the belief of this
committee that it should always be an area of major emphasis. The concern of
rural sociology is the welfare of rural people. The sociological method of
promoting rural welfare is that of improving rural social organization, of
building a rural civilization. In this task, the theory and practice of rural
organization is paramount.

Timely Projects

A general outline of the content of rural sociology is not a statement
of projects. Neither is it a statement of timely or strategic areas for re-
search. It must be recognized that a statement of problems needing investiga-
tion today nmay cut across many or all of the categories submitted in the above-
mentioned outline. A well-considered outline of timely areas for research
during the imrmediato future should include the following:

1. Cultural areas, such as regions and subregions. These are essential
to sound sampling and rural planning. Comprehensive data should be
assembled on a county basis for comparative purposes and for use in







- 31 -


-a) .i'. Spoci.l attortiPn s oluld Le [-i'en to prl, areas.

2. ":. disa a od classes in rural life and agriculture. Theseo
i'.cluCd tcnants, laborers, low ilnco-.,o .c rmers, people mn poor
lam". 1.C c te soia '1 ,,rotle.s arising front th. se CroupD?
\.?-at arc t !c :c al aspects i'f tie.ancy and of farm labor?

3. Studies of differ. ai1. 'ula.ticn -rn'th, fertility, and miura-
tion. 1hesc s0 uld le studiod ii- rclatioj to the occurrence of
cecno:ic oyp prtunity andC social si~hificai-cc.

4. studios of rural youth, t:eir needs, opportunities, and organiza-
tions.

5. Studies o coifu:i ;v intomration and( c,..'unity vroccsses. These
are i. ucl neeLod t, (cint the iay in coLilrJ.Uity plamning.

6. -ti'Jc; s of sndkrd a' 'p1anos of living .,particularly from the
stanm'point or i-.:'oil".. iresurt technirues.

7. Studi's of f2c ors' c4'c a ionv ae.d Lpecial-ixterest -1rcups.

8. ::ist rical st-di'i of tLo life a.nd institutions cf an area.
P-sc sheu1d -c raYo of :L" ical areas tho bott._r to interpret
soci 1 tr ends. Le-xatc1 stu1iej of the sar areas or subjects
tend to acc-:lilsh the sai.e purpose.

9. .social ycol .v of leadership.

10. "-. naturL and significance nf rural attitudes and rmothods of
u--:.[i;-r them.

II. Txtension of standard studios to :.e% areas for comparative pur-
Ss.s.cs, F-r 1 xa,- I studies of special-interest groups. These
rov:' ha-.,o, ee studied locally', but the findings should be
verified in other incclicies.

In -.' `ltion to these points, it i.ay be vrll to L: '.L size that greater
st'. h rdizai on of .any pr',. 'ts is decsirablo for thc :nurmso of obtaining com-
-.ral resltE. Snll ai1d stML J 1 e-ari n upon a Civen problem, but done by
one methcd in no s:all ara .. aaa different r.ethod in another area, are
cor-vincinc to L( ne.

i.:.lly, rural soci l-ists mrust begin to think seriously of ..i:.
stu.(ics -f the sir-i-ic.ncX, the i-. th an'.d v.oacess, of the acc..ulat, re-
sults :f their research efforts. Gathcring field dIota and ;rit"..- experiment
stcticn bulletins is not the end f research. As the 'r;ts of such effort
accr-iulate, th-y r:ust c ared, criticized, and int.-r .tci '. The gaps and
urcertaintics in accLuulatod dat. ''u t S. discovered. ". nsses must be












strengthened by the further testing and refininEg of conclusions drawn. The
schedule r.aker -ust bucomiie an analyst. The collector of data must eccone a
scholar. Only by this process, can the full value of research be realized.
By this process, alone, can principles bo established that can be used to
diagnose specific social situations aid to determine the best measures for
their improvement, %


- 32 -







,_* ,"~ w


Litora.ture Cited


(1) Cali in, CLarles, J. F: social Anc(t- f i r. .gricu.tural c:u7ity.
Kcs. Bul. 43y, iv. of aic., A. Sta., '. son,
4; "
1-.Z.,t 1S15.t^


(2) Cilleut, John Y. C -e.struciv ra )cil 7l,"
cnd 'to:.. Co., [11 .


. 'ow Y)ork: S3urri


(3) Kolo, J. L. Rural Prirsry Grouls. Bul. 51, 1921, an1 otbhr st1 ies
cited belov:, rni. cf T'is., Lg. Ex'. Ata., ('r~nds o0
Cc.jnttr le i c1,orhlonds. same, Res. Pul.. 20 rcstrdy of
Pul. 5'3.), teaiiso;., ciG., 1icv. 19i3.

(4) Sanderson, D.i rht, anC. Th, X.. r., '.,r'.n 1. r, I ci i rc'- s 0 4 Ots oc
Comity. Li!. 1'2, Corrc7. Udniv., Txf. Ix ,ta.,
h. Y., JuIl l.LJ.

(5) Saneersoai, DDvti,}t i. ci'l e-d ,c nc:ic Ir :t1 i> Crntal ;V T: York.
a1.ic, rub. 624, b-c., :c ., 1 34, iLaV b tLCi4
cit.d- in r'<.o c ..r )ar, 3).

(6) Saerson, 31i'L1t, C.a," ,orn, r.rold F. The Rural NKoih'Lorhoods -f
O(e)t ) C-,ti-y, Yc- .-, I F'.li Pu 2 (, ornell Uniiv., g.
?-<^ ". Ca., ;-"-J -pu of n".1;.?. Soci il Ori izatior., !thicca,"
:'. Y., March 19J4. (Ii`:ne.)

(7) iA,r:-im, L.,ad 1or:alcl, Oroa. Rurol '1 A.uila!iox: Gerou's. Rcs. Bul.
74 .. k~c 1925.
74, "'-iv. of.I-^., i g, Exn. Sia., C<..lii..'b ., I o.,,'. r i1 .5

() Brunncr, T. dee. 'i1age C'rLimnii'ies. f. York: Gee. 1. Lorrn Co.,
ic,~7.

(9) ........n. --., E. deq., nu'les, c Gvndc.-,, b., and Patter-, I arjorie. L,:erican
.G'2'T1t1rc V:'-. Y. Y-ork: Geo. 1. .or.n o., 1927.

(I0) S%.z.6ersc.>1, T"1ht. Ye Pura! 'o-.ruiity The "at',rca Fistory of a Socio-
logical &rou Bocto::: Gi--ri .and C(,, 1I32.

(11) T.a. J. F., Cnd i'u.fod, H-,. High Schocol Comu.,it-ies in I.ichia"n.
Spov-. l, 28, ih. ig. Fxp. Sa., -: t I ri-.., ich,
ja>. LC3.


(I ) r -.r, d;.., d -:olb, Jo H. ,rr-,,.. orci'l *r .nds.
Crav:-:il 2ock Co,, ].K.;.


7'ev: Ycrk: c-


* In citin_ the litcratur. no aitc:. t b'as Len naoe at aC coinplete Liblio;raphy.
T'r v;rk cited .re civon :..ruly as noro i: >ortant cxaiplos oi work on the
various ticis,






- 34 -


(13) Brunner, E. deS., and Lr:c., rvinS. Lural Trends in Depression Tears.
ir\. York-: Col0b=ia University Press, 1937.

(14) Miclvin, Bruce L. Villao Service Agecios, !. York 1925. Bul. 493,
Cornull University tg. Exp. Dta., Ithaca, I. Y., Aug. 1929.

(15) Ziern.n, Carlo C. Fc.in Trade Centers in Minnesota, 1905-1929. Bul.
26S Trniv. of hii.. Ag. E:y. Lta,, St. Paul, Finr., Seo.t.
1930.

(16) Lively, C. E. Growth urd eoclinc of farm-i Trfdo Centers in 7innesota,
1905-1950. Bul. 287, Univ. of i".in. Ag. Exp. Sta., St.
Paul, i:i., Ju:ly 1952.

(17) Landis, Pauil H. South Dakota To'wn-Coanitry Trade Relations, 1901-131,
Buil. 271, So. Da:. St. College, Ag. Exp. Sta., Brookings,
So. Dak., 193,2.

(18) Landis, Paul H. The Grc-rth ar.Id Decline of South `L.....a -'raUc Centers,
1901-1935. Bul. 279, 3roolhins, So. Dak., April 1933.

(19) Sr:ith, T. Lynn. lau--m '-rae Cen-ters in Louisiana, 1901 to 195l. Bul.
2-4, La. St. Uni-v., Ag. ELxp. Sta., Baton Rouge, La., Jan.
153

(20) .T-etten, T. L., and Dcvcreux, E. C., Jro Studios of SThurbanization in
Connecticut. I. V indsor. Bul. 212, Storrs AC. Exp. Sta.,
Storrs, Co:n., Oct. 1936.

(21) Tate, Leland B. 7Lc Rural Hor-es of City VTorl-ers ard the T r':-an-Rural
Migration. Bul. 595, Gcrnell Univ. A1. v1 Sta., Ithaca,
NI. Y., 1934.

(22) Econonic and Social Problcms and Conditi ;ns of thu Southern Ap1)alachians.
Publ. No. 205, U. S. Dept. of ALr., Jan. 1935.

(23) Beck, P. G., and Forster, :. C. Si:: Rvral Problen Areas. iesoarch .iono-
.raph I, oed. L..er. Eolif Ada., U Eali tron, D. C., 135.

(24) Social Problurs of tho DrouLght Arev. ecarch Bullctins Ser. V. 1, 2,
3, Pcrkv Progress A i-isration, Division of' Sociarl Re-
search, .i Piton, D. C., I17.

(25) '.7akcley, Ray E., and Losoy, J. EdwiL. Rural Organizations and Land
Utilization on Arscatine Island (Iowa), A Study cf Social
Ajustncnts, Bul. 352, Ag. E_-:cp. Sta,., Iow;a State College,
i.nos, Iowa, Docenber 1036.

(26) Johnson, Charles S. Shadow of the Planrtation. Univ. of Chicago Press,
Chicago, Ill., 1934.











r deS. "-.;-r,,'t .-i' err a-.d "'.,-.r "hil( rn. V '-C
Ucublodry, D -.n and C(, 1-.9. (r II, jfcs
i.;iv:idual ViilaLCs.)

(2. ) cio, vry. thv rrn. ill c: i 3tu in j c" Ori i' j. i* 3,
Prih ha. YA,.u U.JTovrsi4:. Ftuaie r, 'prinrb froi:m lr ccc -ipips
of .h. Ut,1 cLcade-': of Sciences, V c,1 VII, pp. 11-77, 1230.

(29) j.-a:.nr-, John 1r. I.:o ij,: nid The ir children ir South Rrk.;. BW.
S02, .-.p. S., 2- uth D7.kcta '-tt lle e, 3r oc ,
,- r, hai 1s

(30) Johcm scr. n, Jolm r. l:u'rncSot tlciorts an(. S& cil r,0r: ;-i:ati n in
South D1kot. ju1. 351, 1 A I t0, ,, ul kt tt
College, ;rokinls, S. D., Juno 19 7.

(31) Cdurn, Fo.ward V. nucher- 2c i'rns of th. U -it"d 2t ". pl 'ill:
rniT. ....o. Cr-r. I'rwSs, 19 6.

(32) Furc'kic, R. 11.', un'." Co RO 3)trrn,i IsTl ..JiiLicsota Poscttle-
net r jc.* .'u .., 1. F-:. ., L- xi riv. of >i:ii.,
St. L.UI, ':inn., )cc. I.-'?.


(33) Dicki's, P


(34) Hill, Goo.





(C5) "-ite, Lix



( T6) L? -.4trr ,




(37) Livcly:, C.


(Z ) Lively, C.


)rot}.-. '' ily Livii-- :r. loorcr ant -.ttir T ',LISS* -'oL 1967.
A^j .." .- S tc..., Lt'.'.'o Collco~p i',is3o,, op 1 7

7, Slocu-., 7altcr, and :ill, 2uth C, nt.-Tan'l Ajust....ont,
A Ctuy f rr-_ily nd- Itter-iQily A*pects of Land klctire-
iptA in h ContraJ -cns nfl r-rc .-.nc ,rca. Rcs, Bu,.
15-, ..'x:. .,ta., 'fr-iv. of Tisc.rsin, 1Tadisor, T'i3 ,
F*.b. 1S38.

P., ; r:.iJor, Loula2, and Grlory, Cecil L. Riiih Land -
Pocr Ieole. Les. RHorrt No. 1, 'pt. i "fr., 7fan:i
I.': vity .:L., r .... .in II, InCiar-a olis, Ind., 7n. 1936.
".- u'-" --

TaI. arn c ndcitures and
Costs cf Fkii Li:lg in tne Lik "rcok Ara, )uttcrn
lllinis, 121 4. .. -3, .-:nv ,. S., U'mv of .llinois,
"Ili. # C 1937. (Vireo.)

E. S-cial ?la:ini-. and th Sociology of Su rcins. "pri ted
fro. IRural Sociol *.j, Vol. 2, -. 3, S2pt. 19b7.

P., anc Ai:ack, R *. A :-'c od of Dutcr'i.. Rural Social
Sub-,.ras wit2 plication to 'c. u. 196, 0 io St. Univ.,
and ;. Exp. FStao, Col-: '., (]to, Ja=. 198. (Lnrico.)


(39) ype, 2. L, ncd :': John F. "' c Oeicsic to ,r3 in Oc'up otii)ns in
CJ .n ctic'x. .j. 1C1, St rrc A. ixU. S'a., Shorrs, Coir.,
.ct, If:0.


- 5 -












(40) Galpin, C. J., anC La.rson, Veda V. Farrm Popuulation of Selected
Counties, Dept. of commerce, 3r.revu of the Census,
V'sEhirgton, D. C., (Govt Ptg. Office), 192C.

(41) Mclvin, Bruce I Rural Fopulati'm r)f Nev York, 1855 t-o 1925. icmoir
116, Cornell Univ. AG. Exp. Sta., Ithaca, N. Y.; June li128.

(42) Harter, '.,. L., a.nd Stevart, P. E. The Popuiation of Iowa. Its Corpo-
sition and Changes.. Eul. 275, Iowa St. Coll., Ag. L'xp. Sta.,
Junes, Iowa, Nov. 1930.


(43) Clark, Carroll D., and 'Pobrts, Loy L. Poople of Kansas.
PlanrninF, Board, Tcpe:a, Kansas, Oct. 1036.


Smith, T. Lyrnn.
Bul.
July


Kansas State


The Groetih of Populaticn in Louisiana, 1C90 to 1930.
264, La. St, Ijaiv,., 'f-r. ExL Stca, Baton Rouge, La,
1935.


(45) Landis, Paul H. Fural Fopulatio -r7..- in .;'.:s;l '.;toil. Pul. 333, St.
Coll, of 'lA-., g xp. Sit-, Pullian, ah., July 1.36.

(46) Tl-.adcn, J. F. Population Trends in Ihichhigan. Special Bul. 236, lich.
St Coll., g. Ex. Ctal, '.s, L 1.i ..7, Tioch., June 1933.

(47) Mur.hio, K. 7i., and Jarchom, I. L. Poulatior -re:-(s in IFimesota.
3ul. 5.27, G oC ig Exp. Stao, St. Paul, !'inn.,
May 1935.

(48) Burt, Henry J. T'he Populatiun of Jisscuri: A General Survey of Its
Sources, Changes, and Present Coiiposition. Les. Bul. 188,
Univ. of -do,, Ag, Exp. Etao, Coluw:bia, 1o,, iay 1933.


Ande rs on,


V. 1. Population 7.re-:ics in Ie-v York State, 1900 to 1930.
Bul. 547, Cornell Univ., Fg Exp. Cta., Ithaca, N. Y.,
Dec. 1932.


(50) Bec:, P. G. Recent TrernJs in the Rural Population of Ohio.
Ohio Ag. -:p. Stc.,, C.oostor, Ohio, I>ay 1934.


Bul. 533,


(51) Duncan, Otis D. Population Tre:-es in Oklahora. 3ul. 224, Okla. Ag.
Exp. Sta,-, Stillwater, Okla., 1935.

(52) -r-.ith, T. Ly-nn j Population of Lcui'iarn Its Corposition and Changes.
Bul. 293, La. St. Univ,, Ag. Exp. Sta,, Baton Rouge, La.,
Nov. 1937.

(53) Thorpson, Warren S., and VLhelpton, P. K. Population 're,-.ds in, the United
States. Now York: Kcuraw-Hill Doohl Co., IyZ3.


(44)


(49)


- 36 -











(54) C].l i'., C. J., and -c.-ny, T. B. Interstatc Miriiratlioen .- thc Mative
'.Iitc 2" alqtion as Indicated ly Differcnccs Tc wcrn 'tate
of BirtL -_., State of Kesidence. Washington: T. S. DeTpt.
of /,r., 7,ur".i of Arricultural Econmicrs, Oct. 1 .-'

(&5') ":dPcrson, :c. c. n of i l .-ftirn To rnd I'ro: "(.v: York 3tato.
Ivlo 5Jl, Correll U:ndv., :,-. Fxi:. 3ta., Ithaca, N. Y.,
.^jr. 1 -74.

(563 Fc'iltor., C. lIoraco. IKural-tu'r 'iraticn in ]7orth Carulina, 1 _0 to
1.30. bul. 2 K5, N. C. S. Coll., 14. Lxp. 2ta., aloiCgh,
C., Fe-. 193-1.

(57) Lively, C. E,., arnd Peck, F. C. :i-einnt of Opur Counitry Porulation in
Ohio. Euls. 467 and 469, C"'io A T. ixp. :ta., ';ostor, C.Lio,
Nov. 1930 and S };t. 1951.

(58) Lively, C. ., ir. Fo:'tt, F.*'nccs. 4opulatiu_. ":Qility in Selected
Lreas of :'rul Ohio, 1C- 5. 1. 582, Chi AC. xp.
-,-tar ('. L 8 h p
St:., '..;,ster, (]io, Ju e 19'77.

(59) Hy. cs, J. L. -o: uluin c.2ility in -rs F-.. St.. otorr5, Corn ., Au: i[-..

(60) Andersen, U. 'A., :2.d ooi, C. P. Higr.tirn cf "ono and F u,_htk..rs of
.Uit i'an.crs in T7ak:o County, -!rtl. Ctroliia, 192. Pul.
275, :I. 7. 3t. Coll., Ag. N:,. Sti., Xaloi:h, 1. C., June
1930.

(61) Tillcor, F. A., :I)ffsor.mcr, Ii. C., and Lenton, ;lva V. Rural Changos in
T7esteri- Nurth Dclkota. *ul. 214, N. Dak. Ug. Exp. Sta., Fargo,
1. Dak., jan. 1I28.

(62) V.illianms, B. 0. Occupatio.iml 1-obility :mo:-.- T;'ar.iers. Part I. "' ability
FPterns. 3111. 26c, V. C. Ag. Exp. ta., leson, S. C.,
Junc 1 7.

(33) Geo, '"ilson, and Cordon, John J. 3rd. i{ural Dcponulation in Certain
Tidewater and -ieJo.o it .,reas of Virginia. Inst. onograph
:". 3, :iJv. ox2 Vu., Institu.te for Recsearch in the social
Sciences, riilversity, Va., 12D.

(34) S.ich, A .., and Yoder, F. P. Study f Fan:. Liraticn in Celected
Caor uniics in the ,l'.to of 2-v.),irton. ::'i. 3, "'a-z.
*- L. .-",. Sta., rul- .r?, ash., June 1929.

(65) Zirk-atric', L. .rd -f Life ix a Typical Ccction of Di-
versified c.c .r.i'j. ul. 4;C, Corn:ell UIv. 4AG. xp. Sta.,
Ithaca, c Y, July 1-23.


- 37 -








- 38 -


(66) Zimmerman,



(67) ZimernaLm,



(68) Zimerman,



(69) Zimnernmn,



(70) Lively, C.


Carlo C., and Black, John D. How Minnesota Farm Family
Incomes are Spent. Bul. 234, Univ. of Yinn. Ag. Exp. Sta.,
St. Paul, Hinn., June 1927.

Carle C., and Black, John D. Factors Affecting :xpmnditures
of Farm Family Incomes in Iinnesota. Bul. 246, Univ. of
Min-i. Ag. Exp. Sta., St. Paul, M[imnn., July 1928.

Carle C. Incomes and Expenditures of Village and -Town Fari-
ilies in Iinmnesota. Bul. 253, Univ. of Llinn. Ag. Exp. Sta.,
St. Paul, LTira., March 1929.

Carlo C. Incomes and Expenditures of Minnrmesota r'an.i and City
Families, 1927-28. Bul. 255, Univ. of Minn. Ag. Exp. Sta.,
St. Paul, Minr.., June 1929.

E. Family Living Expenditures on Ohio Farms. Bul. 468, Ohio
Ag. Exp. Sta., Yfoocster, Ohio, Nov. 1930.


(71) Anderson, WT. A. Living Conditions Among Lhite Land-Owner Operators in
Wake County. Bul. 258, N. C. St. Coll., Ag. Exp. Sta.,
Raleigh, N. C., Juno 1928.

(72) Anderson, W. A. Farm Family Living fAmong ite (Owner and T-namnt Op-
erators in 7'-.ko County. Bul. 269, N. C. St. Coll., Ag.
Exp. Sta., Raleigh, N. C., Sept. 1i29.

(73) Anderson, ". A. Factors Influencing Living Conditions of V2.ite Owner
and Tenant Farmers in TJake County. Tech. Bul. 37, N. C.
St. Coll., Ag. Exp. Sta., Raleigh, N. C., March 1930.

(74) Kirkpatrick, E. L. The Farmer's Standard of Living. New York: The
Century Co., 1929.

(75) Kirkpatrick, E. L. The Farmer's Standard of Living; A Socio-Econouic
Study of 2,886 7hite Fani Families of Selected Localities
in 11 Strttes. Dent. Bul. 1466, U. S. Dept. of Agr., V;ash-
ington, D. C., 192Q.

(76) Kirkpatrick, E. L., U-cNall, P. E., and CoU;les, May L. Fanm Family
Living in VIisconsin. Res. lul. 114, Univ. of 7is., Ag.
Exp. Sta., .iadir.on, ..is., Jan. 1933.

(77) Kirkpatrick, E. L., Tough, Losalind, and CoVyles, MIay L. The Life Cycle
of the Fanrm Family. Res. Bul. 121, UJniv. of 7'Wis., Ag. Exp.
Sta., 'ii.dison, '.is., Sept. 1934.

(78) Kirkpatrick, E. L., Tough, Rosalind, and Cvowlos, May L. How Farm Fam-
ilies --cot the Emergency. Res. Bul. 126, Univ. of is.,
Ag. Exp. Sta., Yladison, L' is., Jan. 1935.













(7:-) or. a:., X.rlc C., rand :r.,-pton, uerio E. r'rmily and So i(ty; %
Study Qf t' S E-ciology of Reconstruction. :Tcvw York: D.
\ :- ostrand Co., l.ZZ5.

(80) :ols: ., I .ry. A Social Su:-v of Tjcal-'.te, Utah. Io. 1, i
(.0 1% ..Lc, Ptah. 1""o i, tighLten

Yot-.F Univ-er. it Studics, Prove, Utah, i'16.

(81) -.Ilson, V_ :..r. _Thu Utrh Far 1.'I a l-C of Tp raim. Tj 2, ri, V. Young
r.v-sity Sti t.c, Prove, Utah, 1128.

(2) :'Isol, -:.rv.. Sor-e Social anl" Econr.wic F-,at -ircs of rw ricn-n I rL,
i'tc... "'.D 4, 3rihar Y *-.L- University gudies, Provo, Utah,


(53) Sandorson, r'ijhtt a-oc os';cr, 1)bcrt A Sciolo.ical Ca.se Study Cf
ST&.s. opri to fro ho p-iyX 107-1-,
Jui.e l.,0.

(%4) Thur :', il".r- 3. ;tud of S.lIocted Factors in 'crdily Life as Dcs-
criLed in Auto'ic ra]-ios. oenoir 171, Corxell Univ. A11.
Exr. 'ta., Itha.ca, N. Y., Feb. 135.

(:5) c-crs, "-a.ward U. ":.:.urerints of Fz.ily "Rlatio-.ships in am. amilios
of Central w'Evi Yor-. "..: Air I"C, Cornell Univ. 'LF. Exp. Sta.,
Ithaca, U. Y., EIc. 1S35.

(36) :irkpatrick, EA. ., ol', J I., In, Cr.h. Vidn, F.
r.. Crr-zaoion.s and th. Farm Fc.iily. Res. 3ul. 96,
Un1iv. of g.is. .,g. Fxp. Lta., 1.dison, "is., i.ov. 1929.
ofl `_- .9 St

(E7) Locrais, Chas. P. T.e Grc rV. of the Famn Far ily in -el-tion to Its
.'.Ctiities. > c, )o. Car. Ag. Lxp. Sta., lidgh, '. C.,
Jure i.,-'..

( 8) -ilson, "-:.rren H. Quaker .ill. 17. H. V .ilson, 268 Arlington Av,.,
Brook:lyn, T. Y., i07.
t j TT-d- Statcs
(9) A Serics of 16 C ur'. r Cooiz'unity SurJoy2 Throuiout the Thi'bo. States
publis-._ by the r, a'.'.: of homo ":s-onS of the Are ran
of L T1 Of tlie .'re,;I y .,-ric.-n
Church in the U.S.A., fro'n 1910 to 1916.

(90) ::-rze, H. V., aind ur.or, doS. 7 Tc~~-. 1 and Country C ',r c in the
Un.itd ?tPaos.. keu York: Goo. Dorsn Co., 19:-3.

ii) H ilton, C. lraco, artt, :. ER. 7'. Role .f the "'.urch in '.iril
C ..:unity -ife in VirLinia. Lul. 267, VT. Ag. hxp. "tr ,
blacks. urj, r., Ju>.- 1229.
,, ,

(92) r elvin T`.., and'_ i:-.er, D'. las. 'c ] .ral }.urch in L.icsouri.
7,.%s. l. 225, Univ. of Uo. x.", Sta., Clui.bia, !`o.,
June 11-,55.








- 40 -


(95) fatherr J. i. G., Jr. The Pural Churches of Allogany County. Eul. 587,
Cornell Univ. Ag. E:p. Str.., Ithaca, H. Y., larch 1934.

(94) Kunumlien, WV. F. The Social Problem of the Church in South D-kota.
Bul. 294, So. DPak. St. Coll., Ag. Exp. Sta., Brrokirgs,
S. D., Lay 1955.

(96) Xolb, J. 1., an. Viloden, A. F. Special interest Groups in Rural
Society. Yos. S3il. 84, U..iv. of T.is. Ag. Exp. Sta., 7,adison,
V.'is., Dec. lj27.

(96) Harris, T. L. Four-H Club T.ork in VTost Virginia. Bul. 241, T. Va. Ag.
Exp. Sta., i[rgantovm, V. V^o., April 1951.

(97) Duthie, 'iary E. 4-F Club TLork in the Life of aural Iouth. Chicago:
National Co.ittceo on Loys 'IY Girls Club lYork, 1936.

(98) Lindstroia, D. E., and Dawson, 7. :7;. Selectivity of 4-H Club Work: An
Analysis of Factors I.iflurncing L.o.iboership. Bul. 426, Univ.
of ill. A*. Lxn. "t:., Ura...., 111., July 1036.

(99) ,ianny, T. B., and Sith, 1. C. The Ohio Farm Lureau Federation from the
Farmer's VioTepoint. Prelir.inary Report, U. S. Dept. of Ag.,
Bureau of Agr. Bconomics in cooperation ,ith Ohio State Univ.
and Federal a ) "arJ, -oashington, D. C., April 1931.

(100) Tetreau, E. D. The Objectives and Lctivities of the California Fnr.i
bureau. B;ul. 5GS, Univ. of Calif. Ag. Exp. Sta., Berkeley,
Calif., .;cv. 1933.

(101) WVillson, F. A. Rural Cormunity Clubs ii 1iorth Dakota:- Factors Influenc-
ing Their Success or Failure. Bul. 251, N. Da:. Ag. Exp. Sta.,
Fargo, N. D., Aug. 1951.

(102) Lively, C. E., anC Bock, P. G. The Rural Health Facilities of Ross
County, Ohio. Pul. 412, Ohio A.g. Exp. Sta., loostor, Ohio,
Oct. 1927.

(103) Sandorson, Dwight. A Survey of Sickness in Rural Areas of Cortlar-d
County, `Tew York, lEcnoir 112, Cornell Tjniv. Ag. Exp. Sta.,
Ithaca, I. Y., !arch 1928.

(104) Kuilien, W. F. The Rural Health Situation in South Dakota. Pul. 258,
So. Dak. A,. Exp. Sta., Broe.kiigs, S. D., April 1931.

(105) Kolb, J. H. Service Institutions for Town and Country. Pes. Bul. 66,
Univ. of Tis. Ag. Exp. Sta., ]Iadison, 1'is., Dec. 1925.

(106) Halbort, Blanche. Hospitals for Rural Cormunities. Farmers' Bul. Yo.
1792, U. S. Dopt. of Agr., .....ii:yton, D. C., Nov. 1937.








- 41 -


(107) Lively, C. .BE. -uril I creation in 7'v:- Ohio Counties. Pi v-te
bUnivorsity Studics, Graduate School Serics, Contril utions
in ,. r -concmics, ]'. 1, Ohio St(tc. Iniv., C(ol.ibus,
Ohio, It '7.


(10.) "'r._an, .



(110) Grarver,


(ii0) Gardner,


* L., ond lurt, }. J. Coriunity Relations of Rural Y)oung
ioplc. Rles. Lul 110, Univ. of o.o A ,:Y9. Sta,
C luLiac, Io., Oct. 1927.

7ry E. TLh Play and Rocreation of Children and Youth in
Seloctod Rural '.rcas of South Carolina. ul. 275, So.
,'1a. '., xr St., Clason Collgoe. S. C,,
lla, and ..Caroline E. Lcisure-Tinc Activities of Rural
Children in Scl]ctcd Areas of '.'ost Virrinia. Pulclication
"U. 208, Children's Bureau, U. S. Dcpt. of Lalor, 7"ashington,
D.C., C .,,


(111i) :Hasor, V'aync C. Rural Buildings for business and Social Uses. Farmers'
Dul. 1322, U. S. Dopt. of Agr., [ashinLton, D. C., 1930.
([:upcrsodoed ,mrnors' Bulletins 825, 1192, and 1274.) See
also Farmers' Pul. 1173 Plans of Rural Comx.unity Tuild-
incs, 1.21.


D. E., Foster, V. A, and Fuller, "a: G. Rural Coiramunity
Buildi:.-s. Cir. 470, Univ. of Ill. A.-. Exp. Sta., Ext.
Scr., Urbana, Ill., Yarch 1937.


(115) L-ctten, N, L., and Raprort, Victor A. The iccreational Uses of Land
in Connecticut. Lul. l:., Conn. St. Coll., Ag. Exp. Sta.,
Storrs, Conno, >arch 1934.

(114) Gordcn, :.., and Gilbert, E. E. Recreation and the Use of Land in
.chi'-.ton County (R.I.). Bul. 258, .1 I. St. Coll., A8.
F_-I.p. Eta., 'i.Cston, R. I., i'2.y 1937.
(115) :; yes, Aucustus 17. .ur".i Conimunity Organization. Chicano: University
of Chicago Press. 1,21

(116) -,ayes, A"-' ustus 7'. Coi.unity Value of the Consolidated 1 urml School:
1t~_ La CC'rlclit Or
A Stu R-s. 'ul. 2, Tulane r-.ivcrvity, 1.,3.

(117) Kuilicn, T';. F. The !!i:-h school l *-:ucation of ari 1oys and (irls in
South Dakota. Dul. 250, So. Dak. E. ix). Sta., ir .-..-,
S. D., .,ar. 1)30.

(118) .r.ar., F. L.,, and .cc Kolvin V. T1 e Libraries of 1,issouri: A
Survey of Facilities. Les. ul. 2C6, Univ. .f >o. 0 xp.
Sta., Columtia, Uo., April IX.








- 42 -


(119) Barger, J. VWheeler. The County Library in IMontana. Bul. 219, Univ.
of Mont. Ag. Exp. Sta., Bozernman, T[ont., Jan. 1929.

(120) Felton, Ralph A., and Deal, :iarjorie. The Library of the Open Road.
Ext. Bul. 188, Cornell University, Ithaca, HT. Y., 31ov. 1929.

(121) Kumlien,'W. F. Equalizing Library Opportunities in South Dakota.
Pul. 233, So. Dak. St. Coll., Ag. jI;xp. Sta., Brockiiigs,
S. D., June 1928.

(122) Kumlicn, WI. F. Public Library Service in South Dakota. Bul. 301,
So. Dak. St. Coll., Ag. Exp. Sta., Lrookings, S. D., June
1036.

(123) Nason, Wayne C. Rural Libraries. U. S. Dept. of Agr., Farmers' Bul*
1559, Washington, D. C., 1928.

(124) Thurow, Mildred P. Interests, Activities and Problems of Rural Young
Folk. I. Women 15 to 29 Years of Age. Bul. 617, Corneoll
Univ. Ag. Exp. Sta., Ithaca, N. Y., Dec. 1954.

(125) Anderson, T. A., and Korns, Willis. Interests, Activities and Problems
of Rural Young Folk. II. Men 15 to 29 Years of Ago. Dul.
651, Cornell Univ. Ag. Exp. Sta., Ithaca, N. Y., May 1935,

(126) And6rson, V1. A. Rural Youth: Activities, Interests, and Problems -
I. and II. Buls. 649 and 661, Cornell Univ. Ag. Exp. Sta.,
Ithaca, N. Y., May 1956, Jan. 1957.

(127) Dennis, M. L. Organizations Affecting Farm Youth in Locust Tov.nship,
Columbia County, Pennsylvania. Bul. 265, Pa. Ag. Exp. Sta.,
State College, Pa., June 1931.

(128) Dickins, Dorothy. Occupations of Sons and Drughters of Mississippi
Cotton Farmers. Eul. 518, Miss. Ag.,Exp. Sta., State
College, Miss., May 1957.

(129) Hawthorn, Horace B. The Sociology of Rural Life. New York: The Century
Co., 1926.

(130) Hypos, Jamos L. Social Participation in a Rural Now England Tom,. Now
York: Contributions to Education, No. 258, Teaochers College,
Columbia University, 1927.

(151) Fry,' C. Luther. Diagnosing the Rural Church, A Study in Method.
3cw; York: Geo. H. Doran Co., 1924.

(152) Burt, Henry J. Contacts in a Rural Community. lRes. Bul. 125, Univ.
of Mo. Ag. Exp. Sta., Columbia, 1o., Aug. 1929.











(133S) .-cO.Oos, Joseph A. Tanrr: Versus V.illarc Living in
'. "A" Villgco. arts III an'. IV.
X:'. .-., Logan, Utah, H-rch 1936.


Utah, Plain City -
Pul. 2C69, Utah !qg.


D. E. :rccs Affcctini Participation of i ar PcoplC in
Kural, Crgrization. Bul. 423, Univ, of Ill. xp. Sta.,
Urbana, Ill., ,.,y 1936.


(15) .",', .rcd, &ylor, -C.ertcn, and 1"icholls, W. D. lural Orga:iiztion Con-
tacts in Three :%{ontucky C.-' uniitios. 1ul. 350, Ky. Ag. T xp.
Sta., LcxinLL.tcri, Ky., April 1934.

(13'3) Cyler, Morton. Caitnuni.ty and. ik.ihborliood Grou.,ping.s ir. Knott County.
Bul. 3-'.C, Univ. of Ky. AC. EXp. Sta., Lexington, Ky., Cc't.
!. 36.

(137) '.b, J. H. Service P.olations of Tovm and Country. Ros. Dul. 58, Univ.
of is. A. .ison, is, Dec. lj23.

(138) H"JULCI, 3. L, Comunity Orgvanizrction in I.Uic3ouri. 3xt. Cir. 183, Univ.
of i'o. uoll. of Ag., Col0U..bi, !o, Solpt. 1926.


(139) Durt, Henry


(140) L-urt, Henry


(141) Francme, '"-t.


(142) :rL:o, Nat.



(1<13) rYcyi ., u..


J. Rural Co3-m U!iity Trcrs. lRs. Dul. 161, Univ. of 1,o. Ag.
Exp. Sta., ColuL.Mia, M{o., Oct. 1951.

J. Rural Coimiunity Tr..nL'.s: Second Re ort. LRos. iul,. 199,
Univ. of .Io. Ag. Lxj. ,ta,, Coluj-bia, -'o., Juno 1933.

T. Focusing on theo Comuntry Comnunity. 'ixt. Cir. 211, ,1'.
Va. Univ., Coll. of Agri., Aorganto "'.Va,, July 1918.

T., and Th-k*:i,-*, A. H. Hc1iping the Country Coin.unity Saw
';ood on Its Coiimunity Pr Grra. xt. Cir. 2C5, Vf. Va. Univ.,
Coll. of Agri., b.cr-antovrn, T. Va., Jan. 1925.

3I. E.duc action Through Organizcd Coianiunity Activities. Ext.
Cir. 307, V. Va. Univ., Coll. of Ari., hior.--:_,Itovm, -. Va.,
Juno 1'34.


(145) Garn.tt, .


E. A Social Stud!y of the Dlackslurg Co.maunity.
Va. Ag. Exp. Sta,, Llackburg, Va., Aug. 13F.


Lul. 299,


E., and Soymnour, A. C. Membership Relations in Com unity
Orgcnrizc-ions: A. Study of Factors Affecting Org n;iz..tional
Attitudes. Aul. 287, Vu. A1g. Fxp. Stc.., lacks! urg, ra.,
Junoc 1' 32.


(146) Lirn'ctr-:-., D.. F, eox Factors Affecting," Social Welfare in Rural Areas
of Alexander Ccnr.ty, Illinois, 1934. I,." -4, Ag. Exp. Sta.,
Urniv. of Ill., lr:.'n, Ill., Jan. 1537.


- 4,? -


(l1 $ ) Lind strong,








- 44 -


(147) Manny, T. D. Problems in Cooperation and Experiences of Farmers in
Marketing Potatoes. Cir. 87, U. S. Dept. of Ag., ',ash-
ington, D. C., 1929.

(148) Manny, T. B. Farmers' Experiences and opinions as Factors Influencing
Their Cotton-Marketing Methods, Cir. No. 144, U* S. Dept.
of Agri., 7:ashington, D. C., 1930.

(149) Manny, T. D., and Nason, Taync C. Rural Factory Industries, Cir. No.
312; U. S. Dept. of Agri., Washington, D. C., April 1934.

(150) Brarnen, C. 0. Characteristics and Costs of County Goverrnment in
Arkansas. Bul. No. 338, Univ. of Ark.., Ag. Exp. Sta.,
Fayettevillo, Ark., Jan. 1937.

(151) Hamnar, C. H., and Barton, Glen T. The Farmer and the Cost of Local
Rural Government in iissouri. BDul. 385,. Agr. Exp. Sta.,
UniV. of .'-o., Columbia, !'o.,, June 1937.

(152) Taylor, Carl C., and Zir-j:.nrrian, Carlo C. Economic and. Social Con-
ditions of North Carolina Farmers. Special Bulletin,
No. Car. Tenancy Conmxr., No. Car. St. Board of Ag., Raleigh,
N. C., 1923.

(153) Von Tungcin, Gee. H., Kirkpatrick, E. L., Hoffer, C. R., and Thaden, J. F.
The Social Aspects of Rural Life and Farm Tenantry, Cedar
County, Iowa. Bul. 217, Ag. Exp. Sta., Amos, Iowa, Aug.
1923.

(154) Dickey, J. A., and Branson, E. C. IlHow Farm Tenants Live. Ext. Bul.
Vol. II, No. 6, Univ. of U.o. Car., Raleigh, N. C., Nov. 16,
1922. -

(155) H:r.ilton, C. Horace. Recent Changes in the Social and Economic Status
of Farm Familius in North Carolina. Bul. 309, No. Car. Ag.
Exp. Sta., Raleigh, N. C., "ay 1937.

(156) Jilliams, Robin i., and Wakefield, Olaf. Farm Tenancy in North Carolina,
1880 1935. AE-RS Inf. Series lio. 1, 3l. Car. Ag. Exp. Sta.,
Raleigh, N. C., Sept. 1937. (.inco.)

(157) Vroofter, T. J., Jr. Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation.
Ros. :ono. V, Div. of Social Research, Vor!s Progress Ad-
ministration, 1'-ashington, D. C., 1936.

(158) Vance, Rupert B. Hunan Factors in Cotton Culture: A Study in the
Social Geography of the American South. Chapel Hill:
Univ. of No. Car. Press, 1929.








- 45 -


(159) Schuler, R. A. Soci.l Status and Farn Tenure Attitudos anO Social
Conditions of Corn Dolt and Cotto "r. It ,r.rcrs. Soc.
os, e. INo. IV, U. S. Dopt. cf Agr., ,.t irt n, D. C.,
')ril 1J38.

(ICc) Landis, Paiul I., and ] r:-2d., l.elvin S. F&arm.. l or in thc Yakina
Valley, 1.ashin:ton. Bul. 343, St. Cell. of 's.I., Il.
'xp :ta., Pullman, ".ash,, Dec. 1936.

(1iLl) T'.trtC.u, ircd Lc.bor Rcquirements on Arizona Irrigated( Far-is.
ul. ::". 1C60, A.. Exp. Sta., Univ. of Ariz., Tucson, Ariz.,
l
(162) ;:.- ',rick, T. C. Cm-.parative Stu.-y of Rural Relief and ]Ion-Lelicf
Housch.-,lO.s. Res. Mono, II, Div. of Social Research, V'orks
r, ,-ress Ad.inistration, V.:ashington, D. C., 1i35.

(1-3) I.clvin, Lruce L. Rural Youth on Relief. Rcs. I.,ono. Ho. XI, Div. of
Social Research, '.orks Progress driiiniltrmtion,",l .hi;.-ton,
D. C., 1i37.

(1C4) J-.:.-, John P. The Extent of D(epcndcncy Upon Oldc A(>C A.ssistancc in
South D-T-ota. Bul. 318, A. Exp. St-., S. D. State Coll.,
rc ... *, S. D., Feb. 193C.

(IlS) Asch ,. rta, rnd J,:aus, A. R. Far.icrs on Rclicf a.nd cRllhabilita.tion.
os. oio. VIII, Division of Social Loe arch, ;V.orks Prcgr' ss
-" '; ratio, ancton, D. C., 1537.

(13C) Linr:, Irene. Relief and. Rha2ilitation in thc Drou;ht Area P.rt 3 of
Soc i Froblons ofl the Drought Area. -es. Bul. Ser. V,
D "i Scial Recearch, or rks Progress Ar .inistration,
as.....ton, r. C., 1u37.

(1G7) ".lln, K. I., C-tAr 1, L. S, Jr,, -r--cll, ". ., erri-xg, rriet L.,
and '::sL, J. D. D ar' Ir i'a i"- in the South l:ast.
j.%o I n. 0 y,' Div. of Social Pescarch, '.orks I 'rogress Ld-
linirstrotion, Tashington, D. C., 1.-' 7.

(1:3) l'ather, >:. G. Jr.., Tov- send, T. H., and S: 'c.rsozn, wighrt. A Stu"y of
iJuriL C L T. ',.. ~~~ ~ ~ -, T..-.. t-. '~ {4
*, Co ll "iv. '..-,. .,. S a Ithaca, i. Y., Juic l .

(1i") ; llrc ', C. E., and itch, J. C. Effects of Industrial Development on
.ira- Life in. iullivan County, Tenn. yt. Sor. >ol. V,
N). 3, ]iv of Tcnnr. ."cord, Knoxville, Tennessee, :.y 1928,

(lYC) "..I1, J. :., ard ~olcon, A. Tr'ds in T-m-Court rnt- rlatices. oes.
ul:. 117, U-iv. of 1'is. A, St.i, i.,
1953.








- 46 -


(171) Von Tungein, Gee. H., Brindloy, W. A., and Hawthorn, H. B, A Rural
Social Survey of Orange Taoinship, lackhawk County, Iowa.
Dul. 184, Iowa Ag. Exp. Sta., Ames, Iowa, Dec. 1918.

(172) Von Tungein, Geo. H., and Eells, Harry L. Rural Social Survey of
Hudson, Orange, and Jesup Consolidated School Districts,
Blackhavmk and Buchanan Counties, Iowa.. Bul. 224, Iowa Ag.
Exp. Sta., Ames, Iowva, Nov. 1924.

(173) Hay, Donald G. Social Organizations and Agencies in North Dakota, A
Study of Trends, 1926 to 1936. Bul. 288, Ag. Exp. Sta.,
N. Dak. Ag. Coll., Fargo, N. D., July 1937.

(174) Sanderson, Dwight. Research :Eiorandum on Rural Life in the Depression.
Bul. 34. lew York: Social Science Research Council 1937.

(175) WVfilliams, James N1. American Town, V.aterville, N. Y.: R. W, Williams,
1906.

(176) Williams, Joames 1. Our Rural Heritage The Social Psychology of Rural
Development. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1925.

(177) ;Williamis, James -. The Expansion of Rural. Life The Social Psychology
of Rural Devolopment. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926.

(178) Sanderson, Dwight, and Nafe, Robert W. Studies in Pural Leadership.
Pub. Ain. Sociol. Soc. XXIII, pp. 163-175, 1929.

(179) Zimmerman, Carlo C., and Black. John D. The IHarketing Attitudes of
Minnesota Farmers. Tech. Bul. 45, Univ. of 11inn. Ag. ?xp.
Sta., St. Paul, Minn., Dec. 1926.

(180) Garnett, W. E. Rural Organizations in Relation to Rural Life in Vir-
ginia With Special Reference to Organizational Attitudes.
Dul. 256, V. Ag. Exp. Sta., Dlacksburg, Va., .Lay 1927.

(181) Schanck, Richard L. A Study of a CoriTiunity and Its Groups and In-
stitutions Conceived as Behaviors of Individuals. Psycho-
logical 2[onographs No. 195, Princeton, '. J. Psychological
Reviews Co., 1932.

(182) Claghorn, Kate H. Juvenile Delinquency in Rural hvow York U.T S.
Children's Bureau Publication 32, U. S. Dept. of Labor,
VWashington, D. C., 1918.

(183) Dependent and Delinquent Children in North Dakota and South Dakota.
U. S. Children's Bureau Publication No. 160, 1926.

(184) Depcndent and Delinquent Children in Georgia. U. S, Children's Bureau
Publication 161, 1926.








- 47 -


(1811) 'Sher:arn, a'e.ol, and r -nry, ?h -as R. :.ollOT Foilk. '.. York, Thos.
Y. Crowsell Co., I'o:


(1-3) -ylor, '"rl C., '.ic,-ler, .-len V.., and Kirkpatrick, F. 1 ,
-isL:v~r rtcd Classes in American Agriculture.
leu. .,)a VIII, U. S. Dept. of A(r., "V.ashincton,
Apnri 1Ci3.


c,
Soc. es.
r' r
1I a


(h7) Vascy, T andI Folson, J. C. Survey of Agricultural LaJbor Corditions
in -lacer County, 7clif'ornia, U. S. Dept. of iltr., ..!1-
i:.Lton, D. C., Oct. 11K7. (Reports arc also available
of si ailLar surveys in the foll]'in:, counties: rch.ulcta,
olo*; T.i. ir..to., Illi.; Hamilton, Ia,; .wa.'.o, Vans
c ,, 'y; ~ ~.o.cordia Parish, La.; Lac qui 1Paric, lim.;
ay;'-.. Pva.; Fentress, Terui.; and Karnos, Tcxa.s.)










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


3 1262 08921 5114
















: -'....
.
h *:_
t* t
*!.. ..
























"C
; i...



























"A
iL ..::
'.. *'""








'..i




.. .; .


.... '::i-^ .








". ": : .'

*.. '




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EHODJGCSY_G952GT INGEST_TIME 2014-04-21T22:08:48Z PACKAGE AA00017426_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EAAZU4XTD_D51U2W INGEST_TIME 2014-04-24T23:52:55Z PACKAGE AA00017426_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES