Field Techniques in Social Psychological Study in a Rural Community

Abstract

IN RECENT years sociologists and anthropologists have become increasingly interested in those aspects of social behavior which have been commonly accepted in our culture as the personal and private concern of the individual. Traditionally in our society, the individual's family life, sentiments and values, dreams, aspirations and motivations have been held to be inviolable. Social scientists have respected this tradition and have either avoided these areas or have assessed them indirectly and inadequately by means of introspection, observations of intimates, autobiographical materials and questionnaires. Some students of social behavior, however, have not been content with the limited and otherwise unsatisfactory data available from these sources and consequently have been attempting to perfect field techniques which will enable them to obtain adequate personal data on representative samples of individuals drawn from neighborhoods, communities and larger social groups. Unfortunately there has been little discussion in the professional journals of the basic field techniques currently being used in the study of social-psychological behavior.' Actually, these techniques for the most part are not new and differ from traditional field techniques mainly in the care with which they are planned and applied. writer is engaged in a study of child training and personality development in a rural community in which most of the problems encountered in social psychological field studies were met and feels that a brief iscussion of the techniques used in dealing with these problems will reveal some of the possibilities of existing field techniques and may stimulate their further development. central problems in a study of this type are those of obtaining acceptance in the community and of establishing and maintaining a high level of rapport between the interviewer and the person interviewed. In the present study these problems were especially difficult for several reasons. intimate aspects of child training and family relationships are not commonly discussed with strangers in our rural society; consequently, not only may the mothers, who were the principal source of information, be reticent about discussing such facts but also the community may disapprove such inquiry. Another complicating factor is that the mother is asked to recall these experiences and to verbalize them. Because this is not a common demand of her every-day life she may find it a difficult task. matter is further complicated because the mother is likely to be quite conscious of her lack of knowledge concerning proper methods of child training and consequently is likely to feel self-conscious about her own inferior methods. obvious differences in the educational and status levels of the mother and the interviewer also complicate the rapport problem. Another difficulty is that the cooperation of the father as well as the mother must be obtained because his hostility may cause the mother to refuse the interview or make her unwilling to talk freely, although she might be otherwise willing to cooperate. Finally, the rapport and community acceptance problems are further complicated because the news of an unfavorable interviewing experience spreads rapidly in a rural community and may result in refusals or * Based on a paper read at the annual meeting of the Midwest Sociological Society, Minneapolis, April, I948. 1A notable exception is the work of Robert K. Merton; see his Selected Problems of Field Work in the Planned Community, American Sociological Review, XII (June, 1947), 304-3I2; Mass Persuasion: Social Psychology of a War Bond Drive, New York: Harper & Brothers, I946; and (with Patricia L. Kendall) The Focused Interview, American Journal of Sociology, LI (May, I946),