A£ 
 
 7 
 
 p wji- 
 
 JNITED 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 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 October 1938 
 
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/ruralsocOOrura 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 This report, is u : by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, represents 
 an atterpt at an appraisal of what rural sccirlogy has accomplished in I 
 past and what it can and should mean to agriculture and rural life in the 
 future. The report had its origin rt the Midwestern Conference en Population 
 Research, held at t ' by of Missouri in pay 1337. At that ti , 
 
 •1 C. Taylor, Chairman of the Conference, appointed a committee consisting 
 of C . . Lively of Ohio State University, Chairman, Dwight Sanderson of 
 Cornell University, and Lowry Kelson of the University of Minnesota, to form- 
 ulate a report on the outstanding contributions of rural sociological research 
 in the past and as lucid and comprehensive a statement as possible cf the most 
 fruitful areas of research for the future. 
 
 The resulting report "-as presented for discussion at the annual meeting 
 of the Rural Sooiology Section of the American Sociological Society en Decem- 
 ber 28, 1937. It v. r as the belief of the rural sociologists present that the 
 committee should be continued and the report prepared for publication in the 
 light of the suggestions made at that time, and after further discussion among 
 the members of the committee* $|w committee met in Washington, D. C, 
 Dr. Taylor taking the place of Dr. Nelson who was in Europe, and this publica- 
 tion is the composite result of their work, 
 
 r jor puipose ef this report is to point out -.here rural sociology 
 may make a cor.trib--.ti~n to the practical problems of agriculture and rural 
 life, at the same time main i ling its scientific integrity and purpose. It 
 attempts to appraise the entire scope and purpose of rural sociology as a 
 science and as a method to improve rural life. 
 
 Part One contains a formal definition cf the subject and a delimitation 
 
 K.' 
 
 of the field as outlined by the committee. In Tarts Two and Throe, reserrch 
 of the last 25 years and current research arc reviewed, part Two was written 
 chiefly by Dwight Sanderson and Part Three by p arl C. Taylor. Fart Four by 
 Z. E. Lively looks : *d the future, stating what may be expected of research 
 in rural sociology in the light of what has thus far bo^n accomplished. ViThile 
 tho several parts of the report were each primarily the responsibility of cne 
 of tho cammitte .. i bers, the entire report was thoroughly discussed by them 
 as a group and represent, a joint product. 
 
THE FIELD OF RURAL SOCIOLOGY 
 Introduction 
 
 Rural Sociology is one of the most recent additions to the sciences 
 engaged in research for agriculture. The primary aim ef rural sociology is the 
 improvement of the social conditions of the people on the land. It originated 
 as a discipline in teaching and research less than 25 years ago as a part of 
 the general impulse to improve American agriculture, technologically, econom- 
 ically, and socially. 
 
 a years after the Country Life Commission had made its study and re- 
 ported to Fresident Theodore Roosevelt, the Honorable David F. Houston, then 
 Secretary of Agriculture, appointed a committee of representative rural leaders 
 to advise him on the scope of "Farm Life Studies." This committee made its re- 
 port in June 1919. It stated that "the growth of national wealth makes possible 
 the improvement of the conditions of life in the farm houses and rural com- 
 munities as well as in towns and cities," and submitted a list of topics "as an 
 outline of the subjects which should be studied with the view to facilitating 
 advancement in the life of American farriers and their families." * 
 
 The most direct result of the Committee's report was the establishment 
 of the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life in the Bureau of Agricultural 
 Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture. As both direct and 
 indirect results of the Committee' s report, studies in practically all ef the 
 fields listed by the Committee have been carried on by State Agricultural 
 
 oriment Stations, the Bureau of Agricultural Economies, and a number of other 
 agencies and institutions. 
 
 The first department of rural sociology to be established separately 
 from agricultural econondes or general sociology at a Land Grant College was 
 called a Department of Rural Social Organization. This department was es- 
 tablished at New York State College of Agriculture, Cornell University, in 
 1915. The name of the department was representative of the field ef research 
 and study as seen by those who were interested in improving farm life and who 
 Lievod that organization was the touchstone to that improvement, but who felt 
 t rural people were not at that time acquainted with the new science of 
 sociology which was still mostly or largely a theoretic, academic discipline. 
 
 Because it was the impulse for the improvement of rural life that gave 
 rise to research 'work in the field of rural sociology in agricultural colleges 
 and in the U. S. Department of Agriculture, a wide range of such issues as the 
 
 * Report of committee appointed by tho Secretary of Agriculture to consider 
 the subject of Farm Life Studies as one of the Divisions of research work of the 
 pre; 3ureau of Farm Management and Farm Economics. Circ. 139, Office of the 
 Secretary, U. S. Dept. Agr., June 1919. 
 
- 2 - 
 
 improvement of health conditions, library service, rural schools, and similar 
 matters cf importance in the improvement of farm life, whether strictly within 
 the realms of sociology or not, have been subjects for research. Nov/, 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 bo recognized as a specialized science, dealing 
 with a body of knowledge and a method of research that makes it a most 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 which 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 dcscribable types of human association, whether they 
 be institutions, community 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 come 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 members. Because the habits, customs, traditions, 
 and attitudes of the members are important to the effective! operation 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 
 of the cultural history, the standards of living, and the institutions of the 
 people living within the areas being analyzed. Both types of analysis are 
 necessary for determining what adjustments shall be undertaken. 
 
- 3 - 
 
 In like maimer « the science of hone economics has recently broadened its 
 field of interest to include all phases of family life. It is therefore in- 
 terested in the sociv \nd psychology of family relationships, as related tn 
 the physical and biological factors necessary for satisfactory hone life. It 
 will make use of the sociological method in the study of the family as an in- 
 stitution and of family relationships from the standpoint of the interests of 
 the family. Sociology also deals with the family as the primary form of human 
 association and endeavors to show how it is influenced by other groups and 
 organizations, and other factors in the social environment, and how they in turn 
 are affected by the types of families or changes in the family as an institution, 
 Both disciplines deal vith the same subject matter, but in different frames of 
 reference. They are complementary and only through both methods of analysis can 
 the total reality be revealed. 
 
 One of the interesting features of the relation of the sciences is that 
 the phenomena that are of common interest to related sciences, the "border-lands 
 of science," are often the most fruitful fields for research. This is veil 
 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 
 program cf procedure. 
 
 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 studying the ways in which rural people associate, with the con- 
 viction that through the application of the methods of science which have im- 
 proved their material conditions, men may be able to improve their relations to 
 each other, for it is in these relations, whether they bo of competition or 
 cooperation, of conflict or fellowship, that they find their deepest satis- 
 factions . 
 
 A reas of Re s o arch Emphasis 
 
 The field of rural sociology does not consist neroly of the application 
 of the categories of general sociology to rural life. Rather it arises as an 
 attempt to solve certain social problems of rural society. Rural sociology 
 must make a contribution both to the solving of rural social problems and to 
 the accumulation of a body of scientific knowledge in harmony with the tenets 
 ef general sociology. Consequently, with the practical problems of agri- 
 cultural adjustment and rural-life improvement on the one hand and the cate- 
 gories and concepts of theoretical sociology on the other, it may not always 
 be clear precisely where and in what manner rural sociological research can be 
 oonduoted to best advantage. To harmonize this apparent discrepancy is cne of 
 tasks of this report. 
 
 The problem of the proper research emphasis in rural sociology raises at 
 enco the entire question concerning the scope and purpose of the subject itself. 
 This roport should 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 Throe, a review of 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, thereforo, 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. Recreational and avocational agencies 
 
 6. Agricultural extension 
 
 7. Econor.dc institutions 
 
 8. Governmental and political institutions 
 
 9. Welfare agencies 
 D. Social Status 
 
 1. Standard of living 
 
 2 . Tenancy 
 
 3. Fam labor 
 
 4. The youth problem 
 
 Social Participation - Extent to which individuals and families 
 
 participate in the common life of the 
 community and of society at large. 
 
 III. Social Psychology 
 
 A. Attitudes and opinions 
 
 B. Leadership 
 
 C. Mass psychology 
 Personality and socialization 
 Institutionalization 
 
 IV. Social Ecology 
 
 A. The social geography of rural life 
 
 B. Regions and subregions 
 
 C. Social correlates of land occupancy 
 
 V. Anthropological Aspects 
 
 A. Folk culture 
 
 B. Culture history 
 
 VI. .Social Change 
 
 A. Changes in social organization 
 
 B. Factcrs influencing change 
 
 C. Processes involved in change 
 
 D. Social trends - or direction of change 
 
 E. Planned social change - such as community organization, 
 
 area planning, etc. 
 
 VII. Social Pathology 
 
 A. Poverty and dependency 
 
 B. Delinquency 
 
 C. Social and personal disorganization 
 7 . Rural slums 
 
 E. Social rehabilitation 
 
- 6 - 
 
 Part Two T/VHAT 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 (l) in this field was published by an agricultural experiment station, 
 which was Y 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. * 
 
 Lhat, 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. No 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 New 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 1920 - "Rural Sociological Research in the 
 United States," by C. J. Galpin, J. 11. 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 - 
 
 administrative offioers of all kinds in planning national, State, county, and 
 local programs of vork. For the Nation as a whole, the outstanding work of 
 W. S. Thompson and 0. E. Baker in the analysis of population trends and the 
 social implications of differences of age and sex composition of rural and 
 urban population, had its origin and motivation in the work of the former in 
 rural sociology and of the latter in the study of the human geography of agri- 
 culture. Thompson and his colleague P. K. Vfnelpton (53) have become leading 
 authorities on the future trend of population, predicting a static population 
 in the near future with all of its social and economic consequences, and they 
 and Baker have shown the dependence of cities upon the countrysido for re- 
 plenishing their population and the debt which cities owe to the country for 
 
 nurture and education of an excess of farm children which makes this 
 possible . 
 
 The extent of migration, to and fro, between farms and towns and 
 cities is of considerable importance in determining current trends in rural 
 life. Long-time trends may be determined by the decennial Federal censuses, 
 but between census years the annual estimates made by the Bureau of Agricultural 
 Economics are the only source of information, and have been widely quoted and 
 used for various purposes. Hamilton (5 6) has studied the rural-urban migration 
 in North Carolina for the past decade. The streams of migration of rural pop- 
 ulation from one State to another in succeeding decades have been mapped by 
 Galpin and Manny (54), and have been analyzed for New York by Anderson (55) and 
 for North CarolinaTy Hamilton (56) with results that have attracted public 
 interest. 
 
 Actual mobility of the rural population cannot be determined from 
 census data and is of considerable importance as affecting the support of rural 
 institutions and the strength of social control of local groups. In Ohio, 
 Lively (57) made (in ly28) a field survey of the movement of open-country fam- 
 ilies in four counties representative of different arecs of Ohio, which v:as re- 
 peated in 1S35 (58). Other studies of mobility and migration have been made in 
 several States (59-64). Through the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 
 and later the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Resettlement Administration, 
 and V.'orks Progress Administration, Lively and Taeuber have stimulated similar 
 studies in other States, which will have particular importance in showing the 
 effect of the depression on mobility. 
 
 These analyses of rural population by rural sociologists have been 
 basic data for the new State and national planning boards and have been widely 
 used by them; indee.d, in some cases they have been the moans of inaugurating 
 such studies (43). In brief, it is safe to say that our knowledge of the 
 characteristics and trends of the rural population for particular States and 
 
 ..as come chiefly from the work of the rural sociologists in analyzing 
 and interpreting the data of the Federal censuses. 
 
 II. Social Organization, or Social Structure. Studies of population re- 
 veal the human composition of rural society, but the nature of its social or- 
 ganization, of the interrelations of various groups and institutions to which 
 rural people belong, has been the chief area cf research in rural sociology. 
 
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 arrangemont. 
 
 1. The community. First and most important was the pioneer study 
 of C. J, Galpin (TJ", who showed the interdependence of the village and its 
 tributary territory in a relationship that has come to be known as the rural 
 community. Galpin invented a method of delimiting community areas, vjhich has 
 been improved, and the nature of the relationships involved have been revealed 
 by quantitative measurements in the studies of Kolb (3) in Visconsin, Sanderson 
 ( 4-6) in New York, Morgan (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 Sanderson (10), has been and is being increasingly 
 accepted by the general public. As a result, the thinking as to social ob- 
 jectives has v >oen 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, dcS. Brunner and his collaborators ( 12-13 ), which have been twice re- 
 peated at 6-year intervals (1924, 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 Melvin (14), of service relations by Kolb ( 137 ), and of the 
 changes in distribution and~~population of villages by Zimmerman (15), Lively 
 (16), Landis (17-18), and T. Lynn Smith (1_9) have given a comprehensive picture 
 of - the 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, 
 
_ Q _ 
 
 These studies have riven a basic knowledge of the gross 
 structure of rural society in its geographical relationships, but the geograph- 
 ical relationships of all phases of the social structure are also studied from 
 the ecological point of view, as mentioned below under IV, Social Ecology. 
 
 3, The neighborhood. Incidental to his study of the rural com- 
 ity, Dr. Galpin became aware of the significance of the rural neighborhood 
 and instigated a series of studios by Kelb (3), Sanderson and Thompson (4-6), 
 n (7), and others, which have brought out the structure and function of 
 the ruraT neighborhood and the tendency for it to decline in importance as the 
 rural community becomes better integrated. Important data on rural neighbor- 
 hoods have also been contributed by B runner ( 8-9 ) and his colleagues in their 
 studies of village areas. But only a little intensive study has been given to 
 rural neighborhoods in these areas of the South where they are still more im- 
 portant as units of social organization. 
 
 B. Rural Groups. 
 
 Within the spatial pattern of rural society there are numerous 
 groups. The description of these groups, their relationships and behavior, is 
 the distinctive function of sociology. 
 
 1. The family and other primary gr oups . As the family is the 
 primary group, its problems have incited research as to its standards of living 
 and as to family relationships. Research on the family's standard of living is 
 discussed be lev/. 
 
 The increasing number of divorces in cities and the changing 
 attitudes toward family relationships have incited research as to what 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 
 Sanderson and Foster (83), Thurow (84), Beers (85_), Kirkpatrick (_77 and 86), 
 and Locmis (87), but much remains to be done in perfecting techniques before an 
 adequate body of data can be gathered from which generalizations can be made, 
 although these studies have already produced important hypotheses that challenge 
 further research. The facts so far obtained have been eagerly used by those en- 
 gaged in parent education and child guidance, by educators, social workers, and 
 the rural clergy. 
 
 2. Special interest groups. Modern rural society is characterized 
 by an increasing number of voluntary, special interest groups, such as parent- 
 teacher associations, fraternal organizations, clubs of various sorts - literary, 
 musical, athletic. The number and variety of these groups, their relationships 
 to each other, their leadership, and the factors influencing their origin, 
 growth, decline, and death have been studied by Kolb and Wileden (95) in 
 
 Bconsin, There have been too few intensive studies of particular kinds of 
 organizations common in rural life, but outstanding examples of their practical 
 value are shown by the work of Harris (96\ Duthie (97), and Lindstrom (£5) on 
 4-H Clubs. • 
 
- 10 - 
 
 3. Class groups, including farm ers' organizations. The dis- 
 tinctive farmers' organizations such as the Grange, the Farm Bureau, farmers' 
 clubs, and cooperative associations have also received boo little investiga- 
 tion. Manny made a study of the Farm Bureau in Ohio (99) and of cooperative 
 marketing associations in the South, and Tetreau (100) studied 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 improvement. 
 
 4. Ethnic groups. Rural sociologists have given little study to 
 ethnic groups. Bruomer (27) has investigated a number of immigrant communities 
 and recently Johanson (29~Y~'. 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 it's 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 Y» r est 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 VJarren H. Wilson, 
 first of the role of the church in a rural community (88), and follovfed by 
 numerous surveys of rural churches in various areas ( 89"]", 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 Missouri by Sneed and Ensminger (92), in New York by Mather 
 (93), and~Tn South Dakota by Kumlien (94). The so studies have produced infor- 
 mation concerning the factors that affect the success of the rural church and 
 have had a profound influence on the policies of denominational administrators 
 and of both clergy and 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) . 
 
- 11 - 
 
 4. Health agencies . Studies of -the availability and cost of 
 medical care have been made in Ohio by Lively and Dock ( 102 ), in New York by 
 Sanderson (10?), and in South Dakota by Kumlion ( 104 ), and of hospital fr.cili- 
 
 lb (105) in' .sin. These exploratory studies did much to reveal 
 the needs for better rural health services and stimulated more extensive studies 
 of the problems involved by public health services and private agencies. 
 
 5. Recreational and avocational agencies. The growing interest 
 in better recreation facilities in rural areas led to surveys of recreational 
 facilities by Lively ( 107 ) in Ohio, Morgan ( 108 ) in Missouri, Frayser ( 109 ) 
 in South Carolina, and Gardner ( 110 ) in West Virginia, and "'"hettcn ( 115 ) in 
 Connecticut, and of community houses and their organization by Nason (Til), 
 and others. 
 
 6. Economic institutions. The study of economic institutions has 
 been left mostly to the economists, but they have a sociological aspect that 
 
 is not usually considered by the economists. Two examples of research in this 
 field are Manny's studies of cooperative marketing associations for potatoes 
 147 ) and for cotton ( 148 ), and the report on rural factory industries ( 149 ) 
 ny and Nason. 
 
 D. Social Status. 
 
 One of the chief factors affecting community organization and the 
 whole pattern of rural society is that of social and economic status. One of 
 best indices of status is the standard of living. 
 
 1. Standard of living . Prior to the first study of Kirkpatrick 
 5) practically nothing was known concerning the standard of living of farm 
 
 families in this country, and our present knowledge of this subject has come 
 chiefly from the work of rural sociologists, Zimmerman (66-69), Lively (70), 
 Anderson ( 71-73 ), Kirkpatrick ( 74-78 ), and others, although recently much has 
 been done by heme economists. Much of the analysis of the standards of living 
 by sociologists has been more economic than sociological, but the primary ob- 
 ject has been to discover the cultural pattern of different classes of fam- 
 ilies and the relation of the non-material to the material goods in the standard 
 of life of the farm family. How the standard of living and relationships of 
 the family characterize distinct culture patterns has been clearly brought out 
 by Zir - and Frampton (79) by contrasting the culture of the Ozark mountain- 
 eers with that of New England mill villagers, and by Nelson ( 80-62 ) for the 
 d culture in Utah. 
 
 This whole movement has resulted in a new appreciation of the 
 !s of the farm family and in redirecting the interest of the farmer toward 
 using the improvement of the farm business as a means to better family living 
 rather than as an end in itself. 
 
 2. Tenancy . The economic aspects of tenancy have been exten- 
 sively studied by the economists, but too little has been done to show the 
 effect of tenancy on the family, rural institutions, and community life. 
 
- 12 - 
 
 Von Tungeln, Kirkpatrick, Hoffor, and Thaden (153) studied the social aspects 
 of farm tenancy in Iowa in 1920. Taylor and Z immc rman (152) and Branson and 
 Dickey (154) made pioneer studies of the social aspects of" tenancy in Horth 
 Carolina; TJoofter ( 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. Although there are numerous comparisons 
 of owners and tenants with regard to various social phenomena, there has been 
 no general study of the social effects of tenancy in the Middle "Jest. 
 
 3. Farm labor . The social position of farm laborers has been 
 practically neglected by rural sociologists and only recently has a beginning 
 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 'Washington, and several reports have been made on the sit- 
 uation in California. Paul Taylor has made some 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 make life more satisfying for them. Studies of the 
 activities and interests of rural youth have been made by Morgan (108) in 
 Missouri, Thurow (124), Anderson and Kerns (125) in New York, and Dennis (127) 
 in Pennsylvania. These 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 common life of the community 
 and of society at large. 
 
 The ultimate object of all social research is. the improvement of 
 human relationships and individual personalities. Sociological research lias 
 shown that individuals who do not have a normal amount of contacts with others 
 in groups tend to be self-centered, dwarfed personalities, who impede social 
 progress. Kow the individual may be socialized through group contacts is a 
 basic objective of sociological research. An imxjortant aspect of the study of 
 group relations has, therefore, been that of determining the amount of par- 
 ticipation of families and individuals in various groups, the factors affect- 
 ing their participation, and the consequence to them and to society. Important 
 contributions to the measurement and interpretation of social participation 
 have been made by Hawthorn (129), Hypes (130), 'Fry (131), Burt (132), Geddes 
 ( 133 ), Kirkpatrick (77 and 86 J, Lindstrom""( T34 ) f and others ( 135 ). They all 
 go to show that individuals, families, and communities which have a low index 
 of participation in organized groups are backward 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 leer; dene 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 
 
w 15 _ 
 
 forms of association behave why they do so. The works of Williams,' cited 
 below, were pioneer studies in this field. A mere beginning has been made in 
 the study of rural leadership ( 178 ), ant 1 the same is true of farmers' atti- 
 tudes (179-181). Until more is known of what motivates and controls the be- 
 havior of rural society, rural sociology will have a limited functio!i in , 
 attempts to meet the many practical problems of rural social organization, 
 r ardless of the contribution it may make to a better insight into social 
 relationships. 
 
 IV. Social Ecology. In addition to the spatial aspects of the gross 
 pattern of rural society (3ee II, A, above), the social organization of rural 
 life may be studied with regard to the relationship of geographic, climatic, 
 and other factors of the physical environment, such as soils* and vegetation, 
 which 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. 
 
 Notable examples of descriptions of social characteristics of 
 regions are those of Manny, Garnett, and Hooker (22) of the Southern Appala- 
 chian Highlands, of Beck and Forster (23), of WakeTey and Losey in Iowa (25), 
 and of Odum and his collaborators for the South (31). These studies have in- 
 dicated the social problems that are characteristic" of whole regions and the 
 factors with thich they are associated and which must be dealt with by any 
 practicable plan for improvement. Hypes (39) and his collaborators have done 
 pioneer work in studying the relation of soTl types to settlement and cultural 
 phenomena . 
 
 V« 'vnthropologica l Asp e cts , Rural sociologists have not, as yet, 
 given much attention specifically to folk culture and culture history, although 
 these aspects are given consideration in many of the studies in social organ- 
 ization previously cited, Charles S. Johnson's study of negro culture in his 
 "The Shadow of the Plantation" (26) is one of the best examples of this type of 
 res . Bruntoer used this method in a study of colonies of foreign-born 
 fanners in this country (27), and the studies of J. :.;. Williams ( 175-177 ) of 
 farm life in central New York illustrate its value. Nelson studied the origin 
 of the n n village from this standpoint (28), and recently Johansen has 
 studied the immigrant nationalities of South~~Dakota (29). Warren H. Wilson's 
 Cue : r " ill (88) is largely a study of culture historyT 
 
 VI. Social Change . If rural sociology is to have predictive value, 
 it must study the processes of social change that have occurred in the past 
 and those that are occurring today. 
 
 A. Changes in Social Crganization. 
 
 The repeated studies of Orange Township, Blackhawk County, 
 . ade by Von Tungcln ( 171-172 ) and his associates, and the study of rural 
 . Etiea and neighborhoods in Walworth County, Wisconsin, by Kolb and 
 Poison ^170 ) have given important data on change in rural conditions in the 
 t. The first research on rural social change mado in this country 
 
- 14 - 
 
 was reported in Williams? American Town (175), which has' recently "been brought 
 up to date by Mather, Towns end, and Sanderson ( 168 ). A considerable volum'p 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 Herita ge ( 17C ) 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 Rbove, and particularly in those of Williams* 
 
 C. Processes Involved in Change. 
 
 Definite processes of social change arise through the effects 
 of specific factors as, for example, industrialization and urbanization. An 
 important contribution to the effect of industrialization on social change in 
 a rural county is the study of Allrcd ( 169 ) in Sullivan 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 Whctten and Devereu;: (130) in Connecticut, 
 and by Tate (21) in New York. The reports reveal an intermingling of rural 
 and urban interests 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 Social Trends by B runner and Eolb (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 "such studies at stated intervals. Many of the studies 
 cited under Population deal with social trends in the composition and distri- 
 bution of population. 
 
 E. Planned Social Change - Such as community 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 - 
 
 planning, sociologists had "begun research on community organization, as a 
 ns of effecting planned social change. 
 
 Out of the study of the 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 organization, or a study of hov: desirable social 
 changes in the rural community may be effected. Mothods of community organ- 
 ization have been studied by Kolb (137) in Wisconsin, by Hummel (138) and Burt 
 (159-140) in Missouri, by Frame (141-142) and Rapking (143) in Vest Virginia, 
 by Garnett ( 144-145 ) in Virginia, and by others. Although no general formula 
 for this process can be established, important methods of procedure and of 
 measuring progress have resulted from these investigations and have formed the 
 basis of many programs of community improvement carried on by extension services, 
 schools, churches, and other social agencies. 
 
 VII. Social Pathology . 
 
 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 agencies. With the unprecedented extent of rural dependency caused by 
 the depression and successive droughts, the Federal Emergency Relief Administra- 
 tion arranged with rural sociologists in many States for cooperative research. 
 
 a result there has been a large number of reports on the social and economic 
 conditions and the personal factors affecting dependency issued by the FERA and 
 the WPA ( 23, 24, 157, 162 )*, agricultural experiment stations, and State relief 
 administrations. The data obtained by these investigations have been invaluable 
 as a basis for formulating policies of relief administrations and of the Re- 
 settlement Administration, now the Farm Security Administration. These studies 
 "nave been very useful for the purposes of diagnosis and have shown that so- 
 ciologists are veil equipped for investigating problems of dependency, but 
 whether they have made any permanent contribution to a knowledgo of the causes 
 of dependency and means for its prevention and treatment, remains to be demon- 
 strated. 
 
 B. Delinquency. 
 
 Notable studies on delinquency in rural areas have been made 
 by investigators of the Children's Bureau ( 182-154 ), but rural sociologists 
 
 left this field almost entirely to the social welfare workers and crimin- 
 ologists. 
 
 * The printed and mimeographed 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 on various topics of social 
 organization. 
 
 D. Rural Slums. 
 
 The study of rural slums has also been neglected by rural 
 sociologists. A vivid account of one made in the Virginia mountains (185) 
 illustrates the importance of their study. 
 
 Retrospect 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 influence - even if indirectly - on the policies and programs 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 arc 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 Three TYPES OF RURAL SOCIAL RESEARCH IN PROGRESS IN 1937 
 
 The fields of rural social research during the calendar year 1957 re- 
 rained very much as they had been in the past. Not all types of projects that 
 had "been carried on at one tine or another were in process during the year, hut 
 a fc- areas or fields were added. The fact that a great many farm fam- 
 ilies were cr. relief or rehabilitation, and the fact that certain large pro- 
 grams of so-called governmental activity were being carried on, such as the 
 
 ricultural Adjustment program, the Soil Conservation program, and the "arm 
 Security program, gave rise to new areas of concern and stimulated considerable 
 
 hasis upon the problems with which those programs dealt. This section of 
 the report does not attempt to give a complete enumeration of all rural re- 
 search in progress during the year. It does, however, present a thorough 
 enough canvass of research projects to make it possible to analyze the major 
 areas cr fields being studied during the year. 
 
 As in the case of Section Two of this report, the list of categories of 
 projects set forth in Section One will be followed in summarizing types of 
 projects under way during the year. 
 
 I. Population . Research in all four fields of population was carried 
 on by one or more agencies and institutions, studies of the numbers, distri- 
 bution, and changes, and studies of mobility or migration of population con- 
 stituting about four-fifths of all population research projects. Studies in 
 population composition and characteristics, and vital statistics were con- 
 tinued, and what premises to be some outstanding specialized findings should 
 
 :ar from these studies. The following research projects arc typical of 
 those in process. 
 
 Numbers, Distributions, Changes, and Predictions in the 
 Trends of Population. 
 
 In this category, such State studies as the following are rep- 
 resentative: A Study of Changes in the Panning Population in Iowa; Rural Pop- 
 ulation Changes in the State of Washington; Social History of Population 
 Changes in South Dakota; Arizona Population Trends; Annual Estimates of Farm 
 Population in Ohio; Fan.; Population Changes in Oklahoma; and The History of 
 
 .tana Population Density and Distribution. In addition, the annual e s- 
 timates were made of the fan.: population of the United States by the Bureau of 
 
 ricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture. 
 
 B. Population Composition and Characteristics. 
 
 Studies of this aspect of population were made for the farm 
 population of the United States, dealiiig chiefly with composition and distri- 
 bution, and in Louisiana, a study was made dealing with the composition and 
 ohan :" the population of that Stato (52). 
 
- 18 - 
 
 C. Vital Characteristics. 
 
 In Oklahoma, the vital characteristics of a segment of the 
 population were studied under the title, A Comparative Study of the Physical 
 Defects of Farm and Nonfarrr. College Women Students at Oklahoma Agricultural 
 and Mechanical College. Firth 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 Mobility in Iowa; Population Mobility in 
 Montana; Rural Population Mobility in Arizona Irrigated Areas; Social Mobility 
 in the Farming Occupation in South Carolina; and Rural Population Mobility in 
 Southeastern Missouri. 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 fi old of social organization and 
 social structv.re received major consideration by the rural sociologists. As 
 will be seen from the following list of representative projects, the spatial 
 natterns 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 spatial 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" (l)*> Similar studies are still being carried on. 
 
 1. The community. The community was studied under the' follow- 
 ing typical project titles : The" Social Organization of New York Rural Com- 
 munities; Organizations of Rural Communities in the United States; Community 
 Adaptation to Population Changes in Michigan; The Community and the Depression; 
 and High School Communities in Michigan (11) . 
 
 2. The village. Two studies may servo as examples of research 
 on the village carried on during the year: Factors of Determining the Effect- 
 iveness of Rural Organizations in Selected Iowa Counties and Utah Farm Village 
 Studies. 
 
 3. The neighborhood. An example of neighborhood research is 
 the project, Neighborhoods and Communities in the Lansing Region 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 iiold were in process 
 
- 19 - 
 
 during 1937. 
 
 1. The family and other primary grou ps. The only primary 
 group given major consideration during the year was the family. Two examples 
 arc: The Sociology of the Rural Family (Nov; York), and The Rural Family and 
 the Social Adjustment of Its Members (Iowa). 
 
 2. Special interest groups . No studies were being made of 
 special interest groups unless youth studies listed under "The Youth Problem" 
 be- counted as special interest group studies. 
 
 5. Class groups, including farmers' organizations. Farmers' 
 organizations were the only class groups which received attention by rural 
 sociologists in 1937. The membership of farmers' organizations was studied 
 in New York State and more general studios were also made of farmers' organ- 
 izations in the United States as a whole. 
 
 4. Ethnic grou ps. A good example of research concerning ethnic 
 groups is Immigrant Settlements and Social Organization in South Dakota (50). 
 
 C. Institutions and Service Agencies. 
 
 Studies 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, whereas in 
 the early stages of development, many studies were made of rural churches and 
 a number made of other rural social institutions. 
 
 1.-3. The school, the church, the library. ■ ntly, no 
 specialized studies of rural schools, churches, or libraries wo: ; con- 
 ducted. Considerable information was undoubtedly being gathered ; re 
 rural institutions in community and standard of living studies. C udy in 
 the State of Washington was made on rural social institutions in general. 
 
 4. Health agencies. The U. S. Department of Agriculture 
 issued, during 1937, an entirely new Farmers 1 Bulletin on Hospitals for Rural 
 
 mnunities (106) prepared in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 
 
 5. Recreational and ^.vocational agencies. The Bureau of Agri- 
 cultural Economics has completed an entirely new Farmers' Bulletin on Com- 
 munity Buildings for Farm Families. Two other examples of research on recrea- 
 tional and avocational agencies are: Rural Community Buildings in Illinois 
 ( 112 ), and Recreation and the Use of Land in Washington County, Rhode Island 
 (114). 
 
 6. Agricultural extension . A Michigan study will suffice as 
 an example of research in the field of agricultural extension - Sociological 
 Factors Involved in the Methods and Results of Agricultural Extension VJork in 
 Michigan Counties. Elaborate analyses were also made by the agricultural ex- 
 tension staffs in various States in conjunction with the Agricultural Adjust- 
 
20 - 
 
 merit program planning work. Many of these analyses really constituted research. 
 
 7. Eco nomic institutions . No specific studies were apparently 
 "being carried on dealing with economic institutions during 1937, 
 
 > 
 
 8. Governme ntal and political institutions. In the past, rural 
 sociologists have studied political institutions particularly in 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 Government in Missouri (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 ( 14ft ) « 
 
 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 Standard Loan Cases under 
 the Farm Security Administration in South Dakota* and Standards 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 Mexico, 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 arc 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 Tenure - Attitudes and 
 Social Conditions of Corn Belt and Cotton Eelt Farmers (l£9) j 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. Farm 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 important factor. Some such studios verc: Tho Fan Laborer in 
 Arizona; Hired Labor Requirements on Arizona Irrigated Farms ( 161) ; A Study 
 of Leasing and Labor Arrangements in the Sugar Cane Producing Area of Louisiana; 
 Hop Workers in the Yakima Valley in Washington; Occupational and Territorial 
 Llity of Farm Laborors in Washington; and Transient Laborers in Selected 
 Agricultural Industries in Michigan. 
 
 The research in farm labor by the Bureau of Agricultural 
 Economics devoted more attention to social and economic conditions of farm 
 laborers end their families, their participation in the life of the community, 
 
 the extent to which farm laborers have tended to become a fixed class in 
 agriculture. In cooperation with the Works Progress Administration and the 
 Farm Security Administration, a number of field studies in various sections 
 of the country have recently been completed, and more sociological studies of 
 farm laborers and farm labor are under way ( 187 ) , 
 
 4. The youth problem . The youth problem has been dealt with 
 in the following studies: Survey of County Youth Organizations in Ohio; Scope 
 of 4-H Club Work Can Be Broadened to Include Improvement of Personal Qualities 
 (Illinois); Rural Youth and Agricultural Villages in the United States; Es- 
 timates of Replacement Requirements of Gainful Workers in Agriculture in Ohio 
 from Death and Retirement, by Sub-Areas; Situations, Problems, and Interests 
 of Unmarried Rural Young People, 16-25 Years of Age (5 Maryland Counties and 
 4 Oregon Counties); and Occupations of Sons and Daughters of Mississippi Cotton 
 Farmers ( 128 ) . 
 
 E. Social Participation. 
 
 The extent to which individuals and families participate in the 
 common 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 Communities in 
 the United States; and The Effects of an Organized Program of Adult Education 
 and Recreation on the Community Life and Social Participation in Certain Rural 
 Areas. 
 
 Ill, ocic.l Psychology . The field of social psychology is a relatively 
 new field of research in rural sociology. Psychological data have been gathered 
 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 most 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 (New York), and Social Status and Farm 
 Tenure - Attitudes and Social Conditions of Corn 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 193 7 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 studios, 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 Planimetcr Measurement of Land-Use Areas on Maps Pre- 
 pared by County~~Pl arming 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 Beltrami Island Forest Reserve Resettlement 
 Area (Minnesota) (32) j Family Living on Poorer and Better Soil (Mississippi) 
 (33); Man- Land Adjustment, A Study of the Family and Inter-Family Aspects of 
 
- as - 
 
 Land Retirement in the Central "Wisconsin Land Furchasc Area (34.); Rich Land - 
 Poor People (Missouri) (35); The Effect of Soil Depletion on Living Standards 
 Studies in Illinois (.56)~j~" People Move to Poorer Lane 1 , in Depression Years 
 (Illinois); and Economic and Social History of the Pecan Creek Watershed, 
 ;ee County, Oklahoma. 
 
 V. Antliropological Aspeots . This field, comprising the phases of folk 
 culture and culture history, has been little explored by rural sociologists in 
 the past, but is now being penetrated by them to some extent. 
 
 A. Folk Culture. 
 
 This should be a fruitful area for research, but thus far no 
 specific studies have been made in it by rural sociologists. . 
 
 B. Culture History. 
 
 The only example that can be cited here is, Rural Societal 
 Evolution in the Talouse Country of Eastern Washington. 
 
 VI • Social Change . The field of social change was approached last year 
 chiefly from the standpoint of trends or plans for change. Little has been 
 done in the various phases of changes in social organization or in processes 
 involved in change. Examples will be given here of the three phases of social 
 change that have been studied. 
 
 A. Changes in Social Organization. 
 
 Changes in social organization is the subject of: Social Or- 
 izations and Agencies in North Dakota, a Study of Trends, 1926-193G ( 173 ) ; 
 and Research Memorandum on Rural Life in the Depression ( 174 ) . 
 
 B. Factors Influencing Change. 
 
 Factors influencing change are discussed in this typical study - 
 Methods of Graving Celery, an Index of Cultural Change Among Hollanders in 
 :.igan. 
 
 C. Processes Involved in Change. 
 
 Social trends have been subjects of analysis by rural sociolo- 
 gists for some time, but thus far the detailed processes involved in change 
 have not been isolated for study in any specific projects. 
 
 D. Social Trends - or Direction of Change. 
 
 . This type of research may be exemplified by Studies of Sub- 
 urbanization in Connecticut; Wilton, A Rural Town Near Metropolitan New York; 
 and : rwioh, An Industrial Part-Time Farming 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 j 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 Summarxcs for All 
 Counties, for Program Planning in Virginia; 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 in rural sociology. The recent de- 
 pression gave rise to a number of studies, examples of which 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 Coloradcf Educational Testing of Children from Relief and 
 Hon-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 Michigan; Emergency Agency Expenditures in Montana; Rural Relief 
 Trends in Wisconsin, 1934-1937; 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 disorganisation, and rural slums, 
 as such. 
 
- 25 - 
 
 E. Social Rehabilitation, 
 
 Social rehabilitation has not been studied as a process, but 
 it has been the chief objective of several of the relief studies which have 
 aled the capacity of relief clients for rehabilitation, and a study of 
 part-time farming in the Southeast was nade to evaluate it as a means of re- 
 habilitation. Thorough studies of the results of rehabilitation policies and 
 -hods for.:, a field for the future with large practical significance. Some 
 bhe reports published during 1937 were: Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation 
 in the United States ( 165) ; Relief and Rehabilitation in the Drought Area ( 166 ); 
 ■ - Farming in the Southeast ( 167) . 
 
 Methodology 
 
 Rural sociologists, because their science is young, feel the need of 
 definite projects in the field of methodology in addition to studies of social 
 phenomena. At least three such projects were in progress during 1937, 
 
 Cne of these consisted of a series of cooperative projects between the 
 Bureau of Agricultural Economics and a number of agricultural experiment stations, 
 in connection with the annual estimates of farm population. The established 
 
 hod for obtaining data for this annual estimate is by means of questionnaires 
 circulated by the Eureau through their crop and livestock reporters. The new 
 methods being tested are: (1) In three States, attempts are being made to secure 
 information concerning changes in the farm population for definitely delimited 
 sample geographic areas by both the regular quctionnaire method and personal in- 
 terviews; (2) In two States, the mailed questionnaire is being followed up 
 through personal visits, to ascertain whether different information is given by 
 correspondence and by personal interviews, and whether different respondents 
 interpret the questions differently; and (3) In a number of States, others than 
 crop and livestock reporters are receiving the mailed questionnaire, in an 
 attempt to ascertain whether different data are obtained and vary with the type 
 of reporter used to circulate or fill in the questionnaire, 
 
 A methodological rroject dealing with the determination of sub-areas has 
 been carried out at Ohio State University (38), Starting with all available 
 county indices of social and economic variation, the correlation technique was 
 used to determine relationships among them. By this method, the most important 
 indices - those having the largest number of significant intercorrelations - 
 were selected and used for sub-area determination, 
 
 bhird methodological study is being carried out by the Rural Research 
 Unit, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, in which an 
 attempt is being made by various statistical techniques to map the socio- 
 economic regions of the Nation by counties or groups of counties. 
 
- 26 - 
 
 Part Four FUTURE NEEDS AND PROSPECTS FOR RURAL 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 recognize desirable objectives and to organize his efforts 
 to attain them. 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 than 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 chartijig 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 drawing certain 
 significant conclxisions 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 farm 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 time had been regarded as either unim- 
 portant or too difficult to gather. Numerous research projects have been 
 hurriedly launched to meet this need and administrative fact-finding lias 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 much 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 augmented, 
 
 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 appreciation of the necessity for some rural social planning. There is 
 a growing conviction that rural leadership must deal increasingly with the 
 human factors in agriculture along with factors of a technological nature. 
 Hence, the trained person who is concerned primarily with the human factor in 
 agriculture is now regarded with more respect 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 been paid to sampling procedure with a view to ascertaining the range of 
 validity of any conclusions drawn. Some regional and interstate research has 
 been attempted. 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 major 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 warranted. 
 
 1. Rural social planning is now upon us. The Nation has embarked 
 upon a long-time program of agricultural adjustment and reorganization that 
 "ill probably take us far from the scone of 1930. The problem of reorganizing 
 agriculture so as to bring greater benefit to both the rural and the urban pop- 
 ulations has been undertaken. By implication, the Nation is now committed to 
 the building of a better rural civilization and to the attempt to better in- 
 tegrate this rural civilization with that which urban society has fabricated. 
 Eut is there yet sufficient wisdom to build a civilization by administrative 
 procedure and planned effort? The answer seems doubtful. Certainly much more 
 factual information and sociological insight than are now possessed will be 
 found essential to this task. As the program gets under way, increasing need 
 for sociological assistance will be felt and rural sociologists must be able to 
 meet that need. 
 
 2. Rural social research began in terms of monographic studies of 
 local areas or problem situations. Many of these displayed a high quality of 
 workmanship and their results have been decidedly useful. Similar studies 
 will continue to be useful for exploratory purposes and for purposes of meeting 
 the needs cf local situations. 
 
 But the too-frequent tendency to generalize the results of such 
 studies, without the proper sampling knowledge for doing so, must be curbed. 
 If the research foundation .for a broad program of rural-life improvement, such 
 Q.E is now indicated, is to be laid, the scope of many social-research projects 
 must be broadened and the limits within which the conclusions apply must be 
 more clearly defined. This suggests a thorough knowledge of the social and 
 cultural geography of rural life as a prerequisite to sampling 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-time program of 
 fundamental research as contrasted with short-run administrative research. 
 
 Social research is like all research with 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 
 aptly styled "administrative fact-finding," for it is generally undertaken to 
 as Met in the development of some administrative policy or the promotion of 
 sct> organized program. The demand for this type of social research ebbs and 
 flows with the tide of economic and social conditions. In times of depression 
 or Ci isis, 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 that the 
 basic content of the subject is encompassed by the first three 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 made 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, mass 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 
 
- 29 - 
 
 society. Bach of thcso subdivisi 111 necessarily develop a specie! con- 
 
 2*, because of the uniquonoss of the approaoh end becauGc of .special- 
 ization. For these reasons, they are regarded as of sufficient importance to 
 be stated separately. 
 
 Social ecology represents the geographic approach to the study of social 
 organization. The occurrence of social ferns in relation to land occupancy, 
 and the spatial relationships of these forms to each other are included, 
 
 Anthropological aspects of rural sociology represent the historical- 
 cultural approach to the study of rural society. Detailed analysis of the 
 patter. - folk culture and haw they cane to be elaborated in their existing 
 is undertaken. Folk psychology constitutes an important aspect of this 
 roach. 
 
 Social change as an approach to the study of rural society is little 
 concerned with the analysis of current social forms and functions, as such. 
 The primary concern is with the process of change, per se, with changes in form 
 and function that have occurred, changes that are lIkoly~to occur, and the 
 factors and processes involved in these changes. Thus, it represents an ap- 
 proach to social dynamics. 
 
 Social pathology consists of the special study of maladjusted in- 
 dividuals, groups, classes, and institutions. 
 
 Rural sociologists recognized the categories of this outline in a 
 general way before 1937, but they did not distribute their research efforts 
 evenly among the various subdivisions. When the references cited in the 
 summary of recearch accomplished (see Part Two of this report) are catalogued 
 according to the subdivisions of the subject-matter outline, it appears evident 
 that before 1S37 the major research emphasis was placed upon social organiza- 
 tion. It is true that the list of references cited lays no claim to complete- 
 ness, but it is also true that these references aro of unequal importance and 
 that many of them contain the subject matter of more than a single classifica- 
 tion. It does not appear, however, that a more detailed and exhaustive attempt 
 at classification would change the above conclusion, namely, that before 1937 
 the research problems that occupied the attention of rural sociologists lay 
 chiefly within the area of social organization. Population studies ranked 
 second ir. emphasis. Little attention was given to social psychology, social 
 change, anthropological aspects, and to certain phases of social pathology. 
 
 The research projects for the year 1937, listed and. classified in Part 
 •ee, showed no fundamental change in the disposition to emphasize rural social 
 organization. In terms of number of projects reported, social organization re- 
 ceived first emphasis with population again second. Little work was undertaken 
 in social psychology and in anthropological aspects. Social change, in terms 
 of studies preliminary to planned social change, received some attention. A 
 •able emphasis occurred in the area of social pathology. Here, the recent 
 depression motivated an increase in number of projects end in research 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 tendency- 
 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 immediate future. Because of the divergent manner in which these views 
 v/ere expressed, the statements were somewhat difficult to classify, but per- 
 haps no violence has been done by attempting a classification. More than half 
 of the suggested projects, cr 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 
 withal, minor emphasis. 
 
 Ranking first among the new topics suggested 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. Familiar 
 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' Middletown and Williams' American Town . 
 
 The implications of the above classifications of research emphasis 
 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; (5) the areas of work consist of the seven cate- 
 gories with their subdivisions as outlined in Part One. Among these 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 may 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 immediate future should include the following: 
 
 1. Cultural areas, such as regions and subregiens. 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 - 
 
 Special attenti* Id be given to protloi.i arc s. 
 
 2. . jd classes in rural life and ap riculture . Those 
 incluc . , lal r'rs, low inoome farmers, people en poor 
 land, he so?Jc" rollers arising from these groups? 
 
 at an. t t racial aspects of tenancy and of farm labor? 
 
 3. Studies of rential population grovrth, fertility, and migra- 
 ticn. T] h"ul''. lo studied in relation to the occurrence of 
 ccon: .'. : e rtnr.it ;<- social significance. 
 
 4. dtudies of rural youth, their needs, opportunities, and organiza- 
 tions . 
 
 5. adies of community integration and cor.munity processes. These 
 arc much nee led to point the way in community planning. 
 
 6. Stud i s )i stan rh a:'" planes of living particularly from the 
 standpoint of improving present technique r. 
 
 7. r- of farmers' organisations and cpecial-interest groups, 
 
 8. hist rical sti - life and institutions cf an area. 
 
 sse should he i adc of bypical areas the hotter to interpret 
 social trends. Repeated studies of the same areas or subjects 
 tend to acecr.iplish the same purpose. 
 
 9. The social psychology of leadership. 
 
 10. The nature and significance of rural attitudes and methods of 
 changing them. 
 
 11. Fxtcnsion of standard studios to new areas for comparative pur- 
 poses. For f.xar.plo, studies of special-interest groups. These 
 groups ha* en studied locally, hut the findings should be 
 
 rified in othor localities. 
 
 In addition to these points, it may be well to emphasise that greater 
 lardization of many projects is desirable for the rjurpose of obtaining com- 
 parable results. Small field studios bearing upon a given problem, but done by 
 one method in .no small ar^a and by a different method in another area, are 
 .-ir.cing to n( ..no. 
 
 Finally, rural soci 1: istc must begin to think seriously of making 
 studies of the signifies a , he strength and weakness, of the accumulated re- 
 sults of their rr--carcn efforts. Gathering field data and .vriting experiment 
 stctien bulletins is not the end of research. As the fruits of such effort 
 accumulate, they must be a . ..rod, criticized, and integrated. The gaps and 
 uncertainties in accumulated be discovered. Weaknesses must be 
 
- 32 - 
 
 strengthened by the further testing and refining of conclusions drawn. The 
 schedule maker must become an analyst. The collector of data must become a 
 scholar. Only by this process, can the full value of research bo realized. 
 By this process, alone, can principles bo established that can bo used to 
 diagnose specific social situations and to determine the best measures for 
 their improvement. 
 
- 35 - 
 
 Literature Cited * 
 
 Calvin, Charles, J. The Social ftnatary of An Agricultural Community. 
 Res. Bui. 34, Univ. of "Wis., Ag. Exp, Sta., Madison, 
 \ is., 1915. 
 
 (2) Gillette, John!'. Constructive Rural Sociology, lev/ York: Sturgia 
 end Walton Co., 1913. 
 
 b, J. :.. Rural Primary Groups. Bui. 51, 1921, and other studies 
 cited below, Univ. cf Y."is., Ag. Exp. ota., (Trends of 
 Countr; 3 jhtorhoods. Same, Res. Bui. 120 - restudy of 
 Pul. 5]), Madison, Wis., Nov. 1933. 
 
 (4) Sanderson, Dwight, and Thompson, YJarren S, r : is ! •!• I Areas of Otsego 
 
 County. Bui. 42?, Corrc? Jniv., Ag. T x; . TJta., Ithaca, 
 N. Y., Jul a 1923. 
 
 (5) Sanc'erso:., Dwight* Ilui cir.l and ;concmic Areas in Central New York. 
 
 Same, Bui, 614, Ithaca, IT. Y., 1934, (and bulletins there 
 cited in i >tnote .<r page 3), 
 
 (6) Sanderson, "■ b, lorn, Harold F. The Rural Neighborhoods of 
 
 Otsego C >unty, New York, 1931. Bui. 2, Cornell Univ., Ag. 
 Exp. Sta., Dopt. of Rural Social Organization, Ithaca, 
 1 T . Y., I arch 1934. (Mimeo.) 
 
 (7) Morgan, E. L., and Howells, Owen. Rural Population Groups. Res. Bui. 
 
 74, (Jniv. of.Mo., Ag. Exp. Sta., Columbia, Iio., March 1925. 
 
 Brunnor, E. deS. Village Communities. Nev; York: Gee. H. Doran Co., 
 1927. 
 
 (9) Brunner, E. deS., Hughes, Gwendolyn S., end Patten, Marjorie. American 
 
 ural Villages. Nev-- York: Geo. II. Doran Co., 1927. 
 
 (1C) Sanderson, Dwight, The Rural Comnunity: rhe Natural History of a Socio- 
 logical Grou^ . Eocton: Ginn and Co«, 1932. 
 
 (11) Thaden, J. P., and Mumford, Eben. High School Communities in Michigan. 
 
 Special Bui. 239, Mich. Ag. Exp. Sta., East Lansing, Mich., 
 Jan. 193 . 
 
 (12) Brunner, F. deS., end Kolb, J„ K. Rural Social Trends. York: Mc- 
 
 Graw-Hill Bock Co., 1933. 
 
 * In citing the litoratur has boen made at a conplote bibliography, 
 
 The cited a*c re important examples ot work on the 
 
 various topics* 
 
- 34 - 
 
 (13) 3 runner, S. deS., and Lorge, Irving* Rural Trends in Depression Years. 
 
 Hev; York: Columbia university Press, 193 7. 
 
 (14) Melvin, Bruce L. Village Service Agencies, New York, 1925. Bui. 493, 
 
 Cornell University Ag. Exp. Sta., Ithaca, H. Y., Aug, 1929. 
 
 (15) Ziiraerxr., Carle C. Farm Trade Centers in Minnesota, 1905-1929. pul. 
 
 269, Univ. of Minn. Ag. Exp. ota,, St. Paul, Finn., Sept. 
 1950. 
 
 (16) Lively, C. E. Growth and Decline of Earm Trade Centers in Minnesota, 
 
 1905-1950. Bui. 287, Univ. of Minn. Ag. Sxp. Sta., St. 
 Paul, Minn., July 1952. 
 
 (17) Landis, Paul H. South Dakota Town-Country Trade Relations, 1901-1931, 
 
 Bui. 274, So. Dak. St. College, Ag. Exp. Sta., Brookings, 
 So. Dak., 1932. 
 
 (18) Landis, Paul H. The Growth and Declino of South Dakota Trade Centers, 
 
 1901-1933. Bui. 279, Brookings, So. Dak., April 1933. 
 
 (19) Smith, T. Lynn, lam Trade Centers in Louisiana, 1901 to 1951. Bui. 
 
 234, La. St. Univ., Ag. Exp. Sta., Baton Rouge, La., Jan. 
 1933. 
 
 (20) YJhetten, IT. L., and Devereux, E. C, Jr. Studios of Suburbanization in 
 
 Connecticut. I. Windsor. Bui. 212, Storrs Ag. Exp. Sta,, 
 Storrs, Conn., Oct. 1956. 
 
 (21) Tate, Leland B. The Rural Homes of City Yorkers and the Urban-Rural 
 
 Migration. Bui. 595, Cornell Univ. Ag. Exp. Sta., Ithaca, 
 
 IT. Y., 1934. 
 
 (22) Economic and Social Problems and Conditions of the Southern Appalachians, 
 
 PubL No. 205, U. S. Dcpt. of Agr., Jan. 1935. 
 
 (23) Beck, P. G., and Forster, M. C. Six Rural Problem Areas-. Research Mono- 
 
 graph I, fed, ELier. Relief Adm., Washington, D. C, 1935. 
 
 • 
 
 (24) Social Problems of the Drought Area. Research Bulletins Ser. V. 1, 2, 
 
 3, Wc rks Progress Administration, Division d:' : ' Social Re- 
 search, Washington, D. C, 1937. 
 
 (25) Wakoley, Ray E., and Losoy, J. Edwin. Rural Organizations and Land 
 
 Utilization on Muscatine Island (Iowa), A Study of Social 
 Adjustments, Bui. 352, Ag. Exp. Sta., Iowa State College, 
 Amos, Iowa, December 1556. 
 
 (26) Johnson, Charles S. Shadow of the Plantation. Univ. of Chicago Press, 
 
 Chicago, 111., 1954. 
 
- J55 - 
 
 (27 N ^runner, .. .x c . Immigrant Farr.erc q dr Childron. 
 
 Dcubleday, Doron and Co., 1929. (Part II, Jtudies of 
 Individual Villages,) 
 
 ) Nelson, Lowry. 11. r n 7illago: 1 Study in Social Origins. M . 3, 
 : ri ' i\n\- University Studies, T ieprint from Proceedings 
 of the Utah Academy )f Sciences, Vol. VII, pp. 11-37, 1930. 
 
 (29) Johons^n, John I . Laiaigrants and Their children ir. South Dakota. Bvl. 
 
 302, Ag. xp. Sta., S uth Dakota Sti b< Jollege, Brookings, 
 
 S. P., May l r '56. 
 
 (30) Johansen, John r. Immigrant Settlements and Social Organization in 
 
 South Dakota. Bui. 313, Ag. Exj . Sta., South Dckota State 
 Colleje, Brookings, S. D., June 1937. 
 
 (31) Odui , :" word '.. rn - e;ions of the United States. Chapel Hill: 
 
 aiv. Ho, Car. Press, 19S6. 
 
 (32) Murchie, R, *'. . , and Was^cm, C. K. 8»ltrami J*land, Minnesota Resettle- 
 
 it ?r jc~t. Rtti, 534, Ag. Exp. Sta., Univ. of Minn., 
 St. Paul, Mini,, Doc. 1937. 
 
 (35) Diokins, D rothy, Family Living .-or and Bettor Soil. Bui. 320, 
 
 :•:; . . ba», State Colic ;o, Miss,, Sept, 1937. 
 
 (34) Hill, Geo. ".'"., Slocun, "'."alter, and Hill, Ruth C. Man-Land Adjustment, 
 
 A Study f . i ".ily and Inter-Fomily Aspects of Land Retire- 
 ment in the Central Wisconsin Land Purchase Area. Res. Bui, 
 134, Ag. Ex . Sta., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis,.., 
 Fee. 1938. 
 
 Lte, Max R,, Ensminger, Douglas, and Gregory, Cecil L. Rioh Land — 
 
 Pocr leople. Res, Report Ho. 1, U, S. Dept. i r., Para 
 
 Security Admn., Regioi III, Indianaooli3, Ind., dan. 1938. 
 {. .:: e ,") 
 
 (36) Lindstror., D. I,, and Case, II. C. M. Farm Incomes and Expenditures and 
 
 Costo of Family Living in the Lick Crcok Area, Southern 
 Illinois, 1934. RSM-6, Agr. Exp. Sta., Univ, of Illinois, 
 
 T ,'rc-.:x., Ill,, Sept, 1937. (Mireo.) 
 
 (37) Lively, C. E. Social Planning and the Sociology of Subregions, Reprinted 
 
 from Rural . y, Vol. 2, No, 3, Sept. 1337. 
 
 (38) Lively, C. P., and Alnack, R. 5. A Method of Determining Rural Social 
 
 Sub-Ar s wit Lie ion to Chic. Bui. IOC, Ohio St. Univ., 
 
 and Ag, Exp. Sta., Columbus, Ohio, Jon. 1938. (Mimco.) 
 
 (39) Hyper, d. I, , John F, The Genesis to Farming Occupations in 
 
 Connecticut, 1, 161, Storrs Ag, Exp. Sta,, Storrs, Co-^r . , 
 
 Oct. ) . 
 
- 56 - 
 
 (40) Galpin, C. J,, and Larson, Veda V. Farm Population of Selected 
 
 Counties, Dept, of Commerce, Brrecu of the Census, 
 Washington, D. C, (Gcvt Ptg. Office), 1924. 
 
 (41) Melvin, Bruce I . Rural Populati m of Hew York, 1855 to 1925. Memoir 
 
 116, Cornell Univ. A:;. Exp. Sta., Ithaca, N. Y.J June 1928. 
 
 (42) Harter, R'm. L., and Stewart, R. E, The Population of lowaj Its Compo- 
 
 sition :.nd Changes^, Bui. 275, I or/a St. Coll., Ag, Exp. Sta,, 
 Aiaes, Icwa, Nov, 1930. 
 
 (43) Clark, Carroll D., and Roberts, Roy L. People of Kansas. Kansas State 
 
 Planning Board, Topeka, Kansas, 0ct o 1936. 
 
 (44) Srith, T. Lynn, The Growth of Population in Louisiana, 1890 to 1930. 
 
 Bui, 264, La. St, Univ.,, Agr, Exp Sta,, Baton Rouge, La,, 
 July 1935. 
 
 (45) Landis, Paul H. Rural Population Trends in '.Yashington* Bui. 333, St. 
 
 Coll, of Wash,, Ag« rJxp, Stc ,, Pullman, Wash,, July 1936. 
 
 (46) Thaden, J. F. Population Trends in Michigan, Special Bui. 236, Mich. 
 
 St, Coll., Ag. Exp. Sta,, last Lansing, Rich., June 1933. 
 
 (47) Murchic, R, W«, and Jarchow, R. E. Population Trends in Minnesota, 
 
 3ul. 327, Univ c of Minn,, Ag, Exp. Sta,,, St, Raul, Minn,, 
 May 1935. 
 
 (48) Burt, Henry J. The Population of Missouri: A General Survey of Its 
 
 Sources, Changes, and Present Composition. Res. Bui, 183, 
 Univ. of Mo , Ago Exp. Sta,, Columbia, Mo,, May 1933. 
 
 (49) Anderson, W. A. Population Trends in New York State, 1900 to 1930. 
 
 Bui. 547, Cornell Univ., Ag< Exp. Sta., Ithaca, H. Y,, 
 Dec. 1932. 
 
 (50) Beck, E. G. Recent Trends in the Rural Population of Ohio. Bui. 533, 
 
 Ohio Ag, Exp. Sta., Rooster, Ohio, May 1934. 
 
 (51) Duncan, Otis R. Population Trends in Oklahoma. Bui. 224, Okla. Ag. 
 
 Exp. Sta e , Stillwater, Okla., 1935. 
 
 (52) Smith, T. Lynn The Population of Louisiana ~ Its Composition and Changes, 
 
 Bui. 293, La, St, Univ„, Ag, Exp. Sta,, Baton Rouge, La., 
 Nov, 1937, 
 
 (53) Thompson, Warren S., and Whelpton, P. K, Population Trends in the United 
 
 States, New York: McGraw-Hill Boor Co,, 1953. 
 
- 37 - 
 
 (54) Galpin, C. J., and Manny, T. B. Interstate Migrations Among the Native 
 
 Yfhite P pulation as Indioated by Differences State 
 of Birth and State of Residence, Washington: . S. Dept, 
 of A. r., Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Oct, 19o4 • 
 
 (55) Anderson, "... Movement of Population ^o and From New York State* 
 
 Bul, 591, Cornell Ur.iv., Ag. Exp* Sta., Ithaca, N. Y., 
 i.[r. 1934. 
 
 (53"! Ha.iilton, C. Horace Ru~al-l Irban Migration in Porth Carolina, 1920 to 
 
 1930. Bul. 295, P. C. St. Coll., Ag, Exp. Sta., Raleigh, 
 ::. c, Feb. 1934. 
 
 (57) Lively, p . P., and Peck, P. C. Movement of Opor Country Population in 
 
 Ohio. Pule, 467 and 469, Ohio Ag. Pxp. Sta., A~oster, Ohio, 
 Nov. 1950 and Sept. 1951. 
 
 (58) Lively, C. E., and Foott, Frances, Population Ae v ility in Selected 
 
 Areas of Rural Ohio, 1928-1935. Bul. 582, Ohio Ag. Exp. 
 ot'.., ".. star, Ohi », June 1957. 
 
 (59) Hypes, J. L. I pulati '~ility in Rural Ccnnecticut. Bul. 196, 
 
 Storrs - '. Ebrp. Sta., Storrs, Conn., Aug. 1954. 
 
 (60) Andersen, A, A., and ^oa.iis, C. F. Aigratien of Sons and Laughters of 
 
 ^..crj in Tfakd County, North Carolina, 192^. Pul. 
 275, A. C. St. Coll., Ag. Exp. Sta., Raleigh, A. C, June 
 1930. 
 
 (61) Willson, F. P., Hoffsor.mcr, H. C, and Benton, /Alva A. Rural Changes in 
 
 V.'estorn North Dakota. Bul. 214, A. Dak. Ag. Exp. Sta,, Fargo, 
 N, Dak., Jan. 1^28. 
 
 (62) Y.illians, B. 0. Occupational Ao'eility Among Earners. Part I. Mobility 
 
 Patterns. Bul, 2^C, S, C. Ag, Exp. Sta., Clenson, 3. C, 
 June 1934. 
 
 (23) Geo, V'ilson, and Acr r on, John J. 3rd. Rural Depopulation in Certain 
 
 Tidewater and . icA'out ,,reas of Virginia. Inst. Aonograph 
 No. 3, Univ. of Vu., Institute for Research in the Cocial 
 Sciences, University, Va., 1929. 
 
 (54) Snick, A. .'.., an! Yoder, F. R, \ Study of Fan: Aigratien in Selected 
 
 Ctt^urdtics in the State of Washington. Bul. 233, Wash, 
 . . Sta,, Pullman, Wash., June 1929. 
 
 (65) Kirkpatrick, E. L. A . Star " rd f Life in a Typical Coction of Di- 
 
 ■sific Farming. Bul. 423, Cornell Univ. Ag. Exp, Sta,, 
 Ithaca, P. ^., July 1923. 
 
38 
 
 (66) Zimmerman, Carle C, and Black, John D. How Minnesota Farm. Family 
 
 Incomes are Spent. Bui. 254, Univ. of Minn. Ag, Exp. Sta., 
 St. Paul, Minn. , June 1927. 
 
 (67) Zimmerman, Carle C, and Black, John D. Factors Affecting Expenditures 
 
 of Farm Family Incomes in Minnesota, Lul. 246, Univ. of 
 Minn. Ag. Exp. Sta., St. Paul, Minn., July 1928. 
 
 (68) Zimmerman, Carle C. Incomes and Expenditures of Village and Town Fam- 
 
 ilies in Minnesota. Bui. 253, Univ. of Minn. Ag. Exp. Sta., 
 St. Paul, Minn., March 1929. 
 
 (69) Zimmerman, Carle C. Incomes and Expenditures of Minnesota Farm and City 
 
 Families, 1927-28. Bui, 255, Univ. of Minn. Ag. .Exp. Sta., 
 St. Paul, Minn,, June 1929. 
 
 (70) Lively, C. E. Family Living Expenditures on Ohio Farms, Bui. 468, Ohio 
 
 Ag. Exp. Sta., Wooster, Ohio, Nov. 1930. 
 
 (71) Anderson, W. A. Living Conditions Among White Land-Owner Operators in 
 
 Wake County. Bui. 258, N. C. St. Coll., Ag. Exp. Sta., 
 Raleigh, IT. C, Juno 1928. 
 
 (72) Anderson, W, A. Farm Family Living Among White Owner and Tenant Op- 
 
 erators in Wake County. Bui. 269, Li. C. St. Coll., Ag. 
 Exp, Sta., Raleigh, N, C, Sept. 1929. 
 
 (73) Anderson, W# A. Factors Influencing Living Conditions of White Owner 
 
 and Tenant Fo.rmers in liVake County. Tech. Bui. 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 Earner's Standard of Living; A Socio-Economic 
 
 Study of 2,886 White Farm Families of Selected Localities 
 in 11 Stfttes.' Dept, Bui, 1466, U. S, Dept. of Agr., Wash- 
 ington, D. C, 1926. 
 
 (76) Kirkpatrick, E. L., McNall, P. E., and Cowles, May L. Farm Family 
 
 Living in Wisconsin. Res. lul. 114, Univ. of Wis., Ag, 
 Exp. Sta,, Madison, Mis., Jan. 1933. 
 
 (77) Kirkpatrick, E. L., Tough, Rosalind, and Cowles, May L. The Life Cycle 
 
 of the Farm Family, Res. Bui. 121, 71 niv. of Wis,, Ag. Exp. 
 Sta., Madison, Mis,, Sept, 1934. 
 
 (78) Kirkpatrick, E. L., Tough, Rosalind, and Cowles, May L. How Farm Fam- 
 
 ilies Meet the Emergency. Res. Bui. 126, Univ. of Mis., 
 Ag . Exp . S ta . , Mad.i s on, Mi s , , Jan . 1935. 
 
- 39 - 
 
 ermon, Ccrl< C«, and Frampton, Merle E. -Scully and Society; A 
 
 Study uf the Sociology of Reconstruction, llev; York: D. 
 Van Nostrand Co., 1C35. 
 
 (80) Nelson, Lrwry. A Social Survey of Escalante, Utah. No. 1, Brighi 
 
 Your.g Univer-ity Studios, Frovo, Utah, 1925. 
 
 (81) Nelson, Kv:ry. The fftah Ftut tillage of Ephraim, -Wo. 2, Brigham Young 
 
 university Studies, Provo, Utah, 1028. 
 
 (82) Nelson, Lcv.-ry. Sor.e Social and Economic Features of American Fork, 
 
 Utah. No. 4, Brirrham Young University Studies, Provo, Utah, 
 1933. 
 
 (83) Sanderson, Dwight, and Poster, 1 >bert 3. A Sociological Case Study of 
 
 milios. Reprinted from The Family XI, pp. 107-114, 
 June 1930. 
 
 (84) Thur.v, I ildred 0. . Itudy of Selected Factors in Family Life as Dcs- 
 
 oribed in Autobiographies . Memoir 171, Cornell Univ. Ag. 
 Exp. Sta., Ithaca, N. Y., Pet. 1935. 
 
 (c5) Beers, Howard 1 .'.', i.'easuremerts of For.ily Relationships in Farm Families 
 
 of Central New York. Memoir 103, Cornell Univ. Ag. Fxp. Sta., 
 Ithaca, N. Y., Pec. 1935. 
 
 ^86) ?Cirkpatrick, . . .., Kolb, J. ,T ., Inge, Croagh, and Viloden, :\. F. 
 
 Rural Organizations and the Farm Family. Res. Bui. 96, 
 Univ. of Vis. i-_g. Exp. Sta., i.x.dison, Wis., Nov. 1929. 
 
 (87) Locmis, Chas. P. The Grcavth of the Parr.. Family in Relation to Its 
 
 Activities. Bui. 298, No. Car. Ag. Exp. Sta., Padeigh, N. C, 
 Jure 1934. 
 
 (88) Wilson, Warren H. Quaker hill. V. K. Wilson, 268 Arlington Ave ., 
 
 Brooklyn, ,T . Y., 1907. 
 
 (89) A Series of 16 Church and Community Surveys Throughout the United States 
 
 public y the Foard of Home jdlissions of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the U.S.A., from 1910 to 1916. 
 
 (90) : r: , P. :'., c Tinner, E. deS. The Town and Country Church in the 
 
 bates. ' rk: Geo. E. Doran Co., 1923. 
 
 (01) Hamilton, C. . rac< , ar V, . . E. The Role of the Church in Rural 
 
 ity ife in Virginia. Bui. 2C7, Va. . ::p. Sta., 
 Blacksour , Tt ., June 1920. 
 
 Sneer", I'elvin ".'.'., and Ensminger, Douglas. The rural Church in Missouri. 
 . Bui, 225, Univ. of Mo. Ac . . ., Columbia, ho., 
 June 1935. 
 
- 40 - 
 
 (93) : lather, Wia. G., Jr. The Rural Churches of /tllegany County. Bui. 587, 
 
 Cornell Univ« Ag. Exp. St"., Ithaca, N. Y., March 1934. 
 
 (94) Kumlien, W. F. The Social Problem of the Church in South Dakota, 
 
 Bui, 294, So. Dak, St. Coll., Ag, Exp. Sta,, Brookings, 
 S. D., May 1935. 
 
 (96) Eolb, J. II,, and Wileden, A. F. Special Interest Groups in Rural 
 
 Society. Fes. Bui, 84, Univ. of his. Ag. Exp. Sta., Madison, 
 Vis,, Due. 1927. 
 
 (96) Harris, T. L. Four-H Club Work in Test Virginia. Bui, 241, E r . Va. Ag, 
 
 Exp, Sta,, Morgantown, W. Va., April 1931. 
 
 (97) Duthie, T lary F. 4-F Club Work in the Life of Aural Youth. Chicago: 
 
 National Committee on Boys and Girls Club Work, 1936, 
 
 (98) Lindstrom, D. E., and Dav;son, W, M. Selectivity of 4-H Club Work: An 
 
 Analysis of Factors Influencing I. orAtership. Bui. 42G, Univ. 
 of 111, Ag. Exp. Sta., Urbane,, 111., July 1936. 
 
 (99) I.ianny, T. B., and Smith, R, C. The Ohio Farm Bureau Federation from the 
 
 Farmer's Viewpoint, Prelir.ir.ary Report, U. S. Dopt, of Ag., 
 Bureau of Agr. Economics in cooperation vrith Ohio State Univ. 
 and Federal Farm B ~.ard, V.hshington, D. C, April 1931. 
 
 (100) Tetreau, E. D. The Objectives and Activities of the California Farm 
 
 Bureau, Bui, 503, Univ, of Calif. Ag. Exp. Sta,, Berkeley, 
 Calif., Nov, 1933. 
 
 (101) Will son, F, A. Rural Cormunity Clubs in North Dakota: Factors Influenc- 
 
 ing Their Success or Failure. Rul, 251, N, Dak. Ag, Exp. Sta,, 
 Fargo, II. D., Aug. 1951. 
 
 (102) Lively, C, E., and Beck, F, G. The Rural Health Facilities of Ross. 
 
 County, Ohio. Rul, 412, Ohio Ag. Exp. Sta,, Voostcr, Ohio, 
 Oct, 1927. 
 
 (103) Sanderson, Dvight. A Survey of Sickncsr. in Rural Areas of Cortland 
 
 County, New York, LAnoir 112, Cornell Univ, Ar. Rxp. Sta., 
 Ithaca, R. Y., March 1928. 
 
 (104) Kumlien, "A. F. The Rural health Situation in South Dakota. Rul. 258, 
 
 So. Dak. Ag. Exp. Sta,, Brookings, S. D., April 1931. 
 
 (105) Kolb, J. H. Service Institutions for Town and Country. Res, Bui. 66, 
 
 Univ. of Wis, Ag. Exp. Sta,, j.icdison, Wis., Dec. 1925. 
 
 (106) Halbert, Rlancho. Hospitals for Rural Communities. Fanners' Bui, Ro. 
 
 1792, U. S. Dopt. of Agr., Washington, D. C, Nov. 1937. 
 
- 41 - 
 
 (107) Lively, C..B. Rural Recreation in Two Ohio Counties. Ohi ? State 
 
 University Studies, Graduate School Scries, Contributions 
 in Rural Economics, lie, 1, Ohio State Univ., Columbus, 
 Ohio, 1927. 
 
 (106) rgan, E. L., and Burt, 11. J. Community Relations of Rural Young 
 
 People. Res. Bui. 110, Univ. of ho. A;;. Exp. Sta., 
 C lumbia, I.'.o., Oct. 1927. 
 
 (109) Frayser, Mary E. The Flay and Recreation of Children and Youth in 
 
 Selected Rural Areas of South Carolina. Bui. 275, So. 
 r. kg* Exp. Sta., Clomson Collcpe, S. C, June 1931. 
 
 (110) Gardner, Ella, and Lcgg, Caroline E. Lcisure-Tir.e Activities of Rural 
 
 Children in Selected Areas, of West Virginia. Publication 
 
 ,. 208, Children's Bureau, U. S. Dcpt. of Labor, V'ashington, 
 D. C, 1951. 
 
 (111) Nasc: , Wayne C. Rural Buildings for business and Social Uses. Farmers ' 
 
 Bui. 1622, U. S. Dopt. of Agr., Washington, P. C, 1930. 
 (Superseded Earners' Bulletins 825, 1192, and 1274.) See 
 also Earners' Bui. 1173 - Plans of Rural Community Build- 
 ings, 1921. 
 
 (112) Lindstrom, D. E., Foster, W. A., and Fuller, Max G. Rural Community 
 
 Buildirps. Cir. 470, Univ. of 111. Pp. Exp. Sta., Ext. 
 Ser., Urbana, 111., Parch 1937. 
 
 (113) Whetton, N. L., and Rapport, Victor A. The Recreational Uses of Land 
 
 in Connecticut. Pul. 194, Conn. St. Coll., Ag. Exp. Sta., 
 Storrs, Conn., Parch 1934. 
 
 (114) "don, P. :.., and Gilbert, B. E. Recreation and the Use of Land in 
 
 Washington County (R.I.). Bui. 258, P. I. St. Coll., Ag. 
 Exp, Sta., Kingston, R. I., May 1937.' 
 
 (115) Hayes, Augustus 17. Rural Community Organization. Chicapo: University 
 
 of Chicago Press. 1921 
 
 (116) Hayes, Augustus W. Community Value of the Consolidated Rural School: 
 
 Study in Rural Community Orpanization. Nov: Orleans: 
 Res. Pul. 2, Tulanc University, 1923. 
 
 (117) Ktn lion, \7, E. The High School Education of Farm E oys and Girls in 
 
 South Dakota. Bui. 250, So. Dak. Ag. Exp. Sta., Brc kings, 
 S. D., Par. 1930. 
 
 (118) " rgan, T. P., an-" 9nc>- ', lvin W. The Libraries of Missouri: 
 
 Survey of Facilities. Res. Pul. 23 C, Univ. of I ". Exp. 
 Sta., ColumVia, P.O., April 1936. 
 
- 42 - 
 
 (119) Barger, J. Wheeler. The County Library in Montana. Bui, 219, Univ. 
 
 of Mont, Ag. Exp, Sta., Bozeman, Mont,, Jan, 1929. 
 
 (120) Felton, Ralph A,, and Eeal, Marjorie, The Library of the Open Road. 
 
 Ext. Bui. 188, Cornell University, Ithaca, IT. Y., Nov. 1929. 
 
 (121) Kumlien, 'W, F. Equalizing Library Opportunities in South Dakota. 
 
 Bui. 233, So. Dak, St, Coll., Ag. Exp. Cta., Brookings, 
 S. D., June 1928. 
 
 (122) ' Kumlien, W. F. Public Library Service in South Dakota. Bui, 301, 
 
 •So. Dak, St, Coll., Ag, Exp, Sta,, Brookings, S. D., June 
 1936. 
 
 (123) Has on, Wayne C, Rural Libraries, U, S, Dcpt. of Agr., Farmers' Bul» 
 
 1559, Washington, D. C, 1928, 
 
 (124) Thurow, Mildred B. Interests, Activities and Problems of Rural Young 
 
 Folk. I. Women 15 to 29 Years of Age, Bui, 617, Cornell 
 Univ. Ag. Exp. Sta., Ithaca, N, Y., Dec. 1934. 
 
 (125) Anderson, V. r . A,, and Kerns, Willis, Interests, Activities and Problems 
 
 of Rural Young Folk, II. Men 15 to 29 Years of Age. Bui. 
 631, Cornell Univ. Ag. Exp. Sta., Ithaca, H. Y., May 1935. 
 
 (126) Anderson, W. A. Rural Youth: Activities, Interests, and Problems - 
 
 I. and II. Buls. 649 and 661, Cornell Univ. Ag, Exp, Sta,, 
 Ithaca, H. Y., May 1936, Jan. 1937. 
 
 (127) Dennis, M. L. Organizations Affecting Farm Youth in Locust Township, 
 
 Columbia County, Pennsylvania. Bui. 265, Pa. Ag, Exp. Sta., 
 State College, Pa., June 1931. 
 
 (128) Dickins, Dorothy. Occupations of Sons and Daughters of Mississippi 
 
 Cotton Farmers; Bui. 318, Miss. Ag.,Exp. Sta,, State 
 College, Miss., May 1937. 
 
 (129) Hawthorn, Horace B. The Sociology of Rural Life. Hew York: The Century 
 
 Co., 1926. 
 
 (130) Hypos, James L. Social Participation in a Rural New England Town. How- 
 
 York: Contributions to Education, Ho. 258, Teachers College, 
 Columbia University, 1927. 
 
 (131) Fry, C. Luther. Diagnosing the Rural Church, A Study in Method. 
 
 Hew York: Geo. H. Doran Co., 1924. 
 
 (132) Burt, Henry J, Contacts in a Rural Coi;munity. Res, Bui, 125, Univ. 
 
 of Mo. Ag. Exp. Sta., Columbia, Mo., Aug. 1929. 
 
- 43 - 
 
 (133) Gcddos, Joseph A. Fan-.: Versus Village Living in Utah, Plain City - 
 
 Typo "A" Village. - Parts III and' IV. Bui. 269, Utah 
 . Sta., Logan, Utah, Maroh 1936. 
 
 (134) Lindstroza, D. E. Forces Affooting Participation of Pana People in 
 
 Rural. Organization. Bui. 42?, Univ. of 111. Ag. Exp. Sta., 
 Urbana, 111., May 1936. 
 
 (135) ■ ", Fred, Oylorj Aertcn, and Nicholls, W. D. Rural Organization Con- 
 
 tacts in Three Kentucky Communi,tio,s • Bui, 350, Ky. Ag, Tap. 
 Cta,, Lexington, Ky., April 1234. 
 
 (136) Oyler, Morton*, • Oor.nuni.ty and Neighborhood Groupings in Knott County. 
 
 Bui, 366, Univ. of Ky. Ag« Exp. Sta., Lexington, Ky., Oct. 
 1936, 
 
 (137) Kolbj J. H. Service relations of Town and Country, lies, Bui. 58, Univ, 
 
 of *.7is. A&4 Exp. Sta,, MadisQn, Wis*, Dec, 1'j23, 
 
 (138) Hummolj B, L. Comunity Organization in Missouri. Lxt. Cir, 183, Univ. 
 
 of I;,:. Coll. ef Ag., Colwibia, Ho., Sept. 1926, 
 
 (139) Burt, Henry J, Rural Community Trends. Pes. Bui, 161, Univ, of Ho. Ag, 
 
 Exp. Sta., Columbia, Mo., Oct. 1931. 
 
 (140) Burt, Henry J. Pural Community Trends: Second Roport. Res. Bui, 199, 
 
 Univ. of Mo, Ag, Exp, Sta,, .Columbia, Mo., June 1933. 
 
 (141) Franc, Bat. T. Focusing on tho Country Community. Ext, Cir. 211, v;. 
 
 Va. Univ., Coll. of Agri., Morgantown, V.'.Va,, July 1918. 
 
 (142) Fromo, Bat. T., and Rapking, A. H. Helping the Country Community Sav; 
 
 d on Its Community Program. Ext. Cir. 265, v. r . Va. Univ., 
 Coll. of Agri,, Morgantown, 17, Va., Jan. 1925. 
 
 (143) Rapking, A. B. Education Through Organized Community Activities. Ext. 
 
 Cir. 307, W. Va. Univ., Coll. of Agri,, Morgantown, W, Va,, 
 June 1934. 
 
 (144) Garnctt, W, E. A Social Study of the BlacksBurg Community, Bui, 299, 
 
 Va, Ag. Exp. Sta., BlacksBurg, Va., Aug, 1935, 
 
 (145) Garnctt, V. r . P., and Seymour, A, C, Membership Relations in Community 
 
 Organizations: A Study of Factors Affecting Organizational 
 Attitudes. Bui. 287, Va. Ag. Exp. Sta., BlacksBurg, Va., 
 June 1932. 
 
 (146) Lindstrcca, D. E, Some Factors Affecting Social V.'elfare in Rural Aroaa 
 
 of Alexander County, Illinois, 1934. RSB-4, Ag, Exp. Sta., 
 Univ. of 111., Urbana, 111., Jan. 1937. 
 
- 44 - 
 
 (147) Manny, T. B. Problems in Cooperation and Experiences of Farmers in 
 
 Marketing Potatoes. Cir. 87, U. S. Dept. of Ag., Wash- 
 ington, D. C, 1929. 
 
 (148) Manny, T. P. Farmers' Experiences and Opinions as Factors Influencing 
 
 Their Cotton Marketing Methods, Cir. No. 144, U. S. Dept. 
 of Agri,, Washington., D. C, 1930. 
 
 (149) Manny, T. P., and Nason, Wayne C. Pural Factory Industries. Cir. No. 
 
 312, U. S. Dept. of Agri., Washington, D. C, April 1934. 
 
 (150) Brannen, CO. Characteristics and Costs of County Government in 
 
 Arkansas. Bui, No. 338, Univ. of Ark., Ag. Exp. Sta., 
 Fayettevillc, Ark,, Jan. 1937. 
 
 (151) Hamr.iar, C. H., and Barton, Glen T. The Farmer and the Cost of Local 
 
 Rural Government in Missouri. Bui, 385,- Ag.. Exp. Sta., 
 Univ. of Mo., Columbia, Mo.,' June 1937. 
 
 (152) Taylor, Carl C, and Zimmerman, Carlo C. Economic and Social Con- 
 
 ditions of North Carolina Farmers. Special Bulletin, 
 
 No. Car, Tenancy Comm,, No, Car, St. Board of Ag., Raleigh, 
 
 N. C, 1923. 
 
 (153) Von Tungeln, Geo. H., Kirkpatrick, E, L,, Hoffer, C. R., and Thaden, J. F. 
 
 The Social Aspects of Rural Life and Farm Tenantry, Cedar 
 County, Iowa. Bui. 217, Ag. Exp. Sta., .Ames, Iovva, Aug. 
 1923. 
 
 (154) Dickey, J. A., and Branson, E. C. -How Farm Tenants Live. Ext, Bui, 
 
 Vol. II, No. 6, Univ. of No. Car., Raleigh, N. C, Nov. 16, 
 1922. 
 
 (155) Hamilton, C. Horace. Recent Changes in the Social and Economic Status 
 
 of Farm Families in North Carolina. Bui. 309, No. Car. Ag. 
 Exp. Sta., Raleigh, N. C, May 1937. 
 
 (156) Williams, Robin M., and Wakefield, Olaf. Farm Tenancy in North Carolina, 
 
 1880 - 1935. AE-RS Inf. Series No. 1, No. Car. Ag. Exp. Sta., 
 Raleigh, N. C, Sept. 1937. (Mimeo.) 
 
 (157) Woofter, T. J., Jr. Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation. 
 
 Ros. Mono. V, Div. of Social Research, Works Progress Ad- 
 ministration, Washington, D. C, 1936. 
 
 (158) Vance, Rupert B. Human Factors in Cotton Culture: A Study in the 
 
 Social Geography of the American South. Chapel Hill: 
 Univ. of No. Car. Press, 1929. 
 
- t5 - 
 
 (159) Schuler, E. A. Social Status and Farm Tenure - Attitudes anc 1 Social 
 
 Conditions of Corn Belt and Cotton Belt Farmers* Sec. 
 Res. Rep. No, IV, U. S. Dopt. of Agr., Washington, D. C, 
 April 1938, 
 
 (1G0) Landis, Paul P., and - rooks, Melvin S. Fan., Later in the Yakima 
 
 Valley, Washington. Bui. 343, St. Coll. of "i. 'ash., Ag. 
 Exp, Sta., Pullman, lash., Bcc. 1036. 
 
 (101) Tetruau, E, R. Aired Labor Acquirements on Arizona Irrigated Fans, 
 
 Bui, No, ICC, Ag, Ex::. Sta., Univ. of Ariz., Tucson, Ariz., 
 193 . 
 
 (1G2) HcCormick, T. C, Comparative Study of Aural Relief and Non-Relief 
 
 use-holds. Res. Hone, II, Div. of Social Research, YAorks 
 Progress Admini strati on, Washington, D. C, 1935. 
 
 (163) Melvin, Truce L, Rural Youth on Relief. Res, Mono, No, XI, Div, of 
 
 Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, 
 D . e . , J. i/o ( . 
 
 (164) Johanson, John P. The Extent of Dependency Upon Old Age Assistance in 
 
 South Dakota, Bui, 318, Ag, Exp. Sta,, S. Dak. State Coll,, 
 Brc .ki -,-c, S, D,, Feb, 1938. 
 
 (1G5) Asch, Bcrta, and Mangus, A. R, Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation, 
 
 . . lo, VIII, Division of Social Research, Works Progress 
 Administration, Washington, D. C,, 1937, 
 
 (166) Link, Irene, Relief and Rehabilitation in the Drought Area - Fart 3 of 
 
 Se< ] roblcms of the Drought Area, — s, Bui, Ser, V, 
 Division of Social Research, Y.'orks Progress Administration, 
 bon, D, C, 1937. 
 
 (167) Allen, A. A,, C r 11, L. S. Jr., Tro>:ell, ,- . " ., Herring, Harriet L., 
 
 s, .. D. Part-' h e Fan ing in the South Past. 
 Rec . . . . IX, Div. of Social Research, 1 orks Progress Ad- 
 ministration, 'Washington, D. C., 1937. 
 
 (168) Mather, \ f] . C-. Jr.-, Townsend, T. K., and Sanderson, Dv/ight. A Study of 
 
 ;• Development in Watcrville, Y rk, Bui, 
 608, Cor: liv. Ag. Exp, Sta., Ithaca, . '.., June 1934. 
 
 (169) Allrcd, C. E., and Fitch, J. C. Effects of Industrial Development on 
 
 iral Life in Sullivan County, Term. Ext. Ser. Vol. V, 
 . 3, aiv. )f Tenn. Record, Knoxville, Tennessee, May 1928. 
 
 (170) . J. H,, arc! Pole ., . . Trends in Town-Country atiens. Res. 
 
 . 117, Univ. of Wis, Ag, Exp. Sta,, Madison, Wis,, Sept. 
 19< . 
 
-46- 
 
 (171) Von Tungeln, Geo. H., Brindley, W. A., and Hawthorn, H. B. A Rural 
 
 Social Survey of Orange Township, Blackhawk County, Iowa. 
 Bui." '184, Iowa Ag. Exp. Sta., Ames, Iowa, Dec, 1918. 
 
 (172) Von Tungeln, Geo. H,, and Eells, Harry L. Rural Social Survey of 
 
 Hudson, Orange, and Jesup Consolidated School Districts, 
 Blackhawk and Buchanan Counties, Iowa.. Bui. 224, Iowa Ag. 
 Exp. Sta., Ames, Iowa, Nov. 1924. 
 
 (173) Hay, Donald G. Social Organizations and Agencies in North Dakota, A 
 
 Study of Trends, 1926 to 1936. Eul. 288, Ag. Exp. Sta., 
 N. Dak. Ag. Coll., Fargo, IT. D., July 1937. 
 
 (174) Sanderson, Dwight. Research Memorandum on Rural Life in the Depression, 
 
 Bui. 34. New York: Social Science Research Council 1937. 
 
 (175) Williams, James M. American Town, Waterville, II. ¥•: R. W« Williams, 
 
 1906. 
 
 (176) Williams, James M. Our Rural Heritage - The Social Psychology of Rural 
 
 Development. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1925. 
 
 (177) Williams, James M r . The Expansion of Rural, Life - The Social Psychology 
 
 of Rural Development. Nov/ York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926. 
 
 (178)- Sanderson, Dwight, and Nafe, Robert W. Studies in Rural Leadership. 
 
 Pub. Am. Sociol. Soc. XXIII, pp. 163-175, 1929. 
 
 (179) Zimmerman, Carle C, and Black. John D. The Marketing Attitudes of 
 
 Minnesota Farmers. Tech. Bui. 45, Univ. of Minn. Ag. Exp. 
 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, 
 Bui. 256, V. Ag. Exp. Sta., Blacksburg, Va., May 1927. 
 
 (181) Schanck, Richard L. A Study of a Community and Its Groups and In- 
 
 stitutions Conceived as Behaviors of Individuals, Psycho- 
 logical Monographs No. 195, Princeton, N. J. Psychological 
 • Reviews Co., 1932. 
 
 (182) Claghorn, Kate H. Juvenile Delinquency in Rural New York. U. S. 
 
 Children's Bureau Publication 32, U. S. Dept, of Labor, 
 Washington, D. C, 1918. 
 
 (183) Dependent and Delinquent Children in North Dakota and South Dakota. 
 
 U. S. Children's Bureau Publication No. 160, 1-926. 
 
 (184) Dependent and Delinquent Children in Georgia. U. S. Children's Bureau 
 
 Publication 161, 1926. 
 
- 47 - 
 
 (185) Sherman, Handel, and Henry, Thonas R. Hollow Folk. Nov: York, Thos. 
 
 Y. Crowell Co., 1933. 
 
 (166) Taylor, Carl C, Wheeler, Helen W., and Kirkpatriok, 1 . i 
 
 Disadvantaged Classes in American Agriculture, 
 
 .oc 
 
 Res. 
 
 . No. VIII, U. S. Dept. of Agr., Vfashington, D. C 
 ril 1938. 
 
 • -> 
 
 (187) Vasey, Ton, and Folson, J. C. Survey of Agricultural Labor Conditions 
 
 in Placer County, California, U. S. Dept. of A.gr., Wash- 
 ington, D. C, Oct. 1957. (Reports are also available 
 of similar surveys in the following counties: Archuleta, 
 Colo,; Livingston, 111.; Hanilton, la,; Pawnee, Kans.; 
 Tcdd, Ky.; Concordia Parish, La.; Lac qui Parle, Minn.; 
 Wayne, Pa,; Fentress, Tenn.j and Karnes, Texas.) 
 
. 
 
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 
 
 I llll ill 
 
 3 1262 08921 5114