92p. · internationalizing. rural sociology. training. practice. recruitment. lee taylor, william...
TRANSCRIPT
ED 053 838
AUTHORTITLE
INSTITUTION
PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM
EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS
ABSTRACT
DOCUMENT RESUME
RC 005 513
Taylor, Lee; And OthersInternationalizing Rural Sociology: Training -Practice - Recruitment.State Univ. of New York, Ithaca. Coll. ofAgriculture at Cornell Univ.Aug 7092p.Mailing Room, Building 7, Research Park, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, New York ($0.70)
EDRS Price MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29Change Agents, Cross Cultural Studies, CrossCultural Training, Cultural Interrelationships,Curriculum, Developing Nations, EducationalDevelopment, *Foreign Students, Graduate Study,*Higher Education, Intercommunication, InterculturalPrograms, *International Programs, ProfessionalTraining, Program Development, *Rural Development,*Sociology
One in a series of publications designed todisseminate information concerned with international agriculturaldevelopment, this occupational study on improvement of training ofhigh-talent manpower is presented to serve rural sociology both inthe United States and the rest of the world by reporting research onthe profession of rural sociology. Data were collected byquestionnaires or interviews with international practitioners,American professors having experience in training internationalpractitioners, and graduate students currently preparing for careersoutside the United States. The central focus is on internationalizinga body of knowledge as a facilitating condition in internationaltraining: the developing of a set of minimum concpets and generalprinciples that have international (cross cultural) validity forequipping professionals from one society to work in any other. Afterproviding information on the design and execution of the study, aswell as narrative descriptions and data on its findings, the reportpresents 16 recommendations on intercultural transferability of dataand training, professional communication and international flow ofdata, recruitment policies and procedures for American universities,training in research methodology and theory construction in theUnited States, social theory emphasis during training in the UnitedStates, and special programs to internationalize rural sociology andrural sociologists. (BO)
rnPNELL INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BULLETIN 16
U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM
COTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY
Pr\ REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU
03 CATION POSITION OR POLICY
r'eNLX1
INTERNATIONALIZING
RURAL SOCIOLOGYTRAINING PRACTICE RECRUITMENT
Lee Taylor, William Reeder, J. J. Mangalam
NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULT
A STATUTORY COLLEGE OF THE STATE UNIVER
AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NEW YORK
1
WTH modern methods of travel and communicationshrinking the world almost day by day, a progressive universitymust extend its campus to the four corners of the world. TheNew York State College of Agriculture at Cornell Universitywelcomes the privilege of participating in international develop-ment an important role for modern agriculture. Much atten-tion is being given to efforts that will help establish effective agri-cultural teaching, research, and extension programs in other partsof the world. Scientific agricultural knowledge is exportable.
A strong agriculture will not only provide more food for rapid-ly growing populations in less-developed countries, but also afirmer base upon which an industrial economy can be built. Suchprogress is of increasing importance to the goal of world peace.
This is one in a series of publications designed to disseminateinformation concerned with international agricultural develop-ment.
Single copy free, additional copies 70f' each. Write to:Mailing RoomBuilding 7, Research ParkCornell UniversityIthaca, New York 14850
August 1970
2
Preface
This publication is a report of re-search endorsed by the Council ofthe Rural Sociological Society andsupported by a grant from the Agri-cultural Development Council, In-corporated. Responsibility for thestatements and interpretations inthis report, however, rests with itsthree authors. The report is pre-sented to serve rural sociology bothin the United States and the rest ofthe world.
We extend a special appreciationto our colleagues, in the UnitedStates and abroad, who gave us timeand showed us great hospitalitywhen we were interviewing. We alsostate our appreciation for all thefaculty and students who completedquestionnaires for the study. Thestudent questionnaires were dis-tributed and collected by the follow-ing professors for whom specialthanks are hereby recorded: J. AllanBeegle, Alvin L. Bertrand, TherelBlack, Emory Brown, Arthur R.Jones, John Kelley, Gerald Klong-lan, C. Paul Marsh, Douglas Mar-shall. Bardin Nelson, Walter Slo-cum, and Jerry Stockdale.
Early counsel and encouragementfor the work of this project camefrom David Lindstrom and EdgarSchuler. Two Agricultural Develop-ment Council Workshops criticallyreviewed the formulation of thisproject. The Development Commit-tee of the Rural Sociological Societyhas had a continuing interest in theprogress of this work. Many col-leagues, especially Howard Beers,
1
Alvaro Chaparro, Orlando Fa ls-Borda, Douglas Marshall, andRobert Poison, read the draft of thismanuscript in part or in full. Forall of this assistance and encourage-ment we are grateful.
The analysis of the data washandled with dispatch by Mrs.Marilyn Schnell. All the step-by-step details of the entire projectwere ably handled by Mrs. MauraLynch, who functioned as a re-search associate and secretarythroughout the project. The highquality of her effort and interesthas facilitated and improved theresearch and this final report. Werecord our special gratitude for herexcellent work. We also express ap-preciation for the data analysis andtyping done by Mrs. Carol Decker.
The final typing was the respon-sibility of Miss Rita Samrow, UrbanStudies Institute, Louisiana StateUniversity in N. w Orleans. Mrs.Lee Taylor carefully proofread theentire manuscript. We record ourspecial gratitude for all the aboveexcellent work.
Lee Taylor, New Orleans*William Reeder, ProvofJ. J. Mangalam, Guelplit
* Professor and director, Urban StudiesInstitute, Louisiana State University inNew Orleans.
Professor of rural sociology, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, New York, and visit-ing professor of sociology, BrighamYoung University, 1969-70.
Associate professor of sociology, Uni-versity of Guelph, Guelph, Canada.
3
Contents
Preface
Chapter 1.
Chapter 2.
Chapter 3.
Chapter 4.
Chapter 5.
Chapter 6.
1
The Study. Its Design and Execution 3
Training for International Rural Sociologists 15
A Profile of International Practitioners 41
International Careers, Work Environments,and International Centers 57
Toward Internationalizing Rural SociologyA Historical Note 73
Recommendations 83
88Appendix Notes
2
Chapter 1. The Study: Its Design and Ex
Introduction
International study since theseventeenth-century grand tours inEurope has been a growing tradi-tion' and particularly in the secondhalf of the twentieth century,2 withits network of facilities for fasttravel and communication, hasgained in world importance. In ad-dition to political and scientific lead-ers, increasing numbers of pcoplefrom many nations visit other na-tions in times of both peace andwar. The world as a commonmarket place has become bothfrustrating and challenging. Peoplesof all nations are seeking new defi-nitions of man's rights and improvedways of social justice. In this seek-ing sociology, the science of socialinteraction and its products has aspecial part to play. Most of theworld is rural; hence the sociologyof rural life should prepare itself tohelp in the enormous task of recon-structing the world to provide forman's rights in a just world socialorder.
Sociological inquiry concerninghuman relations in rural life beganto take formal shape in the UnitedStates shortly after the Country
I Thisnumbersp. 88.
and all following superscriptrefer to notes in the Appendix,
3
Life Convention of 1908.3 In 1912the theme of the American Socio-logical Society's annual meeting was"Rural Life." In 1925, with the pas-sage of the Purnell Act, additionalsupport for rural sociological studiescame from the United States De-partment of Agriculture and agricul-tural experiment stations in UnitedStates colleges of agriculture. Asthe number of scholars interestedin this area of inquiry increased, thejournal Rural Sociology was foundedin 1936 and the Rural SociologicalSociety in 1937. From the 1920's tothe 1950's most of the efforts ofAmerican* sociologists concernedwith rural life were focused on thephenomenon as observed in theUnited States. In the post-WorldWar II years, rural sociological in-terests expanded rapidly to countriesoutside the United States.
Before World War II only a fewscholars from other nations came tostudy rural sociology in the UnitedStates. In the post-World War IIyears many more came, and by theearly 1960's the Rural SociologicalSociety was in effect an internationalsociety. It followed naturally that
* Throughout this publication Americaand American refer to the UnitedStates of America.
members of this society began toraise questions about the appropri-ateness and competence of the train-ing that American institutions wereoffering to students of rural sociologyfrom abroad.
As the international dimensions ofrural sociological interests continuedto expand, the first World Congressfor Rural Sociology was organized,and met in Dijon, France in 1964.Following this important Congress,the Development Committee of theRural Sociological Society renewedwith vigor its interest in systematical-ly appraising the need of trainingstudents here and from abroad inrural sociology for internationalwork and of evaluating the appropri-ateness of the training currently be-ing offered. It was apparent in theDevelopment Committee's discus-sions that there was little systematicevidence concerning the usefulnessof the training received by studentsfrom abroad when they returned totheir home countries.4
As more and more American pro-fessors undertook assignments out-side the United States, the need for
more rural sociology in other areasof the world in general and in thedeveloping nations in particular be-came apparent. In 1966, as part ofthe Development Committee's work,Lee Taylor agreed to draft a re-search proposal to be reported tothe Rural Sociology Society Coun-cil for endorsement. In preparingthis proposal, Taylor was joined byWilliam Reeder and J. J. Manga-lam, each of whom also had long,-standing and specialized interests ininternational student training. Anumber of other colleagues werealso consulted. The proposal, en-titled "International Rural Sociolo-gists: Their Aspirations, Training,and Practice," was presented to theAgricultural Development Councilby Lee Taylor and Orlando Pals-Borda. It was funded for July 1,1967 to June 30, 1969.
The present study reports re-search on the profession of ruralsociology with the aim of enhanc-ing and strengthening it.' As such,it is an occupational study, designedto improvc, training of high talentmanpower.6
Chronology of the Study
Literature SurveyInitial work on the study involved
a survey of existing literature on theactivities and experiences of inter-national students and on the de-velopment of sociology and relatedsocial sciences. There are numerousdescriptive studies of foreign stu-dents from specific countries, such as
4
India, Mexico, and the Scandina-vian countries, which describe thegoals of the students, their experi-ences, problems of anxiety and ad-justment in America, and problemsof adjustment and identifying uponreturning home.' Other studies con-cern problems of cross-cultural edu-cation, exchange relationships, and
selection procedures.' And somestudies report trends in the numberof international student exchanges.''Finally, some studies focus on theoverseas American." Most of thisliterature was instructive to thepresent study, but none of it spe-cifically dealt with the central focusof this study, namely the interna-tionalizing of a body of knowledgeas a facilitating, if not a necessary,condition in international training.(Internationalizing a body of knowl-edge means the developing of a setof minimum concepts and generalprinciples that have international(cross-cultural) validity. Similarly,international training means theequipping of professionals from onesociety to work in any other.) Theliterature concerning the training ofsocial scientists and the developmentof the social sciences is limited andmostly descriptive.
After the literature survey, thenext significant steps in the develop-nent of the study design were twoAgricultural Development Council(A/D/C) workshops devoted tocritical reviews of the problem areasunder study.
A/D/C WorkshopsThe workshops supported by the
Agricultural Development Councilrelated to training for internationalrural sociologists as teachers, re-searchers, and applied scientists. Par-ticipants were Howard W. Beers(University of Kentucky), HaroldCapener (Cornell University), OddGrande (Agricultural State Collegeof Norway), J. J. Mangalam (Uni-versity of Guelph, Ontario), Douglas
"Marshall (University of Wisconsin),Glenn McCann (North CarolinaState University), Robert Poison(Cornell University), William Reed-er (Cornell University), ProdiptoRoy (National Institute of Com-munity Development, Hyderabad,India), Irwin 1'. Sanders (VicePresident, Education and World Af-fairs), Russell Stevenson (Agricul-tural Development Council), LeeTaylor (Cornell University), A. M.Weisblat (Agricultural DevelopmentCouncil), and Clifton R. Wharton,Jr. (Agricultural DevelopmentCouncil). All the participants hadextensive international experienceand were themselves either inter-nationai practitioners or educatorsof international practitioners or acombination of the two.*
The first workshop focused con-siderable discussion on international-izing professional education in gen-eral and rural sociology in partic-ular. A clear need to internationalizethe discipline was presented. Thetraining in rural sociology, it wasrecognized, must be given in asmany international settings as pos-sible and not just in the UnitedStates.
Rural sociological study partic-ularly in its empirical manifesta-tions has been largely an Americanphenomenon. The transferability ofconcepts from one socio-cultural sit-uation to another must be estab-lished through research before a
* Throughout this report, interna-tionals or international practitioners re-fers to non-United States citizens whotook one or more graduate degrees inthe United States.
5
7
generic, international rural sociologycan be built. In effect, the work-shop participants emphasized thatthe important issue confronting ruralsociology was one not of just improv-ing training but also of refining andverifying the concepts and body ofknowledge cross-culturally.
The second workshop focused itsattention on social science researchmethodology in cross-cultural set-tings. The second workshop alsoclearly brought out the need forrural sociologists to go beyond bi-cultural experiences in their train-ing and in the practice of their oc-cupation. Repeatedly, American par-ticipants in the workshop foundthemselves comparing their experi-ence with the typically one other cul-ture in which each had had profes-sional experience. The internationalscompared their sociological knowl-edge of North America with theirhome cultures. In both cases it be-
came quite clear that the typicalpattern of international experiencereally has been only bicultural. Bi-cultural sociological experience, itwas asserted, probably sets as manyblinders as it creates assets on theinternationalizing of rural sociology.Both in concepts and training, it wasasserted, multicultural, not bicul-tural, situations and institutions areneeded. Research questions weretherefore constructed to test thisworkshop notion of multiculturalversus bicultural internationalization.Special questions were also con-structed for the interview guidesand questionnaires so that the re-search would provide insights intothe transferability of concepts cross-cul turally.
In sum, the two workshops calledloudly and clearly for new inter-nationalized institutional supports forrural sociology.
A General Frame of Reference for Evaluation
The major foci of this study as de-veloped during the two A/D/Cworkshops were: (1) the content oftraining high talent, internationalmanpower for rural sociology to givecompetence in any socio-culturalcontext; and (2) the location of in-stitutes for such training. As a sci-entific discipline, sociology shouldhave concepts and theories that havecross-cultural or universal validity. Atest of whether or not such conceptsand hypotheses derived from thetheories exist, is a test of the degree
6
to which sociology has come of ageas a scientific discipline. Thus, astudy of this nature, in which we areconcentrating upon the training ofinternational rural sociologists fromother nations who come to theUnited States for advanced trainingprovides a test of the growth of thediscipline itself. In short, this is anevaluative study with policy implica-tions for the content, the methods,and the locale of training and thedevelopment of the discipline as ascience.
Any evaluative research is helped
by a frame of reference. and thisone is no exception. Following theworkshops, we devised such a frameof reference. What follows is a sche-matized framework for this evalu-ative research. Figure 1 representsthis framework in a general way thatis applicable with necessary modifi-cations to training in any disciplinein any country. We will elaborate onthis framework, of course, with re-spect to the training of internationalstudents in rural sociology.
The framework or model for eval-uation is represented by a three-dimensional figure, bounded by thecoordinates OA, OB, and OP. Thecoordinate OA represents actors inthe model. These actors are the per-sons or groups who have taken oneor more of the various steps involved
Actors
A, Trainees (students) c
in training (to be described below) .The figure suggests at least foursuch actors: the trainees or studentsthemselves (At ) , the sponsors in thestudents' own country (A,), thesponsors in the country where train-ing takes place (A3), and the train-ers or the university where the train-ing takes place (A.1). With respectto our current concerns, the traineesare rural sociology students fromtechnologically less-developed na-tions coming to America to receivethe M.A. and/or Ph.D. degrees. Thesponsors at home (A2) could be thestudents themselves with or withoutthe support of their families, privateagencies, or public agencies such asgovernment departments. Similarcategories would apply to sponsorsin America (A3). The universities
Beneficiaries
B1Trainees
B2Trainees'country
B2Trainers'country
B, B,Trainer Discipline or
university, professionI C
dlb
Sponsors in trainees'2 country
Snsors in thetrpaioners' country /9
A4 Trainers (university)
B
0
P, = Selection processes
P2 Training processes
P, = Post-training follow-upprocesses 1
,,m
/A
Figure 1. General framework for evaluating training of students in foreigncountries.
9
that train these students are mainlythe land-grant universities whichhave major programs of training inrural sociology, either in separate de-partments or in association with suchsubject areas as agricultural eco-nomics or general sociology.
The coordinate OB represents thebeneficiaries of training. These in-clude in the present case the traineesthemselves (BO, the trainee's coun-try of origin (B2), America (B3),the land-grant universities (134), andthe profession of rural sociology(B5). There could be others.
The coordinate OP represents theselection or recruiting process (Pi),the training process (P2), and thepost-training follow-up process (P3).
Let us at once point out two as-sumptions we are not making: (1)We are not assuming that thesethree coordinates and the dimensionsthey represent exhaust the dimen-sions of the problem of this kind ofevaluation, but only that at leastthese three are involved; (2) Weare not assuming that there are onlyfour actors, five beneficiaries, andthree processes, but rather that thereare at least these many actors, bene-ficiaries, and processes to be takeninto account.
If we slice up the three-dimen-sional figure into subunits, followingthe divisions along OA, OB, andOP, we will have 60 pieces, eachrepresenting an issue that needs tobe answered in a complete and care-ful study of evaluation. For example,the slice abcdefgh represents whatthe trainees have done about theselection (self-selection in this case)process to study in America so thattheir training will have the maxi-
8
mum benefit to themselves. Again,the slice ijklmnop represents whatactions the American universitiestook in the post-training, follow-upprocess to maximize the benefits ofthis training program for rural so-ciology as a scientific discipline.Such issues raise, in turn, questionsconcerning the objectives of theactors in initiating training for thesestudents in America. Also, whatwould constitute benefits to the bene-ficiaries needs to be spelled out,for without a statement of objec-tives and nature of benefits no ra-tional judgment can be made of theactions taken by the four actors (A1,A2, A3, A4).
It will be readily granted thatraising and answering all the issuesand questions associated with all 60slices represented in figure 1 are be-yond the scope of any one research.The framework helps to identify theissues involved, however, and toselect the more pertinent for im-mediate investigation. Since wetouch upon a number of these issues,we have of necessity concentratedupon those schematized in the Out-line of Issues Studied.
The main purpose of a frameworksuch as the one presented in figure 1is to act as a guide: (a) in present-ing a total view of the phenomenonbeing studied; (b) in identifying thevarious issues involved in an investi-gation such as the present one; (c)in picking out for study selected is-sues from among those identified;(d) in identifying those issues thatare not being studied; and (e) withthe help of (c) and (d) in obtain-ing a balanced view of the bound-aries of the study.
10
Schematized Outline of Issues Studied
Beneficiary Appropriate slice Issues studied in terms of contributions:
B1(Trainees)
AI P1B
1
A1P2B1
A1P2B1
A2P3B1
A,P,B,
A,P.,B,
A,P,B,
of trainees to the selection processes towardtheir career goals,
of trainees to the training processes towardtheir career goals,
of trainees to the post-training processes to-ward trainees' career goals,
of trainees' sponsors at home to the post-train-ing follow-up processes toward trainees'career goals,
of American universities to the selectionprocesses toward the trainees' career goals,
of American universities to the trainingprocesses toward the trainees' career goals,
of American universities to the post-trainingfollow-up processes toward the trainees'career goals,
B,(Trainees' home
countries)
A 1P2 B2
A1P3 B2
of trainees to the training processes towardhome countries' goals,
of trainees to the post-training processes to-ward home countries' goals,
B5(Profession of
rural sociology)
A2 P B,1 J
AsP1B2
A2P2B5
A,P,B,
A,P2B5
A,P2B5
of trainees' sponsors in home countries to theselection processes toward internationalizingrural sociology,
of American sponsors to selection processes to-ward internationalizing rural sociology,
of American sponsors to training processes to-ward internationalizing rural sociology,
of American universities to selection processestoward internationalizing rural sociology,
of American universities to the trainingprocesses toward internationalizing rural so-ciology,
of American universities to the post-trainingfollow-up processes toward internationalizingrural sociology.
All this we have tried to do here.The three-dimensional figure repre-sents the whole phenomenon of eval-uation of international programs forthe training of high talent manpower.The slices, each identified by itsthree coordinates, represent the vari-
9
ous issues involved. The 15 issuesspecially considered are listed in theOutline of Issues Studied. The restof the 60 issues were not directlystudied and include, for example, is-sues related to the benefits that thetrainer's country (the aid-giver
11.
United States in this specific in-stance) might receive from such aninternational training program. Nordoes this study investigate how thetraining universities might benefitfrom such a program. We usuallyassume that training of studentsfrom technologically loss-developednations in more developed nationsserves a beneficial purpose with re-gard to the growth of the students'homelands. The validity of this as-sumption needs testing but such isnot attempted here.
What is being studied and not be-ing studied arc functions of avail-ability of research resources and theimmediate choices that the research-ers had to make. Exclusion of cer-tain issues does not necessarily passjudgment on the importance (or islack) of these issues, although con-tinued exclusion of certain topicscould seem to indicate their unim-portance. We do not want to implythis, especially with reference to theissues excluded in this study.
Sources of Our Data
We collected data for the studyfrom four sources: (1) from in-depth on-location interviews withselected international practitioners;(2) through questionnaires mailedto international practitioners; (3)through questionnaires mailed toAmerican professors who have hadexperience in training internationalpractitioners; and (4) internationaland American graduate students cur-rently preparing for careers outsideof the United States.
Interviews withInternational Practitioners
The interviewing of a selectednumber of international practition-ers was done between the beginningof December, 1967 and the end ofJanuary, 1968. In all, 64 sociologistsin 14 countries were interviewed.Their numbers by country were:Brazil 6, Colombia 2, Costa Rica 3,India 17, Indonesia 2, Korea 6,
Lebanon 1, Pakistan 6, Panama 1.Peru 2, Philippines 6, Puerto Rico 4.Taiwan 3, and Thailand 6.
This international interviewinghad two purposes. First, it was aneffort to obtain a broader view ofthe state of rural sociology than hasever before been achieved. Such abroad-based, international view. wejudged, is essential to the develop-ment of rural sociology as a disci-pline. Second, we used this occasionto pretest the instrument we latersent to all international practitioners.whether we had interviewed themor not.
The names of persons to be inter-viewed and also of those later toreceive a questionnaire were ob-tained (a) from the Directory: RuralSociological Society 1967 and (b)by direct requests sent to the majordepartments of sociology and/orrural sociology offering special train-ing in rural sociology. The depart-ments were asked to supply a list of
10
12
majors who were trained in ruralsociology since 1945 along with thenationality and year each one hadobtained the master's and/or doctor'sdegree. A special effort was madeto interview older graduates, nowmature in their professional experi-ence. Some younger graduates withonly the master's degree were alsointerviewed. An effort was made tointerview persons in university posi-tions, in government positions, andin other agency positions. As ex-pected, the entire procedure wascomplicated by incorrect addresses,no addresses, and ineffective mailservice. Moreover, internationalhostilities completely prohibited in-terviewing in some countries. In-deed, the situation was so compli-cated for Africa in general that itbecame economically unfeasible totravel there for interviews. In othercases interviewing was frustrated bythe return of letters requesting ap-pointments marked, for example,"Delivery prevented by enemy occu-pation of Jordan Territory." Inspite of all such difficulties, mostinterview appointments were care-fully established by mail, a travelitinerary set accordingly, and mostinterviewees were contacted with fa-cility when the interviewers reachedtheir destinations.
InternationalPractitioner Questionnaire
The questionnaire, initially con-structed on the basis of the discus-sions at the A/D/C workshops, wasfurther refined on the basis of pre-tests carried out during the inter-views. These questionnaires were
mailed to sociologists in 35 coun-tries in March, 1968.
Out of a total of 215 in the finallist, 99 questionnaires were returnedand out of them 75 were usable.After analysis of the returned ques-tionnaires and of those not returnedand considering the difficulty inkeeping up-to-date mailing lists andin view of the precariousness of theinternational mail service, we con-clude that the response was ade-quate. The distril-nttion of the usablequestionnaires by country was:Brazil 4, Canada 9, Chile 2, Colom-bia 4, Costa Rica 2, Ethiopia 1,
Ghana 1, Guatemala 2, India 17.Japan 1, Jordan 1, Korea 2, Lebanon1, Pakistan 7, Panama 1, Peru 1,
Philippines 5, Puerto Rico 6, Taiwan3, Thailand 2, and Venezuela 3.
Many letters and questionnaireswere returned, some with notationsthat the recipient does not now reallyconsider himself a sociologist, wasnot currently working as a sociolo-gist, and so forth. Other envelopeswere returned marked "unknown"or were not delivered for unspecifiedreasons.
AmericanProfessor Questionnaire
A questionnaire was prepared forAmerican professors who teach ruralsociology and who participate in theeducation of international rural so-ciologists and was sent to professorsin 17 universities in April, 1968. Thedistribution of completed question-naires by universities was: CornellUniversity 10, Iowa State Univer-sity 5, Louisiana State University 4,Michigan State University 6, Missis-
11
13
sippi State University 8, Ohio StateUniversity 6, Pennsylvania StateUniversity 4, Texas A and M Uni-versity 3, University of Connecticut4, University of Florida 1, Univer-sity of Georgia 1, University of Il-linois 2, University of Kentucky 5,University of Miami 1, Universityof Missouri 3, University of Wiscon-sin 6, and Washington State Univer-sity 3.
The return from all the professorswho emphasize rural sociology andwho are directly engaged in grad-uate sociology instruction of inter-national students was practicallycomplete. There is no official defi-nition of such subareas of sociologyas rural sociology. In these timesof academic mobility several profes-sors may be on leave or on inter-national assignment in any givensemester. Again, a professor's areaof emphasis and work with graduatestudents may vary from semester tosemester. Consequently, there is noreliable statistic to indicate at anyone time the number of professorswhose area of emphasis is rural so-ciology. Yet, in terms of the booksand articles published it is possibleto estimate the size of the "ruralsociology professor universe with ex-periences in training internationalstudents" to be approximately 75.
Every major school which has atradition of emphasizing rural so-ciology as one area of sociology isrepresented in our sample. The listof universities was drawn primarilyfrom the Directory of UniversitiesOffering Graduate Degrees in RuralSociology (1966).
Graduate Student QuestionnaireThe fourth and last body of data
collected concerning the internation-al training of rural sociologists wasfrom the current graduate students.To be included in the study, theyhad to have completed one full aca-demic year of graduate study in theUnited States and be students fromeither another nation or from theUnited States with a career com-mitment of professional work out-side of the United States. Copies ofthe graduate student questionnairewere mailed to 12 universities inOctober, 1968. Distribution locallyand return were handled by the fol-lowing professors: J. Allan Beegle,Alvin L. Bertrand, There] Black,Emory Brown, Arthur R. Jones,John Kelley, Gerald Klonglan, C.Paul Marsh, Douglas Marshall,Bardin Nelson, Walter Slocum, andJerry Stockdale. The distribution ofthe 85 returned instruments by uni-versities was: Cornell University 13,Iowa State University 10, LouisianaState University 6, Michigan StateUniversity 11, Mississippi State Uni-versity 5, North Carolina State Uni-versity 1, Pennsylvania State Uni-versity 3, Texas A and M University2, University of Georgia 10, Uni-versity of Wisconsin 15, Utah StateUniversity 3, and Washington StateUniversity 6.
Determining the universe of grad-uate students emphasizing rural so-ciology for international work is atleast as complex as determining thenumber of corresponding professors,and for many of the same reasons.Consequently, to have 85 respondwith this rural sociology identifica-
12
14:
tion is between reasonable to highin terms of what might be expected.Most graduate schools and most de-partments do not require students tomake formal commitments to sub-areas of sociology and/or to inter-national work. Moreover areas ofemphasis in sociology graduate studyoften change as one progressesthrough the course of study. Manystudents do not make these commit-ments even informally and in theirown mind until toward the end oftheir study. By nature the universeis a changing one. It is reasonableto believe that the responses in-cluded nearly all of the students witha firm interest in international ruralsociology and a few whose dedica-tion may shift to an alternate areaof interest.
These responses from internationalpractitioners, American professors,and graduate students constitute col-lectively the largest body of data col-lected to date in a systematic effortto examine the training for inter-national rural sociologists. Naturally,the findings from such data musthave serious implications for inter-nationalizing rural sociology.
A further note should be made re-garding the kinds of data with whichwe are dealing. Most of the datafrom our four sources are opiniondata about various aspects of train-
Progress
The second World Congress ofRural Sociology, August 5-10, 1968at Enschede, the Netherlands, wasin effect a forum which demanded aprogress report of this study. Ac-
13
Mg. Even though these sources prob-ably represent the best among avail-able respondent!, for our study, awell-informed majority can be attimes wrong. Thus, from this type ofdata the best we can come up withare judgments based on responsesfrom a large number of experienced,professional colleagues.
Another type of data, differentfrom majority opinions, supports ourstatements. As we traveled and inter-viewed we saw and heard many dif-ferent things. Some of these weredesigned into questions; many otherswere not. Later on, as we analyzedthe data and thought more deeplyabout them, many of the pieces notpreviously used posed issues relevantto our central topic. What to dowith these issues is, of course, aquestion. Should we ignore them aswe did not collect data directly bear-ing on them, or should we makestatements on them based simply onour observations? To do the lattermaximizes the pay-off from the studybut invites extreme caution in in-terpretation. Since the study was de-signed to seek answers to some ques-tions and to generate hypotheses tobe tested later, we have taken theposition that it is legitimate to staterelevant hypotheses even though theycannot be tested within the scope ofthis study.
Reports
cordingly, the closing session of thatcongress was organized by LeeTaylor and entitled Internationaliz-ing Training for Rural Sociologists.11Formal presentations on this occa-
sion were made by William Reeder,Some Considerations Relevant to theTraining of International RuralSociologists; by J. J. Mangalam, In-ternational Training of Rural Soci-ologists; by Herbert Kotter, Interna-tional Training Needs from theEuropean Perspective; by Baij Nath-Singh, International Training Needsfrom the Asian Perspective; and byOrlando Fals-Borda, Training Needsfrom the Latin American Perspec-tive. The session attracted favorablediscussion from the floor of thecongress and has led to continuingdialogue in several areas.
A report of the study was alsowritten for the European WorkingParty for Rural Sociology, F.A.O.72and presented at their August 1968meeting in Wageningen, the Nether-lands. This report also has led tocontinuing discussions betweenF.A.O. and the Development Com-mittee of the Rural Sociological So-ciety toward combining efforts infurthering international rural soci-ology.
At the annual meeting of theRural Sociological Society in Boston,August 23-26, 1968 a special sessionof the program chaired by LeeTaylor was organized, entitled"Training and Work Environmentfor Sociologists Outside of U.S.A."Discussants were: Irwin T. Sanders,Developing Cooperation in Interna-tional Research; Douglas Marshall,Departmental and OrganizationalSupport for International Students;
14
Howard NV. Beers. Training inNorth America and in Asia: OlenLeonard, Work Environments: LatinAmerica: and William Reeder,Transferability of Concepts andMethods. A considerable discussionfollowed the presentations at thissession, leading to Edgar A. Schuler'sletter to the editor of Rural Soci-ology. This commented favorably onthe presentation and on Rende'r'srecommendations."
In January, 1969 a further prog-ress report, reviewing some more ofthe data, was made by the authorsat the meeting of the DevelopmentCommittee of the Rural SociologicalSociety held at the University ofPuerto Rico. Indeed, the characterand focus of the meeting representedconsiderable response to the interna-tional study. An F.A.O. representa-tive from Rome was present andspecial attention was given to the de-velopment needs of rural sociologythroughout Latin America.
This publication now constitutes afinal report of the data. The authorshope that this report will be the dy-namic beginning for the building ofnew institutional organization andsupport for rural sociology on an in-ternational basis. From previous re-sponses to progress reports and fromour own conclusions from the data,we believe this report can help orig-inate ideas leading to new, imagina-tive structures for internationalizingrural sociology as a scientific disci-pline.
Chapter 2.Training for International Rural Sociologists
Graduate training of internationalrural sociologists is one of the centralconcerns of this project. As alreadystated, this report is based on datafrom three questionnaire surveysand on notes and observations from
intensive interviews with interna-tional practitioners in Latin Ameri-ca, Southeast Asia, and India andPakistan. Information in this chapterand the next are based on these twotypes of data.
The Problems of Being Different
Different Types of SociologistsThe intensive interviewing of so
many international practitioners inmany countries within a short periodof time on the suitability of Ameri-can sociological training to theirhome situations provided an unusualpanoramic view of sociologistsaround the world. This view broughtinto bold relief the fact that therearc many different types of sociolo-gists and the further fact that thesedifferences present some very diffi-
cult problems for American-trainedinternational practitioners.
Though not the only variables onwhich rural sociologists differed, thesix which are probably most defini-tive are: major activity engaged in,major social unit studied or ana-lyzed, main method of observation,number and representativeness ofobservations, types of variableschosen, and basic logical orientation.These six variables may be out-lined as follows:
I. Major activityII. Major social unit
being analyzedIII. Main method of
observation
1. The scholar.teacher
2. Researcher-monograph writer
3. Research methodolo-gist
4. Applier of sociology, tosocial-change prob-lems and programs
5. Trainer of social-change agents
6. Social theorist
1. Culturesa. Generalb. Nationalc. Community
2. Social actorsa Personsb. Organizationsc. Social action
situations3. Human populations
a. Communitiesb. Regionsc. Institutionsd. Societies
1. Participationobservation
2. Historical3. Experimental4. Survey
(Continued)
15
17
I V. Number and repre-sentativeness of units
observedV, Types of variables VI Research approach
chosen and logical orientation
1. Case studies includingcomparative studies
2. Representative samples
1. Reference categorycharacteristics
2. Social actions at-titudinal-behavioral re-sponse patterns
3. Beliefs4. Social actors and so-
cial units5. Socially meaningful
non-person objects orsymbols
1. Philosophicala. deductive
orientation2. Empirical
a. Inductiveorientation
b. I nductivedeductiveorientation
Although various combinations ofsix variables could generate numer-ous possible different types, only afew general types were observed. Toillustrate some of these types, four
common types of American-trainedrural sociologists and four commontypes of sociologists encountered inother societies and cultures are de-scribed as follows:
Four Common Types of American-trained Rural Sociologists
Type I. The large-sample-survey descriptive researcherLarge-sample-survey researcher. Empirical inductive monographic describer ofthe characteristics of human populations. A nontheorist who does not generalizebeyond his data.
Type II. The large-sample-survey research methodologistA knowledgeable expert on the tough methodological problems related to largesample survey research. A dedicated inductive empiricist devoted to the idea thatscience is best built through refined research methodology and through an ac-cumulation of carefully tested hypotheses. A nontheorist whose hostility to theoryand theorists increases as the theory becomes more genera] and/or the theoristbecomes more deductive.
Type III. The large-sample-survey social-change researcherA large-sample-survey researcher who studies either social-action situations or thecharacteristics of human populations in relation to either social problems orsocial-change programs. An empirical inductive researcher who does not generalizebeyond his data. A nontheorist who does not generate theoretical propositionsbut who rather freely generalizes on what he considers to be the implications ofhis data to program improvement, policy formulation toward the solution of aproblem.
Type IV. The trainer of social-change agentsThe trainer of social-change agents is a particular kind of applied sociologist. Heis not a researcher nor a theorist and does not generate either research data ortheoretical propositions, though he will be a consumer of both in relation to hiswork. His expertise is in the field of community-development methodology, organiza-tion methodology, problem-solving methodology, interpersonal relations, andstrategies for stimulating and generating social change usually at the individual,family, organizational, community, or regional levels. He is a consumer of bothlarge-sample-survey research and of organizational and small-group experimental re-search.
16
.1t
18
(Continued)
Four Types of Sociologists Commonly Encountered in Other Societies and OtherCultures
Type I. The knowledgeable, scholar-teacher, and case-study researcherPredominantly a knowledgeable scholar-teacher and secondarily a case study re-searcher, this type uses participant-observation methods to study social life holistical-ly in underdeveloped rural villages or in the traditional villages of tribal aborigines.They are empirical, case study, descriptive researchers who seldom attempt to gen-eralize beyond their data. This type differs from a common type of social anthro-pologist in North America only in that they are called sociologists.
Type II. The philosophical. historical, deductive scholar-teacherFrom the screening of historical records which reflect the national culture, thistype of sociologist generates guiding theories or propositions which serve as gen-eralizations or guidelines in terms of which the present is then hypothesized bythe process of deduction.
Type III. A conflict model, scholar-teacher, political sociologistPhilosophically oriented scholar-teacher. Usually an advocate of one or a com-bination of the European social-philosophical schools. Frequently Marxian butmay be both Marxian and logical positivist. A heavy emphasis on economic ma-terialism, political power, and change by conflict rather than education.
Type IV. An American-trained, electic, knowledgeable scholar-teacherEssentially a knowledgeable scholar-teacher who may or may not have done re-search beyond the thesis. Methodologically oriented to large sample surveymethods. He is usually an eclectic communicator of theoretical ideas and is not atheory builder or a theory tester. He may be a proponent of Parsons' generalframe of reference or of Merton's idea of middle range theories. To propose aparticular frame of reference, however, would tend to lead to preferential selec-tion and would be somewhat in conflict with his major orientation as the purveyorof scholarly knowledge.
In several institutions where therewere old established departments ofsociology, the American-trainedrural sociologists were not part of thedepartments but were functioningunder other labels such as ExtensionEducation, Agricultural Extension,or as a part of Agricultural Eco-nomics. In almost all cases there wasa serious lack of communication be-tween the Ainerican-trained ruralsociologists and other sociologists onthe campuses. Differences in back-ground were not perceived as assetsbut rather as limitations and li-abilities. Comments regarding othersociologists left little doubt that asociologist tended to perceive a
17
"good, well-qualified sociologist" assomeone whose training and basicorientation was similar to his own.These evaluations showed up ratherclearly in discussions of qualificationslooked-for in filling staff vacancies.In some countries, few rural sociolo-gists are in a position in which theywould be training other rural soci-ologists. In other countries, however,sociology is a post-World War II de-velopment and almost all sociologistsare AmeriCan trained. In some ofthese countries the differences weresimilar to those commonly observedbetween general sociologists andrural sociologists in the UnitedStates.
19
The Transfer Problem
Technical Transferability ofMethods, Concepts, andDescriptive Material
When the study was being de-signed, it was hypothesized thatthere is differential technical trans-ferability of different types of data,that methods and sensitizing con-cepts have high transferability fromone society to another, and that sub-stantive descriptive data have lowtransferability. The data stronglysupport these hypotheses. Professors,international practitioners, and cur-
rent graduate students were allagreed that methods of obtaining so-ciological data, techniques for ob-taining data, statistical techniques,community development processes,and concepts as sensitizing conceptscalling attention to a meaningfulbody of data were all highly trans-ferable from one society to anotherand from one culture to anotherwith only minimal adaptations(tables 1 and 2).
The reverse position was taken inrelation to substantive descriptivematerials. A large majority of allthree groups was of the opinion that
Table 1. Responses of professors, graduate students, and international practitionerson transferability of specified methods and concepts received in American training
Methods and concepts
Percent of American methodsand concepts transferable to
other cultures N*
None or few Most or all
Methods for obtaining research data:American professors 7 93 68Current graduate students 13 87 82International practitioners 5 95 57
Sociological concepts being taught:American professors 11 89 67Current graduate FA:dents 16 84 80InternE, Tonal practitioners 98 61
Techniques for obtaining data:American professors 8 92 64Current graduate students 18 82 78
Statistical techniques for analyzingdata:
International practitioners 13 87Community development processes:
American professors 15 85 45Current graduate students 24 76 69International practitioners 9 91 57
*N here and in subsequent tables, where not otherwise defined, repmso, numberof responses.
18
20
Table 2. Opinions of international practitioners on the transferability of specifiedmethods and concepts received in their North American graduate training to their
own society
Methods and conceptsPercent of those answering
NNone Few Most All
Statistical techniquesCommunity methodsResearch methodsSociological concepts
0 13 14 73 627 23 68 573 28 67 57
0 9 28 70 61
substantive descriptive materials hadlow transferability from one societyto another and from one culture toanother. When asked if they thoughtscales and scores validated in theUnited States could be used in theirpresent form, approximately three-fourths of American professors andthree-fifths of current graduate stu-dents were of the opinion that theycould not be used in their presentform in other societies. On anotherquestion which asked opinions aboutthe similarity of indexes that wouldmeasure seven specific concepts inthe United States and their owncountry, less than 10 percent thoughtthey will be the same for 14 of 17responses. Judgments were moreevenly divided on the question ofsimilarity versus dissimilarity. Sincevalidation will necessarily be basedon sameness rather than generalsimilarity, the data suggest that in-dexes which operationalize scalesand scores should be validated forall societies in which they are used.
19
21
Normative Transferability ofMethods, Concepts, andDescriptive Materials
When considering transferabilityin designing the study, we werethinking of technical transferability.As we interviewed internationalpractitioners, they told us of the dif-ficulties encountered in getting fel-low sociologists to accept theirmethods and ways of thinking aboutsociological problems. Later in ana-lyzing the factors which made soci-ologists different (tables 2 and 3),it became evident that methods, con-cepts, and theories are so interde-pendently linked that the choice ofsome methods precluded the use ofsome concepts and that conceptswhich could only be generated byparticular research methods in nu-merous cases become the basisfor theoretical propositions. Howmuch use would a participant-observer in an isolated communitymake of such measures as chi square,S.E.S. scales, anomia scales, or social
Table 3. Opinions on transferability of substantive descriptive data .from onesociety to another
Unlikely orvery unlikely
Likely or wouldbe the same
N
Percent
Proportion of a population who wouldhave a particular attitude:
American professors 78 9 9 58Current graduate students 75 25 65International practitioners 56 44
Proportion of a population who wouldbehave in a particular way:
American professors 73 27 5:5Current graduate students 74 :26 73International practitioners 53 47 53
Meanings of reference categories, suchas age, sex, and occupation:
American professors 69 31 62Current graduate students 66 34 68International practitioners 38 62 55
Magnitude of a correlation betweentwo factors, A and B:
American professors 74 26 51Current graduate students 82 18 65International practitioners 57 43 47
participation scales? Researchmethods in North America andmany of the related concepts assumelarge sample survey methods. Thosewhose tradition is case study tech-niques do not accept the methodsand concepts of sample survey, sincethey see little value in them. Thus,many methods and concepts whichhave high technical transferabilityhave low normative transferability.
Relationship between Levels ofGenerality and Transferability
The data on the transferability ofmethods, concepts, and substantivedata suggest several relevant hy-potheses:
1. Research findings and proposi-tions which state the relation-
ship between operational re-search indexes are not transfer-able from one society to an-other.
2. Although most sociological con-cepts used in American societycall attention to a meaningfulbody of phenomenon in othersocieties, the meanings whichthey have in those other so-cieties are different. The con-cepts, therefore, are not reallythe same, even though theymay be somewhat similar.
3. The same concept will not bemeasured by the same set ofoperational indexes in two dif-ferent societies.
4. The same meaning or approxi-mately the same meaning willbe generated by differen fac-
20
22
tors in different societies sothat quite different operational-ized indexes will be required intwo different societies to meas-ure the same general universeof meaning.
5. The cross-cultural transfer-ability of concepts and propoSi-dons will increase with level ofgenerality.
The Textbook ProblemThe textbook problem is a special
case of the transferability issue.When we first identified a trans-ferability problem, hypothesizingthat substantive descriptive materialswill have low transferability, weasked ourselves, "What proportionof the material in introductory soci-ology textbooks and in rural soci-ology books would be composed ofsubstantive descriptive facts aboutAmerican society, American organ-izations, and American institutions?"The senior author laughed and said,"I never thought of it before, but Iwould say about 90 percent." Wehave asked that question of col-leagues many times since and theestimates range from 75 percent to95 percent.
When asked about the appropri-ateness of several types of social sci-ence books for students from othersocieties and for American studentswho plan to work in other societies,research methodology books, socialanthropology books, and socialtheory books were rated as wellsuited for both groups, by bothAmerican professors and currentgraduate students. Approximatelythree-fifths of both groups of re-
21
23
spondents rated social psychologyand social organization books as wellsuited for both groups, whereas the
two-fifths rated them as notwell suited for these two types ofgraduate students. Introductory so-ciology textbooks and rural sociologytexts were rated least well suited forboth types of graduate students byboth professors and current graduatestudents. Approximately two-thirdsof professors and one-half of currentgraduate students rated them notwell suited for non-Americans. One-half of professors and two-fifths ofcurrent graduate students ratedthem not well suited for Americanspreparing for work in other societiesand cultures (tables 4, 5, 6).
A further extension of the text-book problem indicated by our fieldinterviews is that predominantlyAmerican sociology books were beingused in almost all of the nations andcultures in which we traveled.
Criteria for Thesis SelectionAnother special case of transfer-
ability is posed when consideringwhether a non-American graduatestudent should do a thesis in theUnited States or in his own society.Similarly, this question arises for theAmerican student preparing forwork in other societies. In practice,the choice frequently involves notonly the location of the research butalso the quantity and quality ofsupervision which will be availableat key stages in the research processand the kind of problem to bestudied in terms of the variety andamount of research experience thethesis experience will provide.
Table 4. Opinions of American professors and current graduate students onsuitability of specified types of American books for students from other cultures
and societies who plan to work in their own societies
Types of books
How well suited?
NWell orfairly well
Not very well ornot well at all
Percent
Research methodology books:American professors 87 13 67Current graduate students 87 13 83
Social anthropology books:American professors 87 13 58Current graduate students 81 19 75
Theory text books:American professors 80 20 67Current graduate students 80 20 83
Social psychology books:American professors 61 39 63Current graduate students 66 34 76
Social organization books:American professors 55 45 62Current graduate students 65 35 78
Introductory sociology books:American professors 26 74 65Current graduate students 62 38 81
Rural sociology books:American professors 34 66 64Current graduate students 45 55 76
American professors and currentgraduate students responded that byfar the heavier weight should beplaced on the quality and quantityof supervision which would be avail-able at key stages in the researchprocess, and on the amount andvariety of research experience the
problem would provide. They alsoagreed that where possible a non-American student should do a prob-lem in his own society and anAmerican student planning to workabroad should do a problem in somenon-American society (tables 7, 8,9).
22
24
Table 5. Opinions of American professors and graduate students on suitabilityof specified types of American books for American and Canadian students
preparing for international work
Types of books
How well suited?
NWell orfairly well
Not very well ornot well at all
Percent
Social anthropology books:American professors 95 5 58Current graduate students 77 23 74
Research methodology books:American professors 86 14Current graduate students 82 18 84
Theory books:American professors 80 20 66Current graduate students 83 17 82
Social psychology books:American professors 73 27 63Current graduate students 62 38 76
Social organization books:American professors 60 40 58Current graduate students 65 35 80
Introductory sociology books:American professors 48 59 65Current graduate students 66 34 81
Rural sociology books:American professors 51 49 63Current graduate students 53 47 77
Table 6. Opinions of international practitioners on suitability of American booksin general for specified types of work
Types of work
How well suited?
NWell orfairly well
Not very well ornot well at all
Percent
For American students preparing forinternational work 45 55 62
For students from another cultureplanning to return 57 43 72
For American students preparing forwork in America 92 8 64
23
ts..1
Tab
le 7
. Opi
nion
s of
Am
eric
an p
rofe
ssor
s an
d gr
adua
te s
tude
nts
on th
e im
port
ance
of
sele
cted
fac
tors
in th
esis
sel
ectio
n fo
rA
mer
ican
stu
dent
s tr
aini
ng f
or in
tern
atio
nal w
ork
Sele
cted
fac
tors
Mas
ter's
thes
isPh
.D. t
hesi
s
Not
impo
rtan
tFa
irly
impo
rtan
tV
ery
impo
rtan
tN
Not
impo
rtan
tFa
irly
impo
rtan
tV
ery
impo
rtan
tN
Perc
ent
Perc
ent
Am
ount
and
qua
lity
of s
uper
visi
on a
vail-
able
at k
ey s
tage
s du
ring
the
rese
arch
proc
ess:
Am
eric
an p
rofe
ssor
s2
2969
650
2377
66C
urre
nt g
radu
ate
stud
ents
524
7178
420
7680
Var
iety
and
am
ount
of
rese
arch
exp
eri-
ence
pro
vide
d by
the
prob
lem
:A
mer
ican
pro
fess
ors
431
6565
3960
62C
urre
nt g
radu
ate
stud
ents
II
4745
8017
8182
A p
robl
em f
rom
out
side
ow
n cu
lture
:A
mer
ican
pro
fess
ors
4737
1664
3035
3565
Cur
rent
gra
duat
e st
uden
ts46
238(
)12
3157
82A
pro
blem
fro
m w
ithin
ow
n cu
lture
:A
mer
ican
pro
fess
ors
5631
1364
5429
1766
Cur
rent
gra
duat
e st
uden
ts44
3818
7963
2710
79
4
Tab
le 8
. Opi
nion
s of
Am
eric
an p
rofe
ssor
s an
d gr
adua
te s
tude
nts
on th
e im
port
ance
of
sele
cted
fac
tors
in th
esis
sel
ectio
n fo
rst
uden
ts f
rom
oth
er c
ultu
res
Sele
cted
fac
tors
Mas
ter
s th
esis
Ph.D
. the
sis
Not
impo
rtan
tFa
irly
impo
rtan
tV
ery
impo
rtan
tN
Not
impo
rtan
tFa
irly
impo
rtan
tV
ery
impo
rtan
tN
Perc
ent
Perc
ent
Am
ount
and
qua
lity
of s
uper
visi
on a
vail-
able
at k
ey s
tage
s du
ring
the
rese
arch
proc
ess:
Am
eric
an p
rofe
ssor
s0
2278
630
1684
64C
urre
nt g
radu
ate
stud
ents
620
7480
616
7881
Var
iety
and
am
ount
of
rese
arch
exp
eri-
ence
pro
vide
d by
the
prob
lem
:A
mer
ican
pro
fess
ors
139
6062
227
7166
Cur
rent
gra
duat
e st
uden
ts9
2764
814
2472
83A
pro
blem
fro
m w
ithin
ow
n cu
lture
:A
mer
ican
pro
fess
ors
3242
2662
2436
4062
Cur
rent
gra
duat
e st
uden
ts29
4724
8021
4930
80A
pro
blem
fro
m o
utsi
de o
wn
cultu
re:
Am
eric
an p
rofe
ssor
s59
2615
5951
3118
61C
urre
nt g
radu
ate
stud
ents
4647
781
4937
1482
Table 9. Opinions of international practitioners on the importance of selcctedfactors in thesis preparation for students from other cultures
Selected factors
Notimportant
Fairlyimportant
Veryimportant
Extremelyimportant
N
Percent
Amount and quality of super-vision available in research 0 10 35 55 72
Variety and amount of re-search experience providedby the problem 0 21 42 37 73
Problem from within own cul-ture 11 14 41 34 73
Problem from outside own cul-ture 41 49 9 1 71
The Social Theory Problem
In designing the study we did nothypothesize the various aspects ofthe social theory problem. Hence,unlike the transferability issues wedid not design a battery of questionswhich would document the dimen-sions of the problem in numericalterms. We did, however, include afew relevant questions which arepresented below. We will also pre-sent some of the other issues whichemerged from our intensive inter-views and from the analysis of thedata.
Research Methodology andSocial Theory Highly Valued
When international practitionersand American professors were askedwhat competencies were needed by
Table 10. Percentage of Americanrural sociology professors who indicatedcertain skills as needed by internationals
returning home
Selected skillsPercent
of respondents(N = 58)
Methodology 81General theory 47Ability to teach 26Social change theory 17Other content sociology
courses 14Communication 14Social organization 10Anthropology 10Supervising field re-
search 9Social psychology 9Organizational analysis 7Professionalization 5Human relations skills 5
26
28
Table 11. Percentage of Americanprofessors who indicated certain skillsas needed by American students plan-
ning international careers
SkillsPercent
of respondents(N = 54)
Methodology (30), re-search (17), statistics(4)*
Organization (10), ad-ministration(8), leadership (5),interpersonal skills(3), decision making(2)
Teaching (8), communi-cation (4), educ a-tion (3), consultativeskills (2), extensionmethods (9), applica-tions (2)
TheorySocial change (12), de-
velopment (9), com-munity organization(3)
Anthropology (9), cul-tural understanding(7)
Political understanding(5), understanding ofgovernment and bu-reaucracies (3)
Technical competenciesLanguageStratificationUnderstanding of col-
lective behavior
94
5 2
5946
44
30
1511
99
9
* Certain similar skills are grouped forconvenience of reporting. The figures inparentheses represent the frequency ofresponses for each preceding item. Forexample: 30 mentioned methodology, 17research and 4 statistics, giving a totalof 51 responses out of 54 (94%) for thisgroup.
non-American and American stu-dents preparing for work in othersocieties and what courses theyshould take, research methodology
Table 12. Percentage of Americanprofessors who recommended selectedcourses for international graduate stu-
dents returning home
Order ofrecommended courses*
Percentof respondents
(N = 62)
MethodologyTheorySocial organizationStatistics
86745353
Social change 39
Social psychology 37Population (demog-
raphy) 37Development sociology 34Economics 27Anthropology 24
Community develop-ment 21
Rural sociology 16Political science 15Stratification 13General sociology 10
Urban-rural 10Adoption-diffusion-inno-
vation 8Social action ..... 7History of sociology 7Culture 7
Applied sociology 5Communication 5Ecology 5Extension methodsFamily 5
Philosophy of science 5Social structure 5Substantive areas 5
27
* Agricultural economics, collective be-havior, comparative sociology, dataprocessing, group dynamics, occupationalsociology, and social systems were men-tioned twice each. Linguistics, personal-ity, religion, rural society, and socialmovements were mentioned once each.
and social theory were the two itemsmost frequently mentioned (tables10-13).
29
Table 13. Percentage of Americanprofessors who recommended selectedcourses for American students preparing
for international careers
Order ofrecommended courses
Percentof respondents
(N = 57)
Methods 88Theory 68Social organization .. 46Statistics 40Population 32Social psychology 30Community 26Sociology content
course 25Social change 25Anthropology 25Development 21Economics 10
The GraduateCommittee Chairman:Today's Social Theorist
When we went in the field on ourintensive interviews, we were inter-ested to know what concepts inter-national rural sociologists were find-ing most useful in their professionalwork. It became apparent that manyof the men were giving us the mainconcepts which were stressed bytheir major professors. They did notreflect the sociological schools ofEurope or North America; rather,they reflected the frame of referenceof their major professors. To obtaina more definite picture of the con-cepts they were using in designingresearch questions, we asked boththe international practitioners and
28
American professors to identify theten concepts they had found mostuseful in their professional work.The diversity of concepts used bythe international practitioners wasmatched by the diversity of the con-cepts by these professors (table 14).
One hundred and thirty conceptswere mentioned by internationalpractitioners. Of these, approximate-ly two-thirds were mentioned byonly one to three persons. Americanprofessors mentioned 106 concepts asmost useful to them. Of these, morethan two-thirds were mentioned byonly one to three persons. Only fourconcepts were mentioned by as manyas one-third of the American profes-sors and only seven concepts by one-third or more of the internationalpracti tioners.
There was considerable overlap inthe concepts most frequently men-tioned by American professors andAmerica n-trained internationals.The 35 concepts mentioned by 10percent or more of internationalrural sociologists included 20 of the23 concepts mentioned by 10 percentor more of the American professors.
A comparison of those concepts onwhich American professors and in-ternational practitioners differed 5or more percent indicated that theinternational practitioners placedrelatively greater weight on socialchange concepts, whereas the Ameri-can professors placed relativelygreater weight on social systems anddemographic concepts (table 15).
.30
Table 14. Concepts mentioned by 10 percent or more of international practitionersor American professors of rural sociology
Concepts
Percent mentioning
Internationalpractitioners
(N =-- 75)
Americanprofessors of
rural sociology(N= 75)
Status, role 44 67Values 39 24Social change 36 20Social system 34 43Community 34 19
Culture 34 39Socialization 33 17Norms 31 28Stratification 31 46Social structure 30 26
Diffusion 28 9Attitudes 25 9Leadership 21 9Innovation 18 3Social group 18 24
Social class, caste 16 19Communication 16 17Reference group 15 15Familyfamilism 15 1
Interaction 15 13
Institution 13 15Mobility 13 22Differentiation 13 2Social organization 13 28Power, authority, influence 13 30
Personality 13 6Anomia 12 9Functiondysfunction 7Adoption 12 0Society 12 1
Community development 12 0Motivation 12 1
Folkways and mores 10 0Conflict 10 13Primary group 10 0
Systemic linkage 1 11Bureaucracy 7 11Position 1 11
29
31
Table 15. Relative emphasis of international practitioners and American professorsof rural sociology on concepts found most useful
Degree of emphasis interms of differencebetween percentage ofmentioned times
Concepts emphasizedmore by internationalpractitioners
Concepts emphasizedmore by Americanrural sociologyprofessors
20-24 percent difference_ Statusrole
15-19 percent difference
DiffusionSocial changeInnovationSocializationAttitudesValuesCommunity
Social organizationStratificationPower, authority,influence
10-14 percent difference
FamilyfamilismLeadershipCommunity developmentAdoptionMotivationDifferentiationSocietyPrimary groupFolkways and mores
Systemic linkagePosition
5-9 percent difference PersonalityFunctiondysfunction
Social systemMobilitySocial groupCulture
Diversity of SociologistsLooked to for Ideas
The diversity of concepts wasmatched by the diversity of sociolo-gists whose ideas were considered:(1) most meai:ingful and most help-ful, (2) most ht-lpful in giving in-sight and understanding, (3) mosthelpful in designing research, and(4) most helpful in analyzing prob-lems. American professors respondedto all four of the above questionsand international practitioners to thelast three. Thus, an American pro-fessor might mention the same per-
30
son four times and an internationalpractitioner could mention the sameperson three times.
American professors mentioned165 sociologists of whom 78 percentwere mentioned one to four timesand thus could have been accountedfor by a single person. Internationalpractitioners mentioned 153 differentsociologists, of whom 82 percentwere mentioned from one to threetimes and thus could have been ac-counted for by a single respondent.
Only six sociologists received asmuch as 10 percent of the mentionsthey could have received from inter-
32
national practitioners and by Ameri-can professors and none receivedmore than two-fifths of the mentionsthey could have received. The dataclearly indicate that rural sociolo-gists look to many different sociolo-gists for their ideas.
With few exceptions, those men-tioned most often had written or co-authored one or more books, thusgiving their ideas visibility in print.The vast majority of those men-tioned many times are living sociolo-gists and almost all are currently ac-tive in teaching and writing. All thequestions called attention to usefulideas. It is noteworthy but probablynot surprising that those mentionedmost frequently in the list are menassociated more with theory andideas than with research method-()logy.
Rural Sociologists ResearchProducers but not TheoryProducers
Rural sociologists in general arehigh research producers, moderate tolow theory consumers, and almostnot at all theory producers. Ask aman how much research he has doneand he may mention five or sixstudies. Ask a man how much theoryhe has produced and he asks you,"What do you mean? Do you meantheory courses I have taken ortheory I have used in my research?"kural sociologists teach and stressthe methods and cardinal rules ofresearch, but we do not teach themethods and cardinal rules of theoryconstruction. As researchers, ruralsociologists learn not to generalize
31
beyond the data. They do not learnwith equal force that theory beginswith concepts and propositionswhich are more general than oper-ationalized research indexes.
This lack of emphasis on theorydevelopment might not be so seriousif theory development were beingwell cared for elsewhere. Such, how-ever, is not the case. One of thethings we learned in our interna-tional interviews is that the UnitedStates has become the center forleadership in sociology. Our col-leagues in many nations around theworld look to North America forleadership in theory, and we per-form with less than excellence inproviding it.
Some Limitations of SocialTheory Based on GeneralizationsDrawn from a Subuniverse
In traveling around the world, onesees some societies in which thefamily and socialization are of cen-tral concern to sociologists, manycountries which have major pro-grams for economic development,many countries in which educationis the major focus, some countries inwhich control by contending politi-cal groups rept 2senting economicclasses holds the center of the stage,and some countries in which differ-ent religious groups could not livetogether and so have separated andcreated separate states. In theUnited States, the focus on sub-universes has taken the form ofspecializations and a focus on thesociology of the professions is onesuch subuniverie.
33
These subuniverses arc broadfunctional categories representing abroad division of labor. Each sub-universe performs different tasks. Be-cause of the different tasks the con-cepts which are most relevant differ,and generalizations based on theseconcepts produce different theoreti-cal propositions (figure 2) . This pre-sents no problem as long as the prop-ositions are applied to the subuni-
Intelligence.motivation,
learning
Interests,satisfactions,
preferences
verse. When, however, these theoriesbecome generalized as theories of so-ciety or of social action, the partmay not be representative of thewhole. Social action and interactioncannot be studied in a vacuum, andwithin any one subuniverse one maystudy all types of social interactionand may focus on social persons,social organizations, or social actionsituations. The problem arises be-
Age, sex,socialization
EDUCATION
RECREATION
Peer groups, FRATERNAL
need offulfillment
KINSHIP,FAMILY
Beliefs,Disbeliefs,
Social Actionsand
Interactions
Practice adoption,resource allocation,production.
consumption
ECONOMIC
MILITARYand
PROTECTIVESERVICES
Discipline, physicalfitness, morale
THE ARTS
Creotivity,beauty,
and esthetics
POLITICAL-GOVERNMENTAL
Power,conflict,
social control
HEALTH
RELIGION
WELFARE
Strotification,resource
allocution,olienation,motivation
Interpersonalrelations,practiceadoption
Beliefs,values,
referencegroups
Figure 2. Beliefs, disbeliefs, social actions and interactions, and some of thesubuniverses in which they occur.
32
34A
cause each major problem has asmall cluster of factors which areparticularly relevant to it, and thissmall relevant cluster is not represen-tative of the whole. Thus, we findthose working in economic areas con-cerned with resource development,resource allocation, economic oppor-tunity, and adoption of economicpractices. Those who work in thepolitical arena are much more con-cerned with power, conflict, cooper-ation, and social control. Those whowork in the religious sector are moreconcerned with reference groupidentification, beliefs, and values.Those who deal with families areever aware of age and sex roles andof the processes of socialization.Those who deal specifically withsocialization through formal educa-tion are likely to be particularlyaware of individual differences inability, motivation, conditioning, andin the attitudes and behavior ofthe people they are trying tochange. Travel where national pro-grams may focus heavily on one ortwo subuniverses calls attention tothe theoretical confusion which canhe generated when parts are mis-taken for the whole, as for example,when theories which fit the eco-nomic or th" political sector are usedto explain society.
On the other hand, too much con-centration on the dissimilarities caulead to a different set of theoreticalproblems. When each subuniverse isseen as essentially unique, we beginto conceptualize a field of sociologyfor each subuniverse. Titles such aspolitical sociology, the sociology ofreligion, the sociology of health, thesociology of the arts, the sociology
of economic development, and edu-cational sociology imply an essential-ly separate sociology for each sub-universe, and the subuniverses in-crease as specialization increases.
To generalize from the part asthough it represented the wholeposes a problem of theoretical dis-tortion; to treat each subuniverse asa whole (and independent of others)splinters the field, bars communica-tion across subuniverses, and standsin the way of the development ofmore general propositions which canbe applied to all the subuniverses.Although this phenomenon is ob-served in some degree in other so-cieties, it finds its broadest applica-tion in the United States xvberespecialization and the number of so-ciologists is far greater than in anyother nation.
Different Methods: theProducers of Different Theories
We have called attention to the di-versity of research methods in useamong sociologists. These differentmethods develop different conceptswhich fit the techniques and also theassumptions of the methodology.Generalization of these different con-cepts into larger class concepts andinto general propositions based onthem generates different theories.That which can be studied by onemethod constitutes only part of thefield and a theory based on findingsgenerated by a single method is like-ly to neglect important dimensionswhich may be added by utilization ofother methods.
33
5
Different Units of Analysis: theOriginators of Different Theories
That different units of analysisgenerate different theories is certain-ly not a new observation. It is some-times important to call attention tothat which seems obvious, however,and particularly so because on theworld scene the units of analysis
which seem t^ invite study differ. Inone society everything seems to beorganized around the family. In an-other, villages and families are bothseen as central spheres of influence.Modern industrial societies focus at-tention on nur -.rous specialized sub-universes; their different units leadto different theoretical formulations.
The Development of International Rural Sociologyand International Rural Sociologists
International Rural Sociologistsnot Presently Being Trained
Our interviews and surveys haveled us to he conclusion that almostnone of the students who come tothe United States for training are inany real sense international sociolo-gists. They are nationals who takesome graduate training in sociologyin another society. Similarly, UnitedStates citizens who spend time inother countries are more binationalthan international. (Strictly speak-ing, binational is by definition inter-national. However, to be interna-tional in a true sense, one shouldhave experience in a number of dif-ferent societies so as to be in com-mand of a wide range of cross-culturally validated concepts andpropositions.) Few persons havebeen in enough different societiesand cultures long enough to haveacquired the basic characteristics ofinternationalism. We need sometruly international sociologists, andwe need their input in graduatetraining programs.
No International RuralSociology at Present
Sociology is a label under whichmany men do many different things.Its outer boundaries are perhapsmore clear than its central core, butthese also are very obscure andvague. The bulk of its literature,both in journals and books, consistsof nontransferable, substantive dataabout particular nations. Middle-range, general propositions whichare highly transferable are con-spicuous by the paucity of theirnumber. The variation in conceptu-alization and the wide variety ofthose looked to for ideas testifies tothe lack of consensus among its pro-fessionals. It is not that internationalsociology is impossible but that it hasnot been developed. It is not thatinternational sociologists could notbe trained, only that they have notbeen trained. Both tasks invite a pro-fessional society to respond to achallenge which goes far beyondreading research papers to one an-other in professional meetings.
34
Some Attitudes toward Training
When this study was being de-signed, we had an implicit hypoth-esis that practitioners in the fieldwould be in a good position to beexperienced judges and could tell uswhat the problems, strengths, andweaknesses of their training were.Irving Sanders warned us, on thebasis of Ford evaluation experience,that this was not the case. When webegan interviewing in the field, itbecame evident that the men in thefield could not be good judges nortell us what the problems are. Theyfelt that their training was verygood; it was the best they ever had.It became clear that a man couldnot evaluate because he had nothingwith which to compare; no doubthe had rationalized in some degree,also. We did find, however, wherewe could hypothesize a problem andask about it in rather specific terms,
35
37
that the man in the field was in agood position to be a good reactor.Included in the questionnaire wereseveral questions which touched onsome of the stated criticisms of train-ing. Answers indicate that both cur-rent graduate students and interna-tional practitioners were fairlyfavorable toward American trainingon these questions, with currentgraduate students a little less favor-able than the international prac-titioners (table 16).
When asked what adjustmentsthey had made to make courses moreuseful to their needs, they reportedfrequently of doing the things theycould do by themselves and as beingmuch less likely to follow a courseof action which involved other per-sons, either other students or theprofessor ( table 17) .
00
Tab
le 1
6. O
pini
ons
of in
tern
atio
nal p
ract
ition
ers
and
grad
uate
stu
dent
s on
sel
ecte
d st
atem
ents
con
cern
ing
thei
r ex
peri
ence
s re
-la
ted
to A
mer
ican
cou
rses
Sele
cted
sta
tem
ents
Ver
y m
uch
agre
eSo
mew
hat
agre
eD
on't
know
Som
ewha
tdi
sagr
eeV
ery
muc
hdi
sagr
eeN
Perc
ent
"The
cou
rses
wer
e ge
nera
lly r
elat
ed to
the
kind
s of
pro
blem
s yo
u w
ere
goin
gto
fac
e in
you
r oc
cupa
tiona
l rol
e."
Cur
rent
gra
duat
e st
uden
ts42
413
122
84In
tern
atio
nal p
ract
ition
ers
4636
153
73
"The
cou
rses
wer
e in
tere
stin
g, b
ut th
eyw
ere
deal
t with
at s
uch
a so
phis
ticat
edle
vel a
s to
mak
e th
em o
f lim
ited
valu
ein
pra
ctic
al a
pplic
atio
n."
Cur
rent
gra
duat
e st
uden
ts7
315
3225
84In
tern
atio
nal p
ract
ition
ers
cr)
"The
con
tent
s of
the
cour
ses
are
inge
nera
l com
mon
sens
ical
, and
you
fin
dyo
urse
lf o
ften
ask
ing,
"W
hat i
s ne
w in
this
?"
326
138
3274
Cur
rent
gra
duat
e st
uden
ts7
145
3242
85In
tern
atio
nal p
ract
ition
ers
113
636
4472
"Mos
t of
the
cour
ses
are
repe
titio
us o
fea
ch o
ther
."C
urre
nt g
radu
ate
stud
ents
424
931
3284
Inte
rnat
iona
l pra
ctiti
oner
s3
141
2359
73"Y
our
back
grou
nd d
id n
ot p
repa
re y
ouw
ell
enou
ghto
bene
fit
from
the
cour
ses.
"C
urre
nt g
radu
ate
stud
ents
117
430
48In
tern
atio
nal p
ract
ition
ers
116
129
5374
"You
did
not
get
a c
hanc
e to
take
thos
eco
urse
s w
hich
you
sho
uld
have
take
n."
Cur
rent
gra
duat
e st
uden
ts11
194
2244
83In
tern
atio
nal p
ract
ition
ers
819
426
4374
Table 17. Responses of current graduate students and international practitioners tothe question, "What are you doing or did you do to make your courses more useful
for your needs?"
Response categories
"Seek out the instructors for fur-ther discussion on themes re-lated to your interest."
Current graduate students ...International practitioners ...
"Try constantly to relate the classmaterials to problems in coun-tries where you want to work."
Current graduate students ...International practitioners ...
"Try to relate reading materialsto problems in countries whereyou want to work while writingterm papers."
Current graduate students ...International practitioners ...
"Organize informal bull sessionswith students from foreign andculturally related areas and inter-ested American students to dis-cuss practical implications ofcourse materials."
Current graduate students ...International practitioners ...
"Share your concern for applica-tion of the materials you receivein course work with sponsoringagencies, and interested personnelin non-American countries."
Current graduate students ...International practitioners ...
Very often Occasionally NeverN
Percent
28 65 7 7827 59 14 71
64 35 1 8180 17 3 74
67 26 7 8277 19 4 70
21 45 34 8027 53 20 71
10 32 58 76
37
39
Language difficulties, course load,lack of practical experience, lack ofbackground in sociology, and lack ofmathematics all presented someproblems to a sizable proportion ofstudents from other societies andcultures (table 18). Of these five,language difficulties and the lack ofmathematics were students' greatesthandicaps.
When asked what they wouldchange in their training, most stu-dents felt that it was all right as itwas. The exceptions were among in-ternational practitioners, who recom-mended relaxing the language re-quirements, and among currentgraduate students who would simpli-fy the comprehensive examinations(table 19).
Table 18. Opinions of current graduate students and international practitionerson degree of handicap faced in selected areas during training
Selected areas
Greathandicap
Somehandicap None at all
NPercent
English language difficulty:Current graduate students 17 26 57 53International practitioners 13 36 51 75
Too much course load:Current graduate students 4 36 60 52International practitioners 3 35 62 71
Insufficient practical experi-ence during training:
Current graduate students 10 23 67 52International practitioners 5 38 57 74
Lack of background in soci-ology:
Current graduate students 6 35 59 54Lack in mathematics:
Current graduate students 17 36 47 53
38
40
Tab
le 1
9. R
espo
nses
by
curr
ent g
radu
ate
stud
ents
and
inte
rnat
iona
l pra
ctiti
oner
s to
the
ques
tion
"Wou
ld y
ou c
hang
e th
epr
esen
t req
uire
men
ts f
or d
octo
ral t
rain
ing
in S
ocio
logy
/Rur
al S
ocio
logy
"
Res
pons
e ca
tego
ries
OK
as
isW
ould
rel
ax W
ould
dem
and
mor
esC
an't
say
NPe
rcen
t
Qua
lific
atio
ns f
or a
dmis
sion
:C
urre
nt g
radu
ate
stud
ents
676
1116
84In
tern
atio
nal p
ract
ition
ers
6511
1311
74Fo
reig
n la
ngua
ge r
equi
rem
ents
:IP
AC
urre
nt g
radu
ate
stud
ents
5135
86
84
0"6
coIn
tern
atio
nal p
ract
ition
ers
Cou
rse
requ
irem
ents
:32
4318
774
Cur
rent
gra
duat
e st
uden
ts51
358
683
Inte
rnat
iona
l pra
ctiti
oner
s69
912
1074
Res
iden
ce r
equi
rem
ents
:C
urre
nt g
radu
ate
stud
ents
6317
317
83In
tern
atio
nal p
ract
ition
ers
5721
418
72C
ompr
ehen
sive
exa
min
atio
n:C
urre
nt g
radu
ate
stud
ents
4124
431
83In
tern
atio
nal p
ract
ition
ers
6616
612
73D
isse
rtat
ion:
Cur
rent
gra
duat
e st
uden
ts67
65
2283
Inte
rnat
iona
l pra
ctiti
oner
s68
716
974
American professors disagree witheach other on what changes shouldbe made in the research training fornon-Americans; half of them believethat research training should bemore applied; the other half disagree(table 20).
In the case of greatest agreement,two-thirds think training should bemore general, whereas one-thirdthink it should not. By comparison,one-third think it should be morerigorous, whereas two-thirds think itshould not.
Table 20. Opinions of American rural sociology professors regarding researchtraining of students from other cultures who take advanced degrees in sociologyin comparison with American sociologists training to work in the United States
Research training
Stronglyagree Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Percent
N
Should be more closely appliedShould be in relation to calculators,
etc.Should be more rigorousShould be more general
9 41 32 18
11 30 46 1316 19 54 116 26 47 21
62
636362
40
42
Chapter 3. A Profile of International Practitioners
This chapter describes the char-acteristics of the international prac-titioners. This profile material utilizesboth our interview field notes andthe mail questionnaire data. Thequestionnaire data are presented intabular form with a minimum of
interpretation. The interview dataare presented in the form of threecase histories. This chapter intro-dt. es the second major concern ofthe study, namely rural sociology asan international career.
Selected Demographic and Social Characteristics
As table 21 shows, the vast ma-jority of the international prac-titioner; (78.7 percent) were be-tween 31 and 49 years old. Most ofthem (89.3 percent) were males.
Table 21. Internation.-I practitioners, byage
Age Percent (N = 75)
30 8.031-39 44.040-49 34.750+ 10.6No response 2.7
100.0
As would be expected in a normalpopulation in any and particularly atraditional society, most of these(81.3 percent) were married. Thus,we are dealing with a category ofpersons who in sex and marital char-acteristics were those to whom intraditional societies a relatively highdegree of respect and responsibilitywould be ascribed. However, theylack in one important quality, name-
ly age, since most of them are young-er than 50 years old.
The sizes of their households(table 22), were not typical of thelarge, extended families usuallyfound in traditional societies. Someshift had taken place in this char-acteristic toward the pattern morecharacteristic of urban-industrial so-cieties, that is an increasing numberof single households and a relativedecrease in families of five or morepersons.
A similar change was noticeablewhen we compared the educationallevels attained by significant mem-bers of the respondents' households
Table 22. Size of internationalpractitioners' households
Number Percent (N = 75)
1 10.42-4 48.?5 or more 38.8No response 2.6
100.0
41
43
Table 23. Educational levels attained by significant members in the households ofthe international practitioners
Significant members in household
Educational level attained Respondent Father Mother Wife
Percent (N ---- 75)
Graduate degree 100.0 6.7 0.0 22.7College degree/some graduate work 0.6' 10.6 2.7 21.3High school/some college work 0.0 22.6 21.3 30.7Some high school 0.0 16.0 12.0 0.0No high school 0.0 30.7 45.3 2.7No response 0.0 13.4 18.7 22.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
(table 23). As a matter of fact, acareful examination of table 23 re-vealed a number of significant fac-tors that testified to two characteris-tics of the respondents: how theydiffered from their parental gener-ation and the degree to which theywere atypical of their societies.
All traditional societies are char-acterized by a widespread lack offormal education. This condition hasled to the characterization of thesesocieties as nonliterate, meaning thata vast majority of the populace didnot know how to read or write. Un-der such circumstances, the evidencepresented in table 23 revealed theinternational practitioners and theirfamilies as atypical of their societies.Undoubtedly, the respondents them-selves would be classed as part of asmall minority of the intellectualelite in their respective societies.
All the male respondents and 22.7percent of their wives held graduatedegrees, whereas only 6.7 percent oftheir fathers and none of their
mothers did so. Also, 30.7 percentof their fathers and 45.3 percent oftheir mothers had less than highschool education. The correspondingfigure for their wives was only about3 percent. Also, nearly 50 percentof the wives were reported as work-ing. These figures indicated a highdegree of intergenerational socialmobility on the part of the respond-ents as indexed by formal education.
An index other than education ofsocial mobility is occupation. Table24 shows that whereas only 36 per-cent of the respondents' fatherscould be classified as having hadhigh-ranking occupations while therespondents were growing up, all ofthe respondents now pursue. high-ranking occupations. Of course, acomparable occupational mobilitydid not exist in these traditional so-cieties as a whole, and ,h rough thisfact, once again, the respondentswere characterized as atypical oftheir societies. This situation was nosurprise, but a fact to be noted.
42
44
Table 24. Occupations of international practitioners and their fathers
Practitioners(N = 75)
Fathers(N = 75)
High (major executive, owner of minor/major business, teaching, professional) 100.0 36.0
I.ow 0.0 46.6No response 0.0 17.4
100.0 100.0
To summarize: our sample of in-ternational practitioners was largelymale, married, and highly sociallymobile. In terms of the ascriptivecriteria of age, they formed the sub-
ordinate group in terms of authorityand decision-making power. Also, interms of socioeconomic standing,they should be judged as belongingto the upper half of the society.
Educational and Occupational History
Although a detailed history eitherin education or occupational termscannot be presented here with thehelp of the available data, the fol-lowing presentation drew upon twosources of information: informationgathered through the self-adminis-tered instrument, and knowledgegained through personal interviews,the latter information being pre-sented in the form of three casestudies.
Table 25 shows that whereas al-most all of the respondents (96 per-cent) had thought of going toAmerica at one time or another, themajority (68 percent) had enter-tained such thoughts only after re-ceiving their undergraduate degrees.The single major factor (51 per-cent) in creating this desire hadbeen contact with American citizens,
43
including missionaries, teachers, andtechnical aid personnel. Next in in-fluence came friends who had been
Table 25. Period when internationalpractitioners thought of going to United
States
After high school but be-fore undergraduate de-gree
Between undergraduateand graduate degree
After graduate degreeand only a year or sobefore going to UnitedStates
OtherNo response
Pmcent(N= 75)
12.0
36.0
32.016.04.0
100.0
45
to the States. Personal reading andinfluence of fellow-citizen teacherstrained in America ranked third. Itis of special interest that Americanmovies seem to have played only aminor part in bringing about thisdesire (table 26).
Once the desire to go to theUnited States was generated, therespondents report having taken amimber of steps to realize it. Thetwo leading steps, far more signifi-cant in rank order than the rest,were getting in touch with selectedAmerican universities and studyingharder (in the case of those stillstudents) to win scholarships (table27).
Although contact with Americancitizens was first in rank order (50.7percent, table 26) among sourcesproducing the desire to go toAmerica, the same ranked third (25
Table 26. Rank order of source of inter-national practitioners' desire to go to
United States
Contact with Americancitizens (missionaries,teachers, technical aidpersonnel )
Friends who studied orare studying in UnitedStates
Own readingTeachers t own country-
men trained in UnitedStates )
Immediate family whohad studied in UnitedStates
American movies
Percent ofrespondents(N= 75)
50.7
41.334.7
30.7
13.310.7
Table 27. Rank order of steps taken byinternational practitioners to get to
United States
Began contacting Ameri-can educational institu-tions
Began to study harder towin scholarships
Sought opportunities tocontact Americans inown land
Began contacting kinfolkor friends already inAmerica
Began reading aboutAmerica
Percent ofrespondents(N= 75)
59
44
95
19
17
44
percent, table 27) as a step towardrealizing the desire. This perhaps in-dicates a certain quality in these in-dividuals who get their higher edu-cation abroad, especially in theUnited States. Had they been moretypical of their societies (traditional,person-person oriented, etc.), theywould probably have followed uptheir initial contacts with personswho first created the desire to go tothe United States. The fact thatmost of them did not do so but tookthe step of directly approaching cer-tain universities in the UnitedStates shows to some degree the non-traditional (achievement-oriented,formal, self-dependent, etc.)qualities of the international prac-titioners. The point we want tostress here is that these respondent;represent that sector of their societies .that has already moved in its com-mitment toward a modern (urban)society with its emphasis on merit,
46
individual a chiev em en t, andefficiency. Whereas these qualitiesfacilitated their getting to America(or some urban-industrial society)more easily, the same qualities werelikely to act as negative elements intheir post-training relocation inhome countries .and in job satisfac-tions.
Only a small minority (11 per-cent) reported having had a chanceto go to some country other than theUnited States for higher studies.Sixty-four percent of the respondentshad considered universities otherthan those in which they finallyregistered. The choice of the par-ticular university did not seem tohave been influenced by any singlemajor consideration. Prestige of theinstitution, reputation of the depart-ment, and special programs offeredin a given institution all seem tohave had top priority (table 28). Amajor consideration seems to havebeen to get to the United States be-cause nearly two-thirds (64 percent)agreed that it did not make muchdifference from which institutions
Table 28. Rank order of factors influ-encing international practitioners' choice
of a particular institution
Reputation of departmentSpecial program of inter-
est to the studentPrestige of institutionReputation of a particu-
lar man or womanFinancial support from
the institution
Percent ofrespondents(N =-- 75)
39
3936
25
20
45
they received their degrees. At leastthat was their view before going toAmerica.
We are here dealing with a groupof professional sociologists who hadmade various choices regarding theircareers. Before considering thesechoices, let us take a quick look attheir educational backgrounds. Al-though a vast majority of them (81percent) received their M.A. degreesand over half of them (57 percent)received their Ph.D. degrees inAmerica, two-thirds of them (65percent) hold no graduate degreefrom institutions in their home coun-tries. Considering that in most of thetraditional societies from whichthese in te rnati on al practition-ers came an undergraduate degreerepresents 14 years of formal educa-tion, it is fair to say that nearly two-thirds of the respondents admittedto an American graduate degree pro-gram have had a good deal lessformal education (both in numberof years of schooling and quality ofeducation) than their Americancounterparts. Most of them, how-ever, have had some practical ex-perience which the Am e r i c a ncounterparts might or might nothave lacked.
What about their academic prepa-ration before coming to America?Only 12 percent reported sociologyand 17 percent other social sci-ences as their major in home coun-tries (table 29). Well over half ofthem (61.3 percent) reported nomajors at all. This is confusing andprobably represents a combinationof those who did not complete anundergradua to degree program andthose who have had no major in
47
Table 29. International practitioners'major areas of study before coming toUnited States (for a graduate degree
in rural sociology)
Percent(N= 75)
Sociology 12.0Other social sciences 17.3Law 1.3Medicine 0.0Other majors 6.8Does not apply 61.3No response 1.3
100.0
the American sense, mostly the lat-ter. In any case, no more than 30percent specifically mentioned anysocial science as their major areaof study before coming to America.
Tables 30 and 31 reveal some-thing about the reasons for choos-ing a professional career in ruralsociology. Unquestionably, theoverwhelming motivation wasneither purely academic nor serv-ice-o r i en t e d, but occupational
(table 31). Given the occupationalmotivation, a career in a teaching-research combination was far morepreferred (68 percent) than eithera community development exten-sion career (45 percent) or a pure-ly teaching career (33 percent).Career in government (14.7 per-cent) lagged far behind a career inteaching/research, which meant aplace in a recognized university orsimilar institution of higher educa-tion.
Although this chapter is devotedto a description of the recruits andproblems in the area of recruit-ment, brief mention might be madehere of placement upon returningto home countries and present jobsatisfactions. More than half (59percent) of the international prac-titioners have reported theirpresent jobs as university positions,which theoretically ought to offeropportunities for teaching and re-search. Only half (55 percent) ofthem, however, have reported re-search performed and published.Actually, this should be judged as
Table 30. International practitioners' reasons for undertaking graduate work inrural sociology
Reasons
Career in teaching . . .Career in teaching and
researchCareer in community and
developmentCareer in government
workBecause it was the only
opportunity to goabroad
Mostimportant
33.3
68.0
45.3
14.7
4.0
Middlegroup
Leastimportant
Noresponse
Total( N = 75)
21.3 6.8 38.6 100.0
4.0 6.7 21.3 100.0
17.3 16.0 21.4 100.0
17.3 32.0 36.0 100.0
5.3 37.3 53.4 100.0
46
48
Table 31. International practitioners' ranking of motivations of students from owncountry for seeking an advanced degree
Percent of motivation ranking
High Medium Low No response Total(N =-- 75 )
Primarily occupational . . 68.0 16.0 2.7 13.3 100.0Primarily academic . . . . 16.0 29.3 22.7 32.0 100.0Primarily service 6.7 21.3 33.3 38.7 100.0
a high figure, considering the con-ditions in their home countries.Also, a high degree of satisfactionin their present jobs is reported(table 32). The major areas of dis-satisfaction seem to be lack ofproper work facilities (44 percent),finding more bureaucratic condi-tions than expected (42 percent),and inadequate salary in terms ofrespondents' style of living (38 per-cent). From these figures, oneshould conclude that purely interms of individual career needs,more is being accomplished or ful-
filled than would appear on thesurface.
Table 32. International practitioners'satisfaction in their present jobs
Highly satisfied : nochange desired
Satisfied, but change de-sired
Dissatisfied, changesought
Very dissatisfiedNo response
Percent(N = 75)
36
53
91
1
100
Three Case Studies
As stated at the beginning ofthis chapter, we intend to supple-ment the profile of these interna-tional practitioners with three shortcase studies. It is needless to saythat names and sonic inconsequen-tial pieces of information have beenchanged in order to protect theidentity of the individuals and in-stitutions involved. The essential
47
40
aspects of each case are true andderive from a combination of ques-tionnaire and interview data.
Case OneJose Fernandez is 45 years old,
married, and has two children. Hehas been to America three times,twice as a student. His wife, atrained teacher, is an educated
woman and accompanied her hus-band to America on his second trip.
Jose was not an outstanding stu-dent before going to the UnitedStates. He wasn't dull but did notstudy hard. He always knew thatone day he would go to the UnitedStates, for his father was a Chris-tian with good church connectionsin America. Soon after graduatingfrom college, Jose got a church-sponsored scholarship to study at aprominent university in the UnitedStates. This was his first trip. Be-fore leaving for America, he didnot know what to expect. He hadonly vague notions about Americaneducation and institutions, obtained,largely through missionaries andteachers. But he had always wantedto go to America, a scholarship wasavailable, and so he went withoutworrying too much about the prosand cons of what he was doing.
Although it was an exciting ex-perience, on the whole he was notsatisfied. He was single and some-what homesick. He did not knowhow to plan his time and limitedmoney, and had no clear idea whatjob would be available for himupon return. Nonetheless, he madethe best use of his opportunity, re-ceived an M.S. degree; and returnedhome.
Upon returning home, he got ajob in a church school. He had toteach, do some extension work, and alittle research. He was bothered bythe lack of facilities for research, buthis real concern was to get back toAmerica to complete his Ph.D. Heknew his church college was notparticularly interested in his doingthis. In any case, he wanted to be
48
independent of church obligations.He had seen the United States andunderstood how things were donethere, and he knew there were otherways to get back and to work on hisPh.D. So he concentrated on culti-vating friendships with Americantechnical aid personnel and con-tinued his friendships with some ofhis professors in the United States.Also, he worked hard at his job,and spent all his free time in collect-ing data on extension work done byhis college. All these endeavors paidoff after a wait of almost ten years.
He met by chance the understand-ing head of a wealthy foundationwho offered to help him with fundsfor his doctoral studies. Jose wantedto return to the same universitywhere he had studied for his M.S.His old professors were glad to havehim back because this time it wasquite clear what Jose wanted to do.So he returned to his old university,this time with his wife, and workedon his Ph.D. He was also fortunatein having brought with him fromthe home country data for his doc-toral dissertation. Losing no time insuch things as getting oriented to theculture of the society and the edu-cational system, both of which hehad become well acquainted withduring his first trip, and having nodistractions by virtue of having hisfamily with him, Jose completed allthe work for the Ph.D. degree inminimum time.
Quite satisfied with his secondexperience in the United States, heand his family returned home, buthe was again placed in his old job
to him a highly unsatisfactory sit-uation. He knew exactly what he
50
wanted to do: as a fully qualifiedprofessional he wanted to teachgraduate students and do quality re-search. Besides, his financial reedswere greater now, with the future ofhis children on his mind. His wifewas qualified to teach, but the placewhere they lived offered little op-portunity for her to work for money.The institution to which .Jose re-turned had not planned for theseeventualities and had only faintideas about these needs arising outof his getting professional education.The institution expected Jose toundenstand its limitations and to besatisfied with what was available.After all, the church had sponsoredhim to go to the United States inthe first instance. It is easy to sechow Jose's legitimate needs as hesaw them and the legitimate restric-tions the limited resources of the in-stitution placed upon his activitiesproduced a stalemate. The twolegitimacies with their separateorigins in different sets of presup-positions did not jibe.
The situation was resolved byJose's finding a better-paid job in agovernment institution in a largercity, providing for his children's edu-cation and his wife's need to teach.However, Jose's professional needsare still frustrated because the newinstitution does not provide him withthe kind of teaching and researchfacilities he desires. The institution isan important nation-building agencybut largely devoted to training ofhigh talent manpower for nationaladthinistration. His services arevalued but in an auxiliary sense.There are no graduate students insociology and he has no chance of
preparing young men to become so-ciologists. He has some limited op-portunity to do applied research andhe seems to be doing an excellentjob with available resources. But thisinstitution does not comprise a uni-versity setting, which is what he isseeking.
There is an important universityin the city where he is now located,and there is a flourishing departmentof sociology at that university. Hispaiticipation on a full- or part-timebasis is obstructed chiefly by two fac-tors, however: the department's atti-tude toward American rural soci-ology, and Jose's unwillingness toundergo financial loss. Both factorsneed further elaboration.
As in most old, established, moreprestigious universities, this one's de-partment of sociology takes a quali-tative (nonquantitative) approach tothe study of human behavior. Theapproach taken by American soci-ology and particularly rural soci-ology is looked upon as too quantita-tive to be meaningful. Thus, in theevent of Jose's getting an appoint-ment, he would be scrutinized andchallenged more than he would bewilling to tolerate. This situation isaggravated by Jose's own convic-tion that practically no one in thatdepartment knows anything aboutresearch! As should be obvious, it isa case of the clash of methodologi-cal approaches, and neither side isall right or all wrong.
If ,Jose should receive an offerat the university and were willingto undergo the unpleasant scrutiny,there would be other factors to con-tend with. He knows he stands tolose in salary. the university's
49
51
salaries being lower than those forcomparable positions in the insti-tute. Also, the movement throughthe ranks at the university is slowerthan at the institute. A further dis-couraging element is that there isno knowing whether he will havethe same research resources at theuniversity as he has now, althoughit is certain that he has now lessteaching responsibility and moreresearch money than he couldreasonably expect at the university.He is thus kept isolated from theuniversity community in a profes-sional sense.
One would think that individualscaught up in this kind of situation,but living in geographic proximity,would try to get together for mutualsupport and professional growth. Forone reason or another, such doesnot seem to be happening. In themetropolis where Jose was living atthe time of our interview, there wereat least three other rural sociologists,formally trained as such in depart-ments of rural sociology in America.It caused surprise when Jose told theinterviewer that as far as he knew,he was the only rural sociologist intown. Transportation difficulties in asprawling metropolis only partly ex-plain this seeming ignorance.
Jose was enthusiastic about his so-journ in the United States, especiallythe second trip with his family towork on his Ph.D. Everythingseemed to have worked well thistime. He knew the United Statesquite well and also the universitywhere he was going to do his work.He was acquainted with his profes-sors and knew their expectations. Hehad come prepared to analyze datafrom his home country for his dis-
sertation. Also, during his secondvisit he was financially better takencare of. relaxed because of hisfamily's being with him, and moremature in an overall sense in his ca-pacity to deal with the Americanworld view.
On the whole, he had great praisefor the training he received whilein the United States, for the friendlytreatment he received from his pro-fessors, for the atmosphere of intel-lectual dialogue that took placeamong the graduate students, andfor the excellent working conditions.including a first-rate library. He wasslightly critical of the unevenness ofteaching excellence in certain coursesand seminars. He also felt that stu-dents like himself should and couldhave been used for classroom teach-ing, which would have increasedtheir experience and also enrichedthe learning experience of Americanstudents. His greatest criticism con-cerned a lack of intellectual partner-ship between scholars like himselfand their American professors, evenwhen these professors undertook re-search in the students' countries. Hiscriticism was based on two points:First, a lack of such partnershipbetrayed to some extent certainmethodological principles. For ex-ample, assuming these professionalshad better knowledge of their so-cieties than their one-time professorshad (and this is a safe assumption),the professors' failure to seek a part-nership in research tended to detractfrom the quality of research findings.Second, such a partnership is likelyto benefit the "old" student by mak-ing accessible to him research fundsand other resources that he badlyneeds.
50
52
Case TwoAkbar Sheikh is nearly 35 and
married. He is very devoted to hisprofession and his family. He loveshis students and makes them workvery hard, but he does not expectfrom them what he does not fromhimself. He was born in a middle-class family and the thought of go-ing to the United States had neveroccurred to him until he was almostthrough graduate school in his owncountry. His family had no undueinfluence, and he himself would notstand for anything but being treatedon merit.
He had a brilliant academic rec-ord. Being quite fluent in a numberof languages, he tried his hand atthe mass media and was quite suc-cessful. He entered the local grad-uate school after a period of yearsof service in journalism. He per-formed brilliantly at the graduatelevel, even better than at the under-graduate level, winning universityhonors. He spent a year teachingat his own university after complet-ing his first graduate degree. Duringthat period he did field work, col-lecting data on a number of projects.It was during this period that hewon a scholarship to go to theUnited States through an interna-tional exchange program.
He had never been abroad andwas a little shaky about intellectualdemands in the United States. Hewas well briefed, by Americans andhis countrymen who had studiedhere, on the United States, its so-ciety, its culture, its educational sys-tem, and other characteristics, be-fore he started. He also underwent aprogram of "foreign student orienta-
51
53
tion" upon arrival in the UnitedStates.
To summarize, Akbar had a bril-liant academic program behind him,some experience in teaching and re-search in his own university, ade-quate financial support; perhaps hewas a little shy in interpersonal re-lations but very aggressive when itcame to academic duelling, a littleless "westernized" than many of hisfellow students at home but wellversed in local idiom, and utterlycommitted to do his best for thegood of his country.
He caught on quickly to the aca-demic jargon of the American uni-versity, to which he had chosen tocome, and which had admitted himbecause of his academic record.Actually, he was no stranger to thesocial science jargon, having beeninitiated into it by his teachers athome, some of whom had studied inthe United States. He was unmar-ried but that did not seem to be asource of distraction for him. Hehad only one goal: to gain as muchknowledge as possible, to finish hiswork as soon as possible, and to re-turn home to help in the intellectualgrowth of his university. So heworked hard and long hours, withlittle rest and fewer distractions. Hisneeds were simple and the moneysaved from his scholarship wasspent in buying books. Clothes andother attractive products of themarketplace had little use for him."Clothes I can have at home; booksI must get here," he used to tell hisfriends and fellow students from hishomeland.
He went through the system of aneastern university rapidly, and ob-
tamed the M.A. and Ph.D. degreesin three years. His dissertation wasbased on the data he had broughtwith him. He took courses andseminars that emphasized sociologyas a scientific discipline, not worry-ing too much about the applied as-pects of rural sociology for com-munity development and extension.His goal of fitting well within a uni-versity framework, with its broadintellectual needs, guided his selec-tion of courses and seminar work.
Before leaving the United Stateshe participated in professional meet-ings and visited other major centersfor the discipline of sociology.Also, while in the United Stateshe became a member of a number ofprofessional societies. In other words,by inclination, training, and partici-pation, he was a professional. Get-ting his Ph.D. was a means to hisgoal and not, as for many studentsfrom traditional societies, an end ofscholarly pursuits. In three years hereturned home to participate fully asa member of a department of soci-ology of which rural sociology wasa part. There was no isolation be-tween general sociologists and ruralsociologists at his university. Thisfortunate situation is partly due tothe manner in which his departmentgot established, rejecting doctrinairepositions and treating theories andmethods as means to deal with soci-ological phenomena.
During this time, he has beendrawn more and more into respon-sible positions within the university.This situation has 'not proved to bean unqualified blessing. The more hehas been drawn into his university's
affairs, the more he has taken policypositions demanding uniform stand-ards to be used in evaluating facultyand students and a high standardof performance from them. AlthoughAkbar is not especially articulateverbally, he is adept at expressinghimself in gentle but firm action. Hestrongly feels the urge to help hisnation emerge from its present eco-nomic and social conditions. Also, heis convinced that a solid basis forbuilding a just nation exists in theworld view of his people, containedin their religious ethics. He contendsthat minimum resources to build astrong and economically viable na-tion exist within the country. So, heis puzzled why his people and hiscolleagues at the university do notmove faster toward the ends towhich they are all seemingly com-mitted. Yet he does not have theheart to blame them; he understandsthat they are victims of circum-stances that have accumulatedthrough centuries of exploitation andmismanagement. And he fully be-lieves that his country will in courseof time emerge as a strong andpowerful nation, able not only togovern itself justly but also to takeits rightful place in the communityof nations fighting for justice. TheMiddle East has had a glorious past;greatness will return to it in the nottoo distant future, he feels.
One cannot talk with Akbar with-out soon coming to respect his senti-ments and to a great extent agree-ing with him. Although he is frus-trated in many ways, he has learnedto manage his frustrations withoutletting them run his life. One thing
52
5
is quite clear his values arebasically derived from within thecontext of his own culture. This sit-uation gives him great strength towithstand the tremors of crisis sit-uations. The things he learned in theUnited States he uses as means to hiscountry's ends by making necessaryadaptations. For example, althoughquite well trained in the methods ofquantitative research, he is receptiveto other approaches, such as the casestudy method, the historical method,and participant observation. He is,naturally, not equally skilled in allof them but he is not bound by anysingle approach.
Akbar was very appreciative of thetraining he received in the UnitedStates. He feels, however, that thetraining could be broadened to someextent, both in method and in theorycourses. He blames the studentsmore than the teachers for this lackof breadth. He recalled being al-lowed to take whatever seminars hewanted. He seemed to imply thatstudents were not always sure oftheir goals and this made them lessable to choose courses and seminarscritically. After all, how can an aca-demic advisor, especially if he is notwell acquainted with the students'homeland conditions, be expected tomake the right choices for the stu-dents? Akbar was strong in recom-mending that students from develop-ing nations should not be allowed tolinger on in the United States butshould be prepared for their degreesin the minimum time possible andsent back home.
53
Case ThreeKrishan Kumar is nearly 40 years
old, happily married, and the fatherof five children. He has been to theUnited States several times, twice asa graduate student and with Ameri-can foundation money. He is am-bitious, hard-working, and is quitecomfortable with bureaucratic oper-ations not because he admires thebureaucratic organization but be-cause he has learned to recognizeit as a necessary means of gettingthings done in a modern state.
Krishan had an excellent careeras an undergraduate in an appliedfield. He then went on to do grad-uate work in his own home state ineconomics and did rather well. Whileemployed as a research assistant tocollect field data for a local bureau,he met a professor from the UnitedStates who was looking for village-level interviewers for a study of socialchange in rural India. The thoughtof having to spend long hours in avillage did not appeal to Krishan,but he liked the American, and de-cided that working for him mighthave other benefits in the long run.While working for Professor West,Krishan became really interested incontinuing his academic studies. Be-cause of his training under ProfessorWest and through Professor West'srecommendation, he was awarded anAmerican foundation fellowship tostudy in the United States. Not sur-prisingly, he wanted to go to Profes-sor West's university and did. Butfor various reasons, including back-ground preparation and experience,
lie was admitted to study rural soci-ology, which was not ProfessorWest's special field. Still, Krishanhad learned to make the best use ofwhatever he got: he studied hardand received his master's degree,specializing, however, in appliedareas, which did not help him muchbeyond his first assignment upon re-turning home.
Because of his American training.he moved up in the institution inwhich he had worked before going toAmerica. The work was in agricul-tural extension. He worked hard,while looking around for morepromising opportunities and keepinggood relations with the variousAmericans he met. And the numberof Americans who came through thebig city where he lived were many.Some of them were his old profes-sors or their friends. He interactedwith them as often as possible.
By this time Professor West's workhad ended, but a Dr. Wilson wasbeginning an ambitious project, andKrishan was well suited by trainingand personality to work for Dr. Wil-son. Krishan and Dr. Wilson becameclose friends but soon Krishan leftthis assignment to take a responsibleposition in a government research in-stitute. Krishan knew that it was notto his best interest to continue forlong in projects such as Dr. Wilson'sbecause these offered no job securityeven though they paid good salaries.But he and Dr. Wilson remainedgood friends, and Dr. Wilson latermade it possible for Krishan to' re-turn to the United States to workfor a Ph.D. degree.
In his new position in the researchinstitute, Krishan found his Ameri-
can training in applied areas inade-quate. For the most part he guidedstudents' research but also was ex-pected to design and carry out hisown research. It was at this stagethat he felt he needed more sub-stantial training, especially in re-search methods. By this time he hadjob security in the research instituteand was ready to return to theUnited States for more training andanother degree. He knew he couldget support from an American fund-ing agency with Dr. Wilson's aid.The main question was where togo in the United States to get whathe wanted. Around this time one ofthe professors under whom he hadstudied as a master's candidate, Pro-fessor Leonard, turned up in Krish-an's city. They discussed at lengthKrishan's plans. Professor Leonardwas frank and fair and advisedKrishan not to return to his oldschool since it had given him whatit had to offer in applied sociology,its strongest area. Thus, throughProfessor Leonard's influence, Krish-an was almost immediately admittedto another, and equally good, school.
Soon Krishan was on his way tothe United States again. He knewwhat he wanted. He had made gooduse of his earlier training in exten-sion and related areas, and hadhad a great deal of practical experi-ence. He now wanted more sophisti-cated research skills. He had collect-ed data for his dissertation. He hadadmission and American f unds andleave of absence from a tenured job.
On his arrival at the new campus,he was received well by his majorprofessor, largely because of Profes-sor Leonard's recommendation. Pro-
54
7b
fessor Jones, his new major adviser,and Krishan together planned hisentire program, avoiding duplicationwith his earlier training and concen-trating on the areas of theory andmethodology. He moved rapidlythrough the system, making satisfac-tory progress. At the end of his train-ing, which was specialized and nar-row but tailormade for his needs, hetraveled around the United Statesfor awhile, visiting other centers ofrural sociological research. He alsoattended some professional meetingswhere he made many professionalfriends. Knowing the need backhome, he bought some books and afew articles for home comfort, andreturned home by the appointedtime.
His position in the research insti-tute has been upgraded because ofhis increased training and experi-ence. He has opportunities for re-search and some graduate training,and although the graduate studentsat present are not majoring in ruralsociology, that condition is expectedto be remedied soon. He is planningmore research with the institute staff,some of whom have been trained inthe United States. Krishan also hashopes of doing team research withpersons like Professors Leonard andJones. In addition, he is lookingaround for more research oppor-tunities and money. He is in a com-fortable position, although he wouldnot be adverse to a change, shoulda better position offer itself.
One of his real needs is to find auniversity position. He faces some-what the same kind of problems thatJose encountered, although Krishanis better satisfied in his job than is
57
Jose. Should he give up more re-search facilities and a better salarysimply for prestige? On the otherhand, would he not be serving moresociology students and be in contactwith the more truly academic worldif located in a university setting?Fortunately, he does not have tomake up his mind as yet not untila choice situation faces him. Mean-while, he is happy in what he is do-ing, and knows he has a bright fu-ture within that institute.
Krishan is full of praise for theAmericans he has met and the help2nd kindnesses received from them.He has the highest regard and ap-preciation for his American training.He holds the view that it is up tothe students to use to their best ad-vantage the opportunities offered byan American education. Americaneducation has, he admits, a numberof inadequacies in terms of applyingthat training to needs of other coun-tries, a situation which is inevitablebecause the United States is differ-ent from other countries. AdaptingAmerican training is where the stu-dent's initiative comes in. As illustra-tion Krishan points out that his ownsuccess derives from the manner inwhich he was able to see his goalsclearly and to adapt what he foundin the States to suit his needs. Hisown work experience stood him ingood stead when it came to decidinghow to utilize the flexibility of theAmerican graduate program to hisbest advantage. He thinks it best forstudents to write their theses and dis-sertations on data from their homecountries, as he himself did; but itis more important to receive excel-lent training than simply to empha-
55
size data sources. He would recom-mend higher admission standardsand more independent work forrural sociology graduate training.
Concluding Remarkson the Case Studies
Case studies are by their very na-ture nongeneralizable. They areneither typical nor altogether un-typical of the population. But thecase studies given here are of realpeople, three of the international
practitioners now actively engaged inthe development of rural sociologyand in applying its findings to hu-man growth in various parts of theglobe. As such they seem to point outsome issues not brought out by thestatistical information pre s e n t e dearlier, issues relevant to a morecomplete consideration of the themesof this study. Thus, they too can beexpected to have some bearing onthe recommendations we want tomake in the closing chapter of thisreport.
56
Chapter 4. International Careers, Work Environments,and International Centers
The three greatest influences oncareers are work environments, oc-cupational training, and individualaspirations." In this chapter we ex-amine in some detail relationshipsbetween respondents' careers and
their work environments and howthese can be enhanced for buildingan international discipline. Aspira-tions, recruitment, and training havealready been examined.
Profiles
A brief reiteration of the profile ofpractitioners is helpful in puttingtheir career patterns in perspective.Their modal age (44 percent) wasbetween 31 and 39 years. The nextgreatest proportion (35 percent)was between the ages of 40 and 49years. Thus one might say approxi-mately 80 percent of the practitionerrespondents were in the high produc-tive professional years. Nevertheless,many of the respondents have a shortprofessional lifetime as measured be-yond the point of terminal trainingas compared to their Americancounterparts.
Thirteen percent had receivedtheir doctorate between the ages of30 and 32; 15 percent between theages of 33 to 35; and 23 percentafter age 35. (Others had no doc-torate or received it earlier, and afew did not respond.) In most casesthe masters degree was received onlya few years prior to the doctorate.In effect it may be said that al-though the rural sociology emphasisis relatively new in internationalareas, its practitioners had moved
well into career positions beforetheir terminal sociology educationwas completed.
The three largest categories inwhich the occupational backgroundof practitioners' fathers most fre-quently falls are: farm ownership(21 percent), executive or largebusiness management (15 percent)and professions other than teaching(12 percent). Other categories ofthe occupational backgrounds offathers show a wide range. The edu-cation of fathers (table 23) parallelsto a great extent the occupationalrank. Over 45 percent of themothers had no high school educa-tion and none had completed grad-uate work. By sharp contrast 20 per-cent of the wives had some collegeeducation, and 23 percent of thewives held a graduate degree.
To a considerable extent, on thebasis of the above characteristics,the practitioners are members of arising, professional, middle class.This fact was further illustratedwhen they gave their reasons for
57
5a
undertaking graduate work in soci-ology (table 30). For most respond-ents the choice of work in rural soci-
ology was voluntary; they had al-ternatives had they desired to opt forthem.
Returning Home
The geographic distribution ofhigh-talent manpower is a muchlabored subject. Notes of high dis-tress are sounded by many when re-cent recipients of the doctoral degreeprefer to remain in the UnitedStates rather than return to theirhome country or home culture.Questions are raised and expressed invalue terms whenever brain drainsare discussed. Within the UnitedStates questioning considerations aregiven to the migratory characteristicsof scientists. Some data show thatthey are disproportionately trained inthe Midwest and New England andthat they disproportionately migrateto the Far West and to the MiddleAtlantic States."
The international practitionerswere asked several specific questionsconcerning their situations upon re-turning home. Most of them re-ported few difficulties. More than 73percent expressed very little difficultyin accepting colleagues who were notAmerican-trained. Ninety percentbelieved that their training hadgiven them real insight into theirwork. Eighty percent said that theirsuperiors were sympathetic. Indeed,75 percent indicated that theirsuperiors appreciated their Ameri-can-acquired skills. And 64 percentof those who returned had no strongdesire to return to the United States.
In contrast to the above state-
58
ments of generally positive adjust-ment upon returning home therewere other statements of doubt andambivalence. Forty-four percent ex-pressed a desire for facilities similarto those with which they had workedin the United States. Salary andbenefits were considered generally in-sufficient by 39 percent. Finally,some ambivalence was expressedconcerning work within the localbureaucracies; 41 percent said theyfound the bureaucracy to be worsethan they had anticipated.
When the "return home experi-ence" was analyzed by nationality, itwas widely reported that superiorstended to be sympathetic. The de-sire for the American facilities wasmost pronounced among Near East-ern, including Pakistan (70 percent),and Far Eastern (63 percent), re-spondents. The feeling that trainingoffered no real insight was mostoften reported by Canadians (13percent) and by Latin Americans(10 percent) . Here it should benoted that these countries offer workin community and extension pro-grams. American professors reportless training in these applied areas.
Subtly reflected in the interviewswas a feeling that the internationalpractitioners were often treated athome as distinguished researchersand professors. Many were satisfiedwith their status in the universities
6d
or in government positions. Eventhough their positions were often nothigh in the hierarchy, this would beexpected in view of the recent com-pletion of their American training.On the other hand, when the inter-viewees compared their position andwork as sociologists in their homecountry with those of sociologists inthe United States, they stressed in-adequate facilities, inadequate sup-port, and inadequate understanding.In several respects their struggle to.establish the validity of rural soci-ology in the 1960's has many of theovertones of America's experiencefrom the 1920's to the 1940's.16
Returning home for many sociolo-
gists who plan to emphasize work inrural subject areas carries with itthe challenge of establishing a newintellectual field of endeavor. Manyinternational practitioners return tonations that are caught up in thedynamics of modernization and/ordevelopment. Although sociologymay indeed have much to offer insuch social environments, it mustoften compete with other disciplinessuch as economics and demonstrateclearly its usefulness. In effect, thereturn is not to established positionsfrom which one may operate but tothe creating of new positions out ofwhich the practitioner may operateas a sociologist.
Career Development Patterns
Career opportunities for sociolo-gists in general and for sociologistsinterested in rural behavior patternsin particular are limited outside ofAmerica. Consequently what we turnto next is more the examination ofthe development of new occupation-al and career roles and less a studyof a fully developed occupation with-in which career steps and stages arefirmly established. Although the de-gree of development of rural soci-ology outside of America varies, inmost cases it is a new rather thanan old-line subject.
First Full-Tiine PositionNearly half (49 percent) of the
practitioners report that their firstfull-time position was in a univer-sity; 21 percent first worked in ageneral government position, 7 per-
59
cent in agricultural extension, and13 percent in other occupations.(Others did not respond.)
The type of duties for the firstfull-time position varied in a semi-professional category. Most of thefirst positions required from somecollege training to a college degree.Often they were in research work,but under the direction of anotherperson. The duties in these cases in-cluded data analysis and report writ-ing. Many practitioners started theircareer in some form of public schoolteaching. Teaching was at the highschool level, and frequently theywere principals. Still other practi-tioners started as extension and com-munity development workers. Exten-sion and development work was mostfrequent in the Far East and inLatin America. Research work was
most frequent in India. High schoolteaching was reported with fre-quency in both India and CentralAmerica. Very few of the respond-ents started in business, industry, orother nonteaching professions.
The first position was held for anaverage of four years, but the rangeof variation was great.
Present JobApproximately 71 percent of the
practitioners are currently workingin university positions, 9 percent ingovernment agriculturally relatedpositions, 8 percent in general gov-ernment positions, and 3 percent inagricultural extension. The remain-ing 9 percent of the respondents re-ported positions in widely diverseareas. Even as sociology is pre-dominantly an academic occupationin the United States, it is also pre-dominantly an academic occupationoutside of the United States as well.It was difficult to know how muchof this academic sociology wascaused by a lack of other positionsand how much was a result of prac-titioner preference for positions inuniversities. On the surface, at least,the international practitioners stateda considerable preference for careersin university structures.
Most of the practitioners' time wasdevoted to teaching and the secondlargest proportion of time was de-voted to research. Administration,community extension activities, off-campus lectures, formal study, andparticipation in government pro-grams individually all constitute asmall proportion of their time utili-zation (table 33). In the main eventhough rural sociology is an emergent
60
62
career in many nations, it is tendingto follow the lines of developmentexperienced earlier in the UnitedStates.
Over 57 percent of thc respond-ents indicated that in their currentposition freedom to exercise theirown judgment was highly character-istic of their work environment(table 34). Forty-eight percent indi-cated that their status was recog-nized, and 44 percent indicated theyhad considerable opportunity to usetheir training. On the other hand, incontrast, 45 percent indicated thatease in keeping up with their fieldwas only somewhat characteristic oftheir work environment and morethan 26 percent indicated that thiswas not characteristic of their workenvironments. Similarly, only 41 per-cent responded that being well paidis somewhat characteristic of theirplace of work, whereas another 35percent said that being well paid wasnot characteristic, of their position.
When pay was analyzed by nation-ality, 50 percent of the Canadiansreport adequate remuneration and50 percent of the Near Eastern soci-ologists report insufficient pay (table35).
Practitioner occupational taskswere varied, but the most typical ac-tivity was teaching and research.The teaching was primarily for un-dergraduates and often for studentswho are not majoring in sociology.Much of the teaching included in-troductory courses, rural sociology,and research methods. Not infre-quently rural sociologists also taughtsome agricultural economics andsome extension-type courses.
Most of those who reported re-
Table 33. Distribution of international practitioners by specified activities to which11 percent or more of their time had been allocated since 1963
Specified activities
Percent of international practitioners( N = 75)
11- 20 21-30 31-40 41 -50 51 61 61 plus
Teaching formal classes(including preparationof lecture, preparationand correction of ex-aminations) 15 15 8 8 9 4
Individual discussions,supervision, and tutor-ing students 17 7 1 0 0
Designing, directing, andsupervising researchstudies, analyzing data,and writing researchreports 12 17 8 3
Administration, faculty,and professional com-mittee work 15 1 4 0 3 0
Community development,extension, or publicservice 8 3 0 3 0 3
Public lectures and theirpreparation 0 1 0 0 0 1
Formal study 8 3 0 0 0 0Administration of govern-
ment programs 3 3 0 1 1 3
Table 34. Characteristics of international practitioners' present positions
Verycharacter-
istic
Somewhatcharacter-
istic
Notcharacter-
istic
Noresponse Total
Percent (N = 75)
Well paid 19 41 35 5 100Freedom to exercise
professional judgment 57 29 11 3 100Opportunities to use your
training 44 39 13 4 100Professional status is
recognized 44 39 13 4 100Easy to keep up with
your field 25 45 27 3 100
61
63
Table 35. Indication by international practitioners of their jobs being well paid,according to regions
Regions
Verycharacteristic
Somewhatcharacteristic
Notcharacteristic
CanadaFar East (China,
Korea, Indonesia,Japan)
IndiaLatin AmericaNear East (incl.
Pakistan)
No. 1 Percent
4 50.0
1 12.544 13.3
9 9 9
1 10.0
No. I Percent No. I Percent
2 25.0 0 0
5 62.57 38.9 7
12 40.0 12
9 25.038.940.0
4 40.0 5 50.0
search in combination with teachingindicated that the research was onrural subjects. A considerable num .ber of respondents were in govern-mental research institutes, particular-ly in the Near and Far East. Someresearch was national in scope, in-cluding that reported by a few whowere in census bureaus.
Several practitioners were direc-tors of sizable extension programs,for example in Canada, Puerto Rico,and Taiwan. Home demonstrationand 4-H Club work were reported.Three reported research with inter-national agencies. A few reportedfull-time work with cooperatives andwith national cooperative move-ments. Only one reported full-timeconsultant work. Several were full-time in higher university administra-tion, and a few were departmentchairmen in addition to their teach-ing and research.
Most of the practitioners were inoccupational roles which enabledthem to fulfill closely their desire
for graduate work in rural sociology.From the Near East (including Paki-stan) 70 percent wanted teachingresearch roles; from Latin America57 percent wanted teachingre-search; from India and the Far East50 percent wanted teachingre-search. Only in Canada was therea first preference (50 percent) forcommunity extension work.
MobilitiesExtensive job mobility was not
characteristic of the internationalpractitioners. Nearly 27 percent re-ported only two positions, 19 percentreported only one position, 16 per-cent reported only three positions, 12percent four positions, and another12 percent five positions. The re-maining 14 percent held still morepositions. But considering the rela-tively few years since many of thesepractitioners had completed theirtraining, their frequency of mobilityis similar to that of professionals in
62
64
the United States. It is noteworthythat they had moved generally fromgov;rnment and agricultural exten-sion positions into more traditionaluniversity positions when given theopportunity.
Examination of the large numberof positions held between the firstand the present position reveals thatalmost all of these respondents havehad some extension experience. Fre-quently such extension work took theform of community developmentwork. In addition to extension therewere occupational experiences in vo-cational agriculture teaching, as agri-cultural technicians and farm man-agers, and in planning, social welfare.and home demonstration agent work.Very few practitioners reported in-termediate occupations not closelyrelated to agriculture.
Considerable differences were de-scribed between the first occupations,the intermediate occupations, thepresent occupations, and the occupa-tions desired in the next five years.The situation is dichotomous: thepractitioners tended to come fromagriculture-related work and movedinto traditional university positions,which raises some fundamentalquestions. Should rural sociology of-fer more training .in the extension,cooperative, community developmentareas? Are these areas really outsidethe subject-matter area of rural soci-ology? Should extension and its fel-low areas expand into more profes-sional academic courses?
Responses to questions as to wherepractitioners would like to work inthe next five years were particularlyrevealing. More than 81 percentwant to be in universities, only 11
63
percent in ,r,overnment agencies. andcol). 5 percent with private agencies.Only two failed to respond to thisquestion.
Those who preferred to be in auniversity desired their work to be acombination of teaching and re-search (72 percent). Eight percentlooked forward to a combinationextension/ community develop-ment position in a university. Fivepercent preferred a full-time re-search position in a university. Only1 percent aspired to a full-timeteaching career in a university.Again, it was clear that as ruralsociology developed outside of theUnited States, the preference wouldbe for a pattern similar to its de-velopment within the United States.
For those who indicated a prefer-ence for work with a govermentagency, nearly 27 percent wished tobe in some applied research 13 per-cent aspired to a position in researchadministration : and 9 percentwanted a basic-research position.The remaining few said they wantedpositions in government agencies.
Mobility across national lines forprofessional sociological employmentappears to be limited. The Inter-american Institute of AgriculturalSciences, headquartered in CostaRica, has moved a considerablenumber of Latin American andAnglo-American sociologists acrossnational lines for professional assign-ments. Similarly, the Food and Agri-cultural Organization in Rome hascontributed to some cross-nationalmobility. Academic institutions andfoundations have been mechanismsof some mobility among Canada,
Mexico, and the United States. Vari-ous agencies have moved Indian andAmerican sociologists on temporaryassignments into Africa. But among
Performance
Performance and success in occu-pational work can be measured fromat least two points of view, namelythe job satisfaction of the individualpractitioner and the quantitative-qualitative output of work. Respond-ents were asked to address them-selves to both of these issues.
At the outset the practitionerswere asked to report what they con-sider to be their primary professionalstrengths. The largest single propor-tion (28 percent) reported this to beteaching rural sociology. Next fol-lowed 25 percent who believed theirstrength lay in research, and another19 percent who cited community de-velopment work. Other areas of pro-fessional strength were miscellane-ously distributed over theory, diffu-sion, methods, and so forth. In somecontrast to the practitioners' desireto participate in research positionswas their greater expression of com-petency in teaching rural sociology.In overview, however, they believethat their competencies lay in theareas in which they had the greatestcareer interest.
Job SatisfactionWhen asked if they were satisfied
with their job placement in termsof opportunities to apply their train-ing, 64 percent responded positively,28 percent responded negatively, and
64
the practitioners who are nationalsoutside of the United States, thereis relatively little cross-national mo-bility.
and Success
8 percent did not respond at all. Theoverwhelming majority were indeedsatisfied with their work upon de-parture from the United States. Asreported earlier, their status rewardswere generally high particularlyin view of the fact that many of thepractitioners were in the early stagesof their careers.
For those who were dissatisfied intheir current occupations 20 percenthad attempted to move to a newposition, and 40 percent reportedthat they were successful in makingsuch a move. For those few whowere unable to move to a new posi-tion the following reasons weregiven: 9 percent did not have suf-ficient and/or the right kind of in-fluence and for 5 percent the rightkind of job did not exist.
When asked to respond concern-ing the satisfaction with theirpresent job, 36 percent indicatedthat they were very well satisfiedand had no desire to change. Fifty-three percent, on the other hand, in-dicated that they were more or lesssatisfied but would consider achange. Only 9 percent indicatedmild dissatisfaction and thereby aconsiderable desire to change. Only1 percent said that they were verydissatisfied with their current posi-tion. In the main one continues toview these respondents as interna-tional pioneers for sociology in the
66
Table 36. International practitioner's degree of satisfaction by type of occupation
Satisfied DissatisfiedMore or less
satisfied
Percent
Government administration 37.5 62.5 0Research administration 77.8 0Associate and full professor 46.4 10.7instructors and assistant professor 18.8 62.5 18.7
rural areas. And as pioneers theyexpress a high degree of satisfactionwith their positions along with con-siderable articulation of the existinglimitations and frustrations.
job satisfaction varied some by thetype of occupation. University pro-fessors and associate professors werethe most satisfied (table 36) . Gov-ernment researchers were most fre-quently more or less satisfied. Themost dissatisfied were the instructorsand assistant professors (19 percent) .
By nationality, those most satisfiedwith their jobs were Latin Americans(77 percent) . More than 60 percentof the Far Eastern and Indian prac-titioners were satisfied with theirposition. By contrast only 50 percentof both the Canadian and NearEastern practitioners were satisfiedwith their jobs.
Professional Contacts
A major characteristic of profes-sional-occupational development is acommunity of scholars and/or prac-titioners. Accordingly these practi-tioners were asked to indicate whattheir continuing contacts are withtheir major professors since endingtheir graduate study. The largest
65
single response N%.as committee as-signments (23 percent) . Eleven per-cent reported involvement in pro-fessional lecturing, and 9 percent areinvolved in joint research with theirmajor professor. In any case profes-sional contacts with the major pro-fessor, and/or with other Americanprofessors, was remarkably little.Most of them tended to have littlemore than a personal correspondence(79 percent) with the major profes-sor and other American faculty. Re-ceipt of a departmental newsletterand visits from departmental facultywere also mentioned.
In terms of the contacts withAmerican professors it was clearboth from the interviews and thequestionnaires that little idea pro-duction and little internationalizingof the subject matter of rural soci-ology resulted from these interna-tional ties. The contacts were sominimal as to suggest something lessthan a real community of interna-tional rural sociological scholars. Per-sonal friendships exceeded profes-sionally productive intellectual col-leagueship ties.
Interview responses revealed com-plaints concerning insufficient com-munication between and among pro-
G7
fessional sociologists within a coni-111011 country, particularly in suchlarge nations as Brazil and India.Often physical distances were toogreat and travel funds too insufficientto make it possible for scholars tomeet in symposiums and seminars forprofessional growth and intellectualdevelopment of their subject matter.This problem was cited as an evenmore critical limiting factor in de-veloping sociological strengths be-tween countries outside of NorthAmerica. Both in Asia and in LatinAmerica there were disquieting re-ports of insufficient knowledge andcontact with professional colleaguesin neighboring countries within acommon cultural situation.
It was reported that insufficienteffort was being made to disseminateresearch findings from Americanstudies in international areas. Inter-national practitioners indicated thatsome United States libraries con-tained more empirical informationon their areas than did their ownlocal libraries.
The international community ofrural sociology remained largely frag-mented. The two World Congressesof Rural Sociology had been wellattended and enthusiastically re-ceived, and many respondentsrecommended that these Congresses1 held more often. The desire to in-crease the strength of the commu-nity of sociologists was accordingly il-lustrated. Similarly in several nationsattempts are currently being made toestablish national associations of so-ciologists. All of these are more thanembryonic efforts at strengtheningthe contacts and community char-acteristics of sociology.
66
ResearchSlightly over half of the respond-
ents (55 percent) indicated that theyhad an opportunity to do researchand to publish. This report was to agreat extent consistent with the ex-pressed career desire to engage in re-search.
There was considerably less oppor-tunity to do research and publish thefindings in Latin America than inother areas. Seventy-five percent ofthe Canadians and the Far Easternrespondents, respectively, indicatedan opportunity to do research andpublish it. Similarly 70 percent of theNear Eastern and 67 percent of theIndian respondents reported re-search-p ublishing opportunities.Only 30 percent of the Latin Ameri-can respondents reported such op-portunities.
Practitioners were asked to indi-cate the types of research which theybelieved to be most suitable and es-sential to sociology in their countryat this time. Descriptive survey re-search was cited as the most ap-propriate by most of the respondents.This was followed closely by an indi-cation that more case studies wereneeded. Hypothesis-testing research,theory-formulating research, and ex-perimental research were all indi-cateJ as less appropriate currently.
TeachingPractitioners were asked to indi-
cate which courses they had taught.Forty-three percent had taught ruralsociology, 36 percent general soci-ology, 27 percent methodology, 20percent community, and 12 percent
social change. Other sociologycourses had been taught but in eachcase by less than 10 percent of thepractitioners. In effect, the array ofcourses most frequently taught re-vealed again the moving of theAmerican model of empirical soci-ology to the international work en-vironments of these practitioners.They tended to teach the corecourses of sociology with a skewnessto the applied, community, exten-sion, and developmental courses.There was little orientation towardtheory and social philosophy.
The teaching of sociology not onlyfollowed an American empirical pat-tern but also heavily relied on booksby American scholars, largely basedon American data. This situation il-lustrated, more clearly than mostwould like to admit, the point madeby a few that rural sociology cur-rently was America n-dominated.Hence the need was repeatedly un-derscored for the internationalizingof the data, concepts, theory, andmethods of sociology as well as theinternationalizing of the training forcareer practitioners.
PublicationMore than half of the interna-
tional practitioners indicated thatthey have had some opportunity forpublication. Seventy-five percent ofthe Canadians and the Far Eastern-ers, respectively, said they had pub-lished. Similarly 70 percent of theNear Easterners and 67 percent ofthe Indians reported publishing. Bycontrast, only 30 percent of theLatin Americans reported publish-ing. Latin Americans cited as rea-
67
sons for failure to publish the lackof funds, lack of time, and lack oflibraries. Unfortunately, most of theinternational publications in ruralsociology remained obscure indeedfugitive. To this extent these prac-titioners indicated that the commu-nity of sociology must be strength-ened by making available sociologi-cal publications from different partsof the world to sociologists in allother parts of the world.
Both the quality and quantity ofmuch of the publishing of interna-tional sociological publications is
highly relevant in this context. Thefollowing analysis indicated thatsome practitioners had extensive listsof publications. The selected lists oftitles illustrated the breadth of sub-ject area considered in the publica-tions. No effort is being made to pro-vide here an exhaustive list of pub-lications. Instead, we illustrate therange and type of publication bycultural area.
The most frequent publicationsubjects were: leadership (11 items),descriptive and social historicalstudies (11 items), community (10items), social change (5 items),communication (5 items), family (4items), formal o rganiza ti on (4items), and social structures (4items). Other publication topics in-cluded: agricultural reform, con-cepts and theory, demography, inno-vation, rural sociology course books,and values. A wide range of othertopics were cited, but only a fewtimes each.
By nationality area, descriptivesocialhistorical studies were re-ported most frequently in LatinAmerica, and leadership studies most
frequently in India. Communitystudies were most prevalent in theFar East.
Many studies were book length, al-though most were shorter publica-tions. In practically all cases the pub-lishers were local. The publicationswere difficult to obtain. They weregiven almost no cross-national and
multilingual promotion. As a result,much of this publishing remained in-accessible to the international com-munity of rural sociologists. Theserious business of promoting the de-velopment of an international bodyof rural sociological knowledge canbe enhanced by these potentially im-portant publications.
Limitations
When international practitionerswere asked what f actors theythought most limited the develop-ment of rural sociology, they men-tioned insufficient positions forqualified sociologists. They indicatedthat more institutional support andmore social space must be providedfor rural sociology internationally.When they reflected on their train-ing, they indicated that most of itwas relevant. They suggested fewchanges in courses and quality oftraining in the United States. Morethan half of the respondents dis-agreed that most of their Americantraining was not applicable to con-ditions where they were then work-ing. Considerably more than halfdisagreed that the American trainingcovered too many courses and wasnot sufficiently concentrated. Seventypercent disagreed that the American
training was too theoretical. Mostrespondents disagreed sharply thatthe American academic degrees didnot give status and insure confidencein their home countries. Similarlymost disagreed that degrees fromAmerican universities were notrecognized in their home countries.Yet in spite of this strong supportin general for their course of train-ing, their own use of concepts andmethodologies learned in the UnitedStates was severely limited (seechapter 2). So although they tendedto be laudatory in general abouttheir training experiences in theUnited States, much of the subjectof their training was little used bythem. Consequently there were limi-tations in terms of validating theprinciples of sociology developed onAmerican data by testing their ap-propriateness internationally.
International Rural Sociology Centers
Both practitioner, and studentsstrongly affirmed the desirability ofinternational centers for researchand training in rural sociology. The
68
idea of and need for centers wereclear both in the interviews and inthe questionnaires (table 37).
The need for training and re-
Table 37. International practitioners' and graduate students' responses to thestatement: "In order to internationalize (or denationalize) sociology concepts itis desirable to have a few advanced training centers, perhaps two in each majorcontinental area, where advanced scholars and students from multiple internationalareas might simultaneously research and study one or two major concepts, e.g.,
stratification or development, with international data."
Practitioners (N = 75)Students (N = 85)
Agree Neutral Disagree
Percent
No response
65.376.5
9.3 4.114.1 5.9
21.33.5
search centers was brought to focusin Antonio Arce's report on com-munications research in Latin Ameri-ca.17 At the Rural Sociological So-ciety's Development Committeemeeting at the University of PuertoRico in 1969 Eugene Havens as-serted that "one of the most im-portant questions that should be ad-dress&I concerns the possible estab-lishment of international graduatetraining centers." He explained indetail the need for centers. PabloVasquez emphasized at the same De-velopment Committee meeting thegreat need for advanced trainingcenters for rural sociology in LatinAmerica. This need for centers wasalso discussed in the Agricultural De-
velopment Council Workshop(1968) .
In terms of center organizationboth practitioners and students be-lieve there should be accreditation bythe world's major universities nowoffering social science doctorates(table 38).
It was clear that the centers wereviewed as major new dimensions ofuniversities they might be definedas "forward-looking sociological ex-periment stations." Whether physi-cally on or off a campus, they shouldbe new components in universitystructures and demonstrate newlevels of interuniversity cooperation.
The practitioners and graduatestudents agreed that these centers
Table 38. International practitioners' and graduate students' responses to thestatement: "The centers as field stations, would be accredited by the world's major
universities now offering social science doctorates."
Agree Neutral Disagree I No response
Percent
Practitioners (N = 75) 61.3 12.0 6.7 20.0Students (N = 85) 64.3 21.3 9.5 4.9
69
71
should serve as data banks and in-ternational resources (table 39). Thelibraries and data banks mightwell be specially selected collectionsthat are part of larger universitylibraries, and the reading rooms inthe center's physical quarters shouldstock only current or new material.Certainly the center library shouldbe staffed with competent librariansresponsible to the center's director.Appropriate acquisitions budgetingis essential.
A clear mandate is needed forfunding sufficient to enable both stu-dents and faculty to visit several in-ternational locations to conduct re-search in specialized subject areas.For example, if one were researching
stratification phenomena, the fieldwork would not be limited to thevicinity of the centers but could bedone in far away countries so thaiboth culture and nationality wouldbecome variables to be held constant.International practitioners and grad-uate students expressed great supportfor such funding (table 40).
There was wide acceptance of thenotion that faculties of the centershould be tenured by "home" uni-versities or agencies, and "on loan"or on temporary assignments. Sug-gested duration for faculty assign-ments ranged from two to six years.The responses are shown in table 41.
Another center faculty pattern wasapproved by the practitioners and
Table 39. Practitioners' and grs.duate students' responses to the statement: "Thecenters would have libraries that would constitute truly international data banks
in their subject areas."
Practitioners (N = 75)Students (N = 85)
Agree I Neutral
72.1 5.384.7 7.1
Disagree
Percent
1.34.7
No response
21.33.5
Table 40. Agreement and disagreement of international practitioners with thestatement: "Students and faculties at the centers would be able to visit severalinternational locations to do research in the specialized area e.g., if one wereresearching a problem in stratification, it would not be done just in India, thePhilippines, Colombia, or United States, but in several countries at the same time
so that the findings would have nationalism held constant."
Practitioners (N = 75)Students (N = 85)
Agree I Neutral Disagree I No response
Percent
61.3 6.7 9.3 22.771.8 12.9 10.6 4.7
70
7r2
Table 41. Agreement and disagreement with the statement: "The center facultieswould be tenured in a `home' university and be on temporary assignment, perhaps
from 2 to 6 years at the centers."
Agree I Neutral Disagree No response
Percent
Practitioners (N = 75) 57.3 20.1 1.3 21.3Students (N = 85) 58.9 23.5 12.9 4.7
students, whereby professors from"home" universities would be givenshort-term assignments for sixmonths or less (table 42). The short-term appointments would allow ex-perts to give a few highly focusedlectures or seminars, to participate inresearch writing, or to engage inlimited research.
Although the centers would be
dominated by sociologists, it wasagreed that as a matter of policythey should support interdisciplinaryinquiry, and, whenever appropriate,faculty and students from otherdisciplines should be invited to par-ticipate in their activities on speci-fied-term assignments. More studentsthan practitioners supported an inter-disciplinary emphasis (table 43) .
Table 42. Agreement or disagreement with the statement: "Other faculty from the'home' universities research or lecture at the centers on short-term assignments of 6
months or less."
Agree Neutral I Disagree I No response
Percent
Practitioners (N = 75) 60.1 13.3 5.3 21.3Students (N = 85) 56.5 27.0 10.6 5.9
Table 43. "Although the centers would offer training in sociology they shouldencourage interdisciplinary research and be organized to facilitate it by inviting
selected faculty from other social sciences."
Agree Neutral I Disagree No response
Percent
Practitioners (N = 75) 69.3 6.7 1.3 22.7Students (N = 85) 85.9 7.0 2.4 4.7
71
Awarding of degrees by centers isa point of conjecture and minimalsupport. Both practitioners and stu-dents concur in this doubt (table44).
Another area of doubt in organiza-tion of the centers concerns a degreecurriculum requirement for a sys-tematically rotated period of work ateach center. It was suggested thata student spend from 6 months to ayear in one uhter and then transferto another and so on until a four-to-six-year plan of Ph.D. degree studyis completed. Practitioners' supportfor this plan of study was slightlygreater than that by students, al-though in both instances the extentof support was small (table 45).
Practitioners and students bothstrongly endorsed the need for soci-ology centers. Most students morestrongly supported the center com-
ponents. Only for short-terni facultyassignments and rotation of work atdifferent centers did practitioner sup-port exceed student support.
We have portrayed in this chapterthe career-development patterns ofthe international practitioners andtheir performance records upon re-turning home. The portrayal re-vealed that a fair amount of theirdeficiencies in post-training perform-ance could have been avoided or atleast minimized if more attentionhad been paid to the essential inter-national character of the discipline.This situation led us to consider atsome length the usefulness of a num-ber of international training centers
international in their faculty, stu-dents, library resources, and con-cepts. As the data clearly show, theinternational practitioners and cur-rent graduate students were basicallyin support of the center idea.
Table 44. International practitioners and graduate students agreeing or disagree-ing with the idea of the centers' offering degrees.
Agree Neutral Disagree No response
Percent
Practitioners (N = 75) 20.0 29.3 28.0 22.7Students (N = 85) 31.8 30.6 32.9 4.7
Table 45. Extent of support by practitioners and graduate students for a rotatedperiod of work at a number of centers before awarding degrees
Agree Neutral Disagree No response
Percent
Practitioners (N = 75) 36.0 18.7 25.3 20.0Students (N = 85) 25.9 31.8 38.8 3.5
72
711
Chapter 5. Toward Internationalizing Rural SociologyA Historical Note
The data presented, provided byinternational practitioners, Americanprofessors, and current graduate stu-dents in American universities, bearupon some of the major problems intraining truly international ruralsociologists, including a lack of cross-culturally tested concepts and propo-sitions and suitable institutional fa-cilities. Since we are primarily study-ing the development of rural soci-ology as a scientific discipline, weare only in part concerned withtraining facilities. Yet by no meansdo we imply that these concerns are
either new in the profession orunique to us. Quite the contrary.These concerns have been expressedbefore by many colleagues and onmany occasions, including theA/D/C workshops which gave us agood start. It seems at this point onlyfitting to summarize briefly previousefforts aimed at widening the inter-national horizon of rural sociology.This brief chapter is, then, a reviewof the more important past eventsdirected toward the same concerns asis this research report.
The Internationalized Community of Rural Sociology
In rural sociology notions of pro-fessional communities" and com-munities of scholars are both func-tional and substantive. Professionalcommunities work across nationalboundaries. Interaction among pro-fessional rural sociologists from manynations must be facilitated. Thestrength and prolif.:cation of inter-national meetings and congresses areindexes of professional communitystrength. It is clear, too, as exchangeprofessorships and cooperative re-search shows, that cross-nationalcommunity interaction among mem-bers of professional sociology is be-coming increasingly easy. Some evi-dence indeed suggests that there ismore community among rural soci-ologists across national boundariesthan among rural sociologists in anyone society.
73
MulticulturalInternational Congresses
International congresses appear tobe widespread among professions inthe twentieth century. In most casesthis form of professional organizationis functional to the stimulating,building, and disseminating of abody of knowledge. In social sciencesin general, and in sociology in par-ticular, internacional congresses areof primary importance. Since thesubject matter of sociology is cross-national in character, it is essentialthat research scientists in this fieldhave access to thoughtful and criticalpresentations of research data frommany societies. Moreover, it is es-sential that researchers and authorsfrom the different areas have oppor-tunities for intensive and extensive
personal face-to-face discussions oftheir data and findings.
International congresses are an in-troductory form of stimulation andexchange of sociological ideas andfindings. They give the participantsa broad-ranging introduction tomany topics. Congresses, however, donot provide the necessary environ-ment for intensive discussions, ex-amination of issues, study of otherrelated data, and so forth. Natural-ly, at congresses there are no li-braries of past studies but only bookdisplays of new publications. Thereis not sufficient time for lengthyseminar or workshop discussions. Inrecognition of such limitations, re-cent congresses have been organizedprimarily around a central theme.Several workshops which may meetseveral times for a total of four toeight hours of discussion, are organ-ized around subtopics within atheme. Still such workshops are notbackstopped with resource materialsor sufficient time for serious discus-sion and study. Also many expertsknowledgeable on the subject maynot be in attendance at the congress,much less at the workshops. The pri-mary role of the congress is to in-troduce new ideas to colleagues whowill discuss and criticize them fromthe perspectives of different nationalorigins and backgrounds.
The leading international congressfor sociologists is the InternationalSociological Association organized in1950. No proceedings of the firstcongress were published but pro-ceedings were published for the sub-sequent congresses. The dates,themes, and locations of the con-gresses are as follows:
74
1950 (no theme), Zurich1953 (no theme), Liege1956 Problems of Social
Change in the TwentiethCentury, Amsterdam
1959 Society and SociologicalKnowledge, Milan andStresa
1962 The Sociologists,the Policy Makers, andthe Public, Washington,D.C.
1966 Plenary session themes:Unity and Diversity inSociology; Sociology ofInternational Relations:Cross-National Research,Evian, France.
The next International SociologicalAssociation meeting will be in Bul-garia in 1970.
The themes of these congresses re-flect the major concerns of sociology.To a great degree they are orientedtoward the relevance of sociologicalknowledge to societal needs. Not allof the themes, however, reflect con-cerns of rural sociology. Moreover.the key participants on these pro-grams, with few exceptions, are notrural sociologists. Given the long-standing interest of some sociologistsin human relations as related to ruralphenomena, it is natural for a specialcongress to operate in this subarea.
The only international associationfor rural sociologists is the WorldCongress for Rural Sociology. Thiscongress came into being throughthe work of the Committee for Inter-national Cooperation in Rural Soci-ology and met for the first time in
Dijon, France in August 1964. Thetheme of the congress was The Im-pact of Changes in Agriculture onSociety in Developed and Develop-ing Countries. There were some 300participants from 50 countries. Soci-ologia Ruralis 4, (Numbers 3-4,1964) contains the proceedings ofthis congress.
The Committee for InternationalCooperation consisted of Professor E.W. Hofstee, The Netherlands, chair-man; 0. F. Larson, United States,vice-chairman; H. F. Kaufman,United States, secretary-treasurer; H.Kotter, Federal Republic of Ger-many, associate secretary-treasurer;H. E. Bracey, United Kingdom; andR. A. Poison, United States.
The Second World Congress forRural Sociology met in Enschede,The Netherlands in August, 1968.The theme of this congress was De-velopment and Rural Social Struc-ture. Present were more than 400participants from 56 countries. Thiscongress was organized by: E. W.Hofstee, The Netherlands; HerbertKotter, Federal Republic of Ger-many; Alvin L. Bertrand, UnitedStates; and A. K. Constandse, sec-retary, The Netherlands. The ThirdWorld Congress for Rural Sociology%al meet in 1970 under the chair-manship of Alvin L. Bertrand,United States.
Another international meeting ofmajor importance is the Congress ofthe European Society for Rural Soci-ology which in 1968 met in its eighthannual session. This congress drawswide participation from Europeancountries and relies heavily on fi-nancial support from institutionswithin participating nations so that
75
777
each congress tends to have a distinctflavor of the country in which itmeets.
Another multinational organiza-tion is the F...O.'s Working Partyon Rural Sociological Problems inEurope. This is an outgrowth of theEuropean Conference on Rural Lifein 1956) "
Regional, MultinationalMeetings
The first Working Party on RuralSociological Problems in Europe metin Paris, August 1964, with 15 mem-ber countries represented. The pur-pose of the working party is to co-ordinate rural sociological research inEurope. It also aims at bringingabout a closer working relationshipamong rural sociologists and othersocial and technical scientists work-ing on problems of rural life.
The third session of the workingparty met in Wageningen, TheNetherlands, August 12-15, 1968.20The subjects considered at this ses-sion were: (1) different forms ofpart-time farming, research project;(2) social implications of the mech-anization of agriculture, researchproject; (3) social implications ofindustrialization in rural areas; (4)social aspects of group action in ag-riculture, research project; (5) socialsituation of farm women in the Fed-eral Republic of Germany, researchproject; (6) international training inrural sociology, a special report ofthe TaylorReederMangalam proj-ect; (7) economic and social de-velopment of rural populations inthe Mediterranean mountainregions; (8) social implications of
rural area development and plan-ning; and (9) bibliography of ruralmigration for selected developingcountries.
In Latin America the Congress°Nacional de Sociologia originated inMexico and so is national in originbut multinational in participationand interests. The congress wasorganized in 1950 and has met an-nually since then. In recent meet-ings of the congress there have beenparticipants from most of Latin.America and North America, andsome from Europe. This congresshas directly and indirectly devotedconsiderable attention to questionsof great interest to rural sociology,specifically in the congress devotedto agrarian reform. Also an impres-sive number of sociologists interestedin the study of rural life have par-ticipated in these congresses.
The Rural Sociological Society,organized in 1937, is often identifiedas American, meaning the UnitedStates of America. The title, how-ever, correctly does not include theword American. By design andpolicy the Rural Sociological So-ciety welcomes membership andparticipation by sociologists fromall nations. Its founders were, in-deed, a small group of Americarprofessors concerned originally withrural social problems in the UnitedStates. Intellectually the society al-ways has been inclusive in its orien-tation. The Directory: Rural Socio-logical Society, 1967, recorded amembership ,-)f nearly 900, includingalmost 200 from outside of theUnited States of America. The in-ternational membership has con-tinued to increase. At the Society's
76
1968 meeting financial arrange-ments were approved which wouldmake inzmbership of those outsidethe United States easier in termsof subscription rates.
Sociologists from more than 30different countries hold member-ship in the Rural Sociological So-ciety. Countries with five or moremembers are: Australia, Brazil,Canada, Colombia, Holland, India,Italy, Kenya, Korea, Mexico. Ni-geria, Peru, and the Philippines.Canada and Mexico have 49 and 10members respectively. Geographicalproximity encourages direct partici-pation in these countries. Accord-ingly major committees in theRural Sociological Society includemembers from Canada, Mexico.Puerto Rico, and Costa Rica. Parti-cipation in these committees by inter-nationals is greatly handicapped by alack of formal support for travel tocommittee meetings. Membership onthese committees is thus limited tothose whose offices and positions canprovide for travel to meetings.
An examination of recent annualprograms of the Rural SociologicalSociety reveals a considerable inter-national interest. Since 1960 titles ofpapers presented include: Relation-ship of Education and Communica-tion to Social and Economic Con-ditions on Small Farms in Two Mu-nicipios of Southern Brazil, byLloyd R. Bostian and Fernando C.Oliveira, Universidade do RioGrande do Sul: Some Character-istics of Persons Seeking Training ina Low-Income Rural Area of East-ern Canada, by Desmond M. Con-nor, St. Francis Xavier University,Nova Scotia, Canada; Interrelation-
78
ships Between Changes in 7'enureand Changes in Farmers' Person-alities in a Developing Society, byOrlando Pals-Borda, Universidadde Colombia; Dimensions of Lead-ership Structure among the"Precarios- of San Lorenzo, Peru,by Glenn C. McCann, North Caro-lina State University; Corn nunityDevelopment as a Tool for SocietalDevelopment, by A. Eugene Havens,University of Wisconsin; Is Therea Crisis of Rising Expectations? AStudy of Members of a MexicanEjido, by Quentin Jenkins, Marcie'Walker, and Alvin L. Bertrand;Adaptation of Rural Colombian Mi-grant Families to the Urban Societyof Bogota, by William L. Flinn, Uni-versity of Wisconsin; Folk Medicine,Natural Cures, and Peasantry inRussia, Walter C. McKain, Univer-sity of Connecticut; Design and Ap-plication of Rural Sociological Re-search in Developing Countries: Ja-maica, Northern Nigeria, andGhana, by Helen Abell; The IndiaCommunity Development Program,by Charles P. Loomis; Adaptation ofNew Farm Practices in Mexico, byAbdo Magdub M., Instituto Na-cional de Investigaciones Agricolas,Mexico; Community DevelopmentPrograms in Latin America, by T.Lynn Smith; A Cross-Cultural Levelof Living Scale, by John C. Belcher,University of Georgia; CommunityDifferentiation and Its Relation toCommunity Readiness for Change:Selections from Philippine Villages,by Isao Fujimoto; A ComparativeStudy of Adoption. Models: Indiaand the United States, by GurcharnS. Basran, University of Saskatche-wan; Social and Economic Trends
77
79
in Latin American Modernization,by Olen Leonard, United States De-partment of Agriculture: Modern-ization of Brazilian Agriculture: AStudy of Su;).,:;stence Farmers andSalaried Farm Workers, by JamesConverse and Helcio Ulhoa Sar-riava, University of Wisconsin; andCaste Structure and Agricultural De-velopment: A Case Study of TwoVillages in Uttar Pradesh, India, bySatadal l)asgupta, Mississippi StateUniversity. International programparticipants arc often nationals fromfar away places present in theUnited. States at the time of themeetings, but also they are fre-quently American students and pro-fessors who have been abroad forresearch and teaching.
In sum, concerning internationalmeetings, the point is reiterated tliattheir function is introductory. Theyare limited to broad considerationof issues rather than an examinationof critical issues in depth. Evengiven this limitation, only Europe,North America, and Central Ameri-ca appear to have anything ap-proaching adequate internationalmeeting mechanisms. The organiza-tions mentioned above serve vitalfunctions; yet although they en-courage worldwide participation, be-cause of insufficient support fortravel, they are in point of factlargely limited to serving sociolo-gists in the geographical area of themeeting.
A major need in rural sociologyis the provision of institutional sup-port for more scholars to participatein the World Congress of Rural So-ciology and in the several interna-tional congresses. Related also is
the immediate need for multina- Near East, the Far East, and Southtional congresses in Africa, the America.
Worldwide Publication-Dissemination Mechanisms
Neither sociology nor rural soci-ology has printing presses or founda-tion support specifically dedicated toa worldwide service. Furthermorethere is no effective worldwideclearing house or abstracting servicefor sociology and even less so forrural sociology. Finally, and evenmore critical, there are no effectiveworldwide dissemination mechan-isms for those various types of pub-lications which do exist.
Appropriate publication and dis-semination support is, according tothe respondents in this study, aclear need for the building of asound and relevant body of soci-ological knowledge.
Journals Emphasizing RuralSociological Subjects
Only two journals, Rural Soci-ology and Sociologia Ruralis, areprimarily designed to publish ruralsociology articles. The former,founded in 1936, was first publishedby Louisiana State University andover the years has rotated amongseveral land-grant universities in theUnited States that support ruralsociological research. Its EditorialReview Board includes no one whoresides outside the United States.Manuscripts are accepted fromscholars the world over, but mostauthors of published articles arefrom the United States. Articlesdealing with research from all areasof the world are published, but most
concern the United States. Thelanguage of the journal is English,which is true also of abstracts ofthe articles. In conception RuralSociology may be international, butin its organization and content it ispredominantly unicultural or NorthAmerican. Every editor has been anAmerican professor.
Sociologia Ruralis is the officialjournal for the European Society forRural Sociology. It was first pub-lished in 1960. Supporting editorsfor this journal are from England,France, and Germany. The lan-guages of the journal are English,French, and German. Articles arepublished in only one language, butsummaries are published in all threelanguages. The articles deal with allparts of the world, but they arewritten mainly by Europeanscholars reporting European data.
Only North America and Europecan really be said to have journalsthat focus on rural sociology sub-jects.
There are other national or other-wise highly localized journals deal-ing in part with rural sociology sub-jects. Many of their articles, how-ever, are not by rural sociologists,and many of the subjects may be inthe area of economics or anthro-pology but with rural sociologicalrelevance. The following selectedlist of journals and articles illustratesthis type of publication:
R e v i s t a Interamericana deCiencias Sociales (published by the
78
80
Pan American Union) since the1960's has printed rural-sociology-related articles such as: El Sociologoan el Desarrollo Agricola, by A. R.Mosher; La Reforma Agraria enAmerica Latina Ciertas Character-isticas Gunwales, Sociales y Eco-nomicos, by Daniel Alleger; andReceptividad a los Ideas NuevasE.vodo Rural en una Zona dePequenas Fincas Agricolas de R.oGrande del Sur, by Frederick C.Hiegel and Fernando C. Oliveira.
Latin American Research Re-view which originated in the mid-1960's has published articles of inter-est to rural sociologists, such asLand Reform Studies, by RichardP. Schaedel.
Guatemala Indigena printed inSpanish in Guatemala publishesarticles of interest to rural sociolo-gists. Examples are: AspectosDemograficos de la Po blacionIndigena de Guatemala, by JorgeArias B.; La Comnzunidad en laAmerica Latina, by Richard N.Adams: and El Analfabetismo enGuatemala, by Victor Manuel Val-verde. These articles are more an-thropological or general sociologicalthan rural sociological, however.
Current Sociology, published inEngland with UNESCO support,has brought out specific materialsconcerning rural sociology, as, forexample, the volume entitled RuralSociology South-East Asia: TrendReports and Bibliographies (19591.This issue was devoted specificallyto Malaya, the Philippines, and In-donesia.
The Philippine Sociological Re-view has published numerous articlesof an anthro-sociological type of in-
79
81
terest to sonic rural sociologists. Forexample, Animism in. the Rice Ritualof Leyte and Sanar, by R. Arens;Economic Functions of the Child inthe Rural Philippines, E. Nurge; andRural Development and the Philip-pine Community School, I. 'Pupas.The Silliman Journal (Philippines)also gives some focus on rural soci-ology, as illustrated by: Leadershipin a Rural Community, A. P. Pal:and The Influence of Isolation onthe Acceptance of TechnologicalChanges in the Dunzaguete CitvTrade Area, by R. A. Poison and A.P. Pal.
In Czechoslovakia Sociologie aHistorie Zemedelstvi is publishedtwice a year and contains articlesand studies concerning research insociology and the history of agricul-ture. In Poland the Annals of RuralSociology (translated title) has beenpublished since 1963; it reports re-search findings and discusses re-search methodologies. The IrishJournal of Agricultural Economicsand Rural Sociology was first pub-lished in 1967 by An Foras Tahintais(The Agricultural Institute) in Dub-lin and is published twice a year.Since 1963, Sociologija Sela(journal of Rural Sociology) hasbeen published quarterly in Yugo-slavia. It emphasizes changes in thecountryside, industrial developmentin rural areas, and studies of ruralpopulation trends. Of long standingin France is Revue Etudes Ruraleswhich focuses on history, geography,sociology, and economics as relatedto rural areas. The World Agricul-tural Economics and Rural Soci-ology Abstracts (WAERSA) wasstarted in 1964. Publication of this
abstract is supported by the Com-monwealth Agricultural Bureau,University of Oxford.
A major multinational publicationof relevance here is America Latina:The Regional Social SciencesJournal in Latin America. This im-portant journal has been publishedin Spanish, Portuguese, and Englishregularly since 1958. It is printedquarterly in Rio de Janeiro, Brazilby the Latin American Center forResearch in the Social Sciences, un-der the auspices of UNESCO.Articles of rural sociology subjectmatter are included, but they areunderstandably a distinct minority.The journal's mission is broadlysocial science.
The Latin American Center forResearch in the Social Sciences alsopublishes a bimonthly bibliographicalbulletin, Bibliografia. This is an im-portant publication, but its coverageis far from complete. Bibliografiahas special entries for "Sociologia"and "Sociologia Rural y Urbana"and as with America Latina its focusis not rural sociology but social sci-ence in general.
The International Social ScienceJournal, a quarterly published bythe United Nations Educational, Sci-entific, and Cultural Organizationsince 1958, includes articles of inter-est to students of rural sociology.Again, however, the rural sociologysubjects comprise a minority sincethe journal's responsibilities are farbroader in scope. A journal R u r alAfricana has been published atMichigan State University since 1967and contains numerous articles ofinterest to rural sociologists, but thesubject of the journal again is social
science in general. Other journalsthat occasionally publish articles ofrural sociological interest are: Carib-bean Studies (Puerto Rico),Journal of International Affairs(United States) , Revista deCiencias Sociales (Puerto Rico),Revista Latinoamericana de Socio-logia (Argentina), Social and Eco-nomic Studies (Jamaica, WestIndies), Sociologia (Brazil), Esta-distica (Washington, D.C.), Inter-national Journal of ComparativeSociology, and South Asia SocialScience Abstract (UNESCO) .
Books, Monographs,and Other Publications
Internationally there is no pat-tern of support for rural sociologybooks or monographs. Twice theRural Sociological Society attemptedto establish a monograph series. Onemonograph was publish e dCharles J. Galpin's My Drift IntoRural Sociology (La. State Univ.Press, Baton Rouge, Rur. Sociol.Mono. 1, 1938), but the series nevermaterialized beyond this. In 1966the Rural Sociological Society pub-lication committee met in Chicagoand formulated plans for a mono-graph series, but nothing has yetheen published.
Rural sociology monographs andbooks are published by widely di-verse publishers. Practically everymajor commercial press in theUnited States has brought out oneor more books on rural sociology.University presses have publishedmaterial on this subject; examplesarc: Alvin L. Bertrand (editor),Rural Land Tenure in the United
80
82
States (La. State Univ. Press,Baton Rouge, 1962) ; George Bealet al., Social Action and Interactionin Planning (Iowa State Univ.Press, Ames. 1966), and James H.Copp (editor), Our Changing RuralSociety (Iowa State Univ. Press,published under the auspices of theRural Sociology Society, 1964). InVenezuela the Universidad delZulia published T. Lynn Smith'sSociologia. Rural. Local regionalpresses publish monographs such asEncida Avila's Looking into Panama(Impresora Panama, 1963). InKorea, Seoul National Universitypublishes monographs as, for ex-ample, l3yung Hyon Chong's AnAnalysis of the Family Structure ofFarm Households and the Agricul-tural Labor in the Korean PaddyField Area (i 967). In Recife,Brazil, the Ministerio da Educacao eCultura published As MigracoesPara 0 Recife, CaracterizaciioSocial, by Levy Cruz (1961). TheAgricultural Development Council,with the College of Agriculture,Seoul National University, pub-lished the Proceedings of Sociologi-cal Research Methods Workshop(1967). Other publications in thefield include: Pedro F. HernandezOrnelas, Politicas Demograficas y
F a c t ores Socioculturales, (PanAnicrican Union, memo, Wash.,D.C., 1966) ; Antonio M. Arce,Sociologia y Desarrollo Rural (Inst.Interamer. Cien. Agr. OEA, Tur-rialba, 1961) ; Manuel DieguesJunior, Establecimientos Rurales enAmerica Latina (Univ. BuenosAires, 1967) published in Brazil inPortuguese in 1963; Daniel Vidart,La Vida Rural Uruguaya (Minis.Ganaderia y Agr., Dept. Sociol.Rur., Montevideo, Pub. 1, 1955) ;T. Lynn Smith, Brazil: People andInstitutions, rev. ed., (La. StateUniv. Press, Baton Rouge, 1954).
The most stable publication sup-port for rural sociological researchin the United States has been thebulletins of state agricultural experi-ment stations. Although these arenot well circulated, for many yearsthey have been indexed in the Agri-cultural Index and are now includedin the Bibliography of Agriculture.Until 1966, a Bulletin Review sec-tion was included in Rural Soci-ology. Despite these efforts, the pres-tige of agricultural experiment sta-tion publications remains low amongsociologists because they are gearedtoo highly to the needs of agricul-tural production and too little tosocial science needs.
International Rural Sociology Libraries
The major rural sociology librarycollections are in the United States.The principal ones are those at Cor-nell University, Louisiana StateUniversity, Michigan State Univer-sity, University of Missouri, Uni-versity of Minnesota, Pennsylvania
81
83
State University, Washington StateUniversity, and University of Wis-consin.
In Europe, there are notablerural sociology library collections atthe Agricultural University in theNetherlands and at the Agricultural
University in Norway. In 1,atinAmerica, the libraries with sub-stantial holdings in rural sociologyarc at the Inter-American Institutefor Agricultural Sciences in Tur-rialba, Costa Rica, and in Rio dcJaneiro at the Latin American Cen-ter for Research in the Social Sci-ences. In Asia, there arc rural soci-ology library collections at the Uni-vcrsit/ of the Philippines College ofAgriculture, Seoul National Uni-versity, and the Indian AgriculturalResearch Institute, Delhi.
Altogether, international librariesin rural sociology are conspicuous by
(
their absence. Most of those that doexist arc insufficiently funded, in-adequately housed, and understaffed.
The foregoing discussion pointsout what opportunities rural soci-ologists from different countrieshave for exchanging ideas in inter-national settings and what facilitiespresently exist on which a cross-cul-turally valid social science disciplinecan be built. Obviously both op-portunities and facilities are limited,although the need for them has beenfelt for many years by scholars inmany countries. Thus, this chapterprovides the historical setting for therecommendations that follow.
82
Chapter 6. Recommendations
Tlw following pages contain aseries of recommendations, set forthin a "broad brush" style to stimulatestudy and discussion. The specificdetails of implementation can bevariously worked out after therecommendations arc individually re-fined. Indeed, it would be incon-sistent and unrealistic to expect fulldiscussion of recommendations iffull details of their implementationare set forth now. In most caseseach recominendation can standalone or two or more can be com-bined into a larger program. Manyare intended to be catalytic. Theproposal for international graduatecenters is more in the nature of aprototype.
Most of these recommendationsare designed to accelerate the de-velopment of rural sociology inplaces where it is currently insuf-ficiently developed. They are pro-posed on an experimental basis fora specific number of years, afterwhich period they can be absorbedinto national universities or agenciesas rural sociology strength reachesa viable operating level in these lo-cations.
These recommendationsare aimed at improving graduatetraining and internationalizingrural sociology. Of course, we viewthe American rural sociologists anduniversities as part of the "inter-national community" of rural soci-ology. But much of the emphasis isplaced on developing, in the shortrun, rural sociology outside of theUnited States. Yet it is expectedthat the American universities will
g5
become stronger and more effectiveas centers of both research andtraining through this internationaliz-ing process. Moreover, internationalsare expected to be welcomed andencouraged to come to the UnitedStates.
Intercultural Transferabilityof Data and Training
To overcome the problem of lowintercultural transferability of ruralsociological data and training, wemake the following four recommen-dations:
1. That International Rural So-ciology Graduate Centers be estab-lished in each major cultural areain the world where they do not al-ready exist. As the world's prospectsand problems move toward the 21stcentury, the social sciences in gen-eral and rural sociology in par-ticular should have vast new rolesto play. To meet this responsibilityat a minimum level, InternationalRural Sociology Centers for re-search, training, and publicationare needed in each of the major cul-tural areas. For optimum center de-velopment, instruction at each cen-ter should include the followingsubjects: (1) Methods and Sta-tistics, (2) Social Change and De-velopment, (3) Social Organization,(4) Social Institutions and SocialTheory. The centers should operatein several languages; for example,in English, French, Spanish, andArabic.
Each center should have separatephysical space designated for its ex-
83
elusive use for a specified period oftime; for example, a decade. Eachcenter should be equipped with in-dividual studies, seminar rooms, lec-ture rooms, laboratories, computers,special libraries, and secretarial staffas appropriate for its efficient oper-ation. Illustrative patterns for thesedetails of center organization can beseen in the Inter-American Institutefor Agricultural Research in Tur-rialba, Costa Rica, and the Centerfor Advanced Study in the Be-havioral Sciences at Palo Alto, Cali-fornia. Each center should have apermanent director and assistant di-rector. The faculty should be visit-ing international professors on ap-pointments of varying length.
In addition to accredited cur-riculum for graduate study in soci-ology, centers would organize, whenappropriate, special workshops andsymposiums for advanced trainingand study. A model for these specialstudy workshops is already being ex-perimented with by the AgriculturalDevelopment Council. For examplein Korea a four week "SociologicalResearch Methods Workshop" 23(1967) was organized under thejoint auspices of the Korean Soci-ological Association and the KoreanAgricultural Economics Association.The students were from many localagencies and universities. The work-shop covered: research design andsampling; measurement; scalesand indexes; questionnaire and in-terview construction; organizingand processing data; report writing;and so forth. Actual field work ex-perience was made a part of theworkshop. Lectures in English weretranslated into the local language.
2. That workshops be convenedto allow small groups of interna-tional sociologists (includingAmerican rural sociologists) towrite commissioned text _booksand/or other instructional ma-terials suitable for all cultures. Inaddition to research and training asmajor center purposes, book-writingworkshops need immediate centersupport. This emphasis should resultin considerable resources being setapart for writing basic internationalmonographs by small groups of in-ternational authors. This would im-mediately facilitate the disseminationof the best rural sociology researchfindings from across the world.Such books/monographs should bepublished in several languages.
Publications should be aimed par-ticularly at serving introductory orundergraduate students as well asother social scientists. Initially, lessemphasis needs to be placed ongraduate study materials. The grad-uate students should spend moretime examining original sources.They will, therefore, be served bestby the development of center li-braries where important but rarematerials will be easily accessible.
Translations of center books andmonographs into local, national lan-guages should not be given a highpriority as a center function. Theprimary focus of the centers shouldbe continual support for develop-ment of an internationalized bodyof knowledge. Most responsibility fordeveloping national materials shouldbe placed on the national univer-sities or national agencies.
3. That provisions be made atthe Graduate Centers for training
84
86
the trainers of change agents butthat training centers be establishedin each nation for the training ofchange agents.
4. That funding for an initialperiod of ten years (two five-yearterms) be sought from founda-tions. Rural sociology graduate cen-ters will offer returns in intellectualachievement to their supportinguniversities, agencies, foundations,and countries, as well as to indi-vidual scholars and students. Manycomponents of the center operationcan be "borrowed" from existinguniversity support for rural sociologyat no additional cost. More excel-lence, however, in the personnel,material, and center organizationwill be achieved by greater dollarsupport. Funding for the first dec-ade, based on two five-year experi-mental terms, should be soughtthrough foundation support for thenew and enriched elements of theCenter program.
New components which will needfoundation support are: (1) libraryacquisitions, personnel, and space;(2) funds for experiments in co-operative international research;(3) funds for new and special in-ternational courses and seminars;(4) funds for increased travel forresearch; (5) funds for center ad-ministration; and (6) funds forpublication in multiple languages.
Professional Communicationand International Flow of Data
1. That world congresses forrural sociology be held with great-er frequency. Locations for meet-ings should continue to be rotatedamong the major world cultural
areas as currently practised. Majorfinancial support should be madeavailable to provide travel costs tothese congresses for rural sociologistsall over the world in general on acompetitive basis but with the pro-viso that the special needs of thosefrom developing societies be takeninto account.
2. That regional and/or multi-national rural sociology confer-ences be established for geo-graphical areas of the world wherethey do not now exist. These con-ferences should meet annually.Special subject areas or sections ofthese conferences might be sup-ported to meet more frequently, asneeded. Travel support for theseregional conferences should bemade available on the same basisas for World Congresses.
3. That j o u r n a is emphasiz-ing rural sociology subjects bestarted for every major world cul-tural area where such do not existat present. These major journalsshould be abstracted in multiple lan-guages. Systematic distribution ofthese major journals should bemade to the International RuralSociology Centers and to the majornational universities and agencieswhere rural sociology work is sup-ported.
4. That selected internationaland national libraries be identifiedas rural sociology depositories. Atthese libraries copies of all ruralsociology publications should be lo-cated. Support for these officiallydesignated depository rural sociologylibraries should be jointly providedby agencies and universities on aconsortium basis.
85
87
Recruitment Policies andProcedures for AmericanUniversities
1. That recruitment be differ-entiated for persons seeking basicPh.D. work in rural sociology andfor persons seeking applied train-ing with or without Ph.D. In thefirst case (basic Ph.D. study) stu-dents should be rigorously selectedon the basis of demonstrated highintellectual ability and comprehen-sive undergraduate training. In thesecond case (applied training) pri-mary selection should be made onthe basis of the person's having aguarantee of an applied positionupon return to his/her home coun-try or an appropriate non-Americanarea.
2. That recruitment for appliedstudy be supported for shortperiods (six months to one year)of study which would not be de-gree-oriented. This recruitment forspecial applied courses of studyshould only be supported when thetraining is not available in the homecountry. Also, if possible this train-ing should be supported in homecountries where such exists.
Training in ResearchMethodology and TheoryConstruction in theUnited States
1. That more balanced emphasison the major reseach methods beplaced during training, to improveprofessional communication andunderstanding across various tra-ditions and social science disci-plines.
86
88
Social Theory Emphasis DuringTraining in the United States
1. That rigorous training intheory development be as much apart of graduate training for ruralsociologists as research methodol-ogy.
2. That researchers be en-couraged to state their researchconclusions two or three degreeshigher in level of generality to gen-erate theoretical propositions andworking hypotheses for future test-ing.
Special Programs ToInternationalize Rural Sociologyand Rural Sociologists
1. That persons training to beinternational rural sociologists begiven a minimum of two years ofgraduate training at the proposedinternational graduate centers out-side their own cultural area and ata minimum of two such centers.
2. That attempts be made to ob-tain consensus on a small list ofbasic concepts and professionals ineach nation be encouraged to de-velop indices appropriate for themeasurement of those conceptswithin their own society to facili-tate cross-national and cross-cul-tural comparisons. Internationalcommittees working on particularclusters of concepts could increasethe productivity of this endeavor.
3. That the development of mid-dle range propositions of generaltheoretical importance and cross-cultural transferability, and theirtesting in different cultures begiven high priority to further the
development of an internationalsociology.
We hope that after this reportand its recommendations have beenstudied and discussed by rural soci-ologists, specific proposals through
8987
the Rural Sociological Society togovernment agencies, foundations,and universities will be formulatedto obtain funds for the implementa-tion of the experimental phases ofthese recommendations.
Appendix Notes
1. Plumb, J. H. The grand tour. Horizon 2:73-79. Nov. 1959. Opendoors. Inst. Intnatl. Educ., N.Y. 1967.
2. Sanders, Irwin T. Professional education for world responsibility.Educ. and World Affairs, N.Y. 1968.
Michie, Allan A. Higher education and world affairs. Educ. andWorld Affairs. 1968.
Michie, A. A. (ed.) The university looks abroad. Walker and Co..N.Y. 1965.
3. Brunner, Edmund de S. The growth of a science: A half century ofrural sociology in the United States. Harper and Bros., N.Y.1957.
Nelson, Lowry. Rural sociology: Its origin and growth in the UnitedStates. Univ. Minn. Press, Minneapolis. 1969.
4. Ruttan, V. M., and Wcisblat, A. M. Some issues in the training ofAsian agricultural economics graduate students in the UnitedStates. J. Farm Econ. 47:1024-1026. Nov. 1965.
Perkins, Dexter, and Snell, John L. The education of historians inthe United States. McGraw-Hill Co., N.Y. 1962.
Berg, Sherwood 0. University training in agricultural economics forforeign students. J. Farm Econ. 41:1373-1383. Dec. 1959.
Parsons, Kenneth H. U.S. training for foreign students in agricul-tural economics. J. Farm Econ. 39:235-244. May 1957.
Wharton, Clifton R., Jr. The U.S. graduate training of Asian agri-cultural economists. Counc. on Econ. and Cult. Affairs, Inc. 1959.
Stevenson, A. Russell. Graduate study in the United States. Agr.Devel. Counc., N.Y. 1968.
5. Sibley, Elbridge. The education of sociologists in the United States.Russell Sage Found., N.Y. 1963.
Berelson, Bernard. Graduate education in the United States. Mc-Graw-Hill Co., N.Y. 1960.
Ginzberg, Eli, and Herma, John L. Talent and performance. Co-lumbia Univ. Press, N.Y. 1964.
Taylor, Lee. Occupational sociology. Oxford Press, N.Y. 1968.
7. For example:Beals, Ralph L., and Humphrey, Norman D. No frontier to learn-
ing: The Mexican student in the United States. Univ. Minn. Press,Minneapolis. 1957.
Lambert, Richard D.American campus.
Sewell, William, andAmerican campus.
and Bressler, Marvin. Indian students on anUniv. Minn. Press, Minneapolis. 1956.
Davidson, Olaf. Scandinavian students on anUniv. Minn. Press, Minneapolis. 1962.
Blickenstaff, Stephen. Application of American training in India:Evaluation seminar, 1960. Indian steel training and educationalprogram in the United States. Carnegie Inst. Tech., Pittsburgh.
Bennett, John W., Passion, Herbert, and McKnight, Robert K. Insearch of identity. Univ. Minn. Press, Minneapolis. 1958.
Heath, Douglas H. Individual anxiety thresholds and their effects onintellectual performance. J. Abnorm. Psych. 52:403-408. 1956.
8. Wolf, Elinor K. Anatomy of the problem: Who shall come. Amer.Acad. Po lit. and Soc. Sci. Annals, p. 153-165. May 1961.
Herman, Simon, and Schild, Er ling. Contexts for study of cross-cul-tural education. J. Soc.. Psych. 52:230-239. 1960.
Metraux, Guy S. Exchange of persons: The evaluation of cross-cultural education. Soc. Sci. Res. Counc., N.Y. 1952.
Smith, M. Brewster (ed.) Attitudes and adjustment in cross-culturalcontact: Recent studies of foreign students. J. Soc. Issues 12(1).1956. (Entire issue devoted to this topic.)
9. Gardner, John W. The foreign student in America. For. Affairs30:637-650. 1952. The goals of student exchange. Com. onEduc. Interchange Policy, N.Y. 1955.
Fox, Melvin J. Foreign students in American colleges. Ford Found.1962.
10. For example:
Cleveland, Harlan, et al. The overseas Americans. McGraw-HillCo., N.Y. 1960.
Gullahorn, John T., and Gullahorn, Jeanne E.France. Univ. Kansas, Lawrence. 1956.
Guthrie, George M., and Spencer, Richard E.and overseas technical assistance. Unpub.Univ. Park. 1965.
American students in
American professionsms. Penn. State Univ.,
11. See Sociologia Ruralis 7 (3-4 ) :455 -475. 1968.
12. See Report of the First Session of the Panel of Experts on Rural Soci-ology. Food and Agr. Org. UN, Rome. 1967.
13. See Rural Sociology 34:97-100. March 1969.
89
91
*AI
14. Slocum, Walter. Occupational careers. Aldine Pub. Co., Chicago.Taylor, Lee. Occupational sociology. Oxford Press, N.Y. 1968.
15. Lapp, Ralph E. Wh,ere the brains are. Fortune 73(3) :154-5. 1966.
16. Brunner, Edmur d de S. (See Appendix Note 3.)
17. Arce, Antonio. A study of the human and institutional resources insocial science and communications research in selected countries inLatin America. Programa Interamer. Inform. Pop., San Jose,Costa Rica. 1961.
This is an important study of social science research interests in masscommunications, with special emphasis on sociology in: Argentina, Bo-livia, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, and Ecuador. Dr.Arce concludes that there is strong interest but insufficient support. Hevisited each country and interviewed its leading social scientists. Hethen classified the institutions for social science research as: (a) "paperinstitutions," (b) "one-man institutions," (c) "sub-institutions" (i.e.as part of a larger faculty), (d) "institutions of a complete and definedstructure." pp. 42-43.
18. Goode, William J. Community within a community: The profes-sionals. Amer. Soc. Rev. 22:194-200. Apr. 1957.
19. See Sociologia Ruralis 5(3) forward. 1965.
20. See Report of the Third Session of the Working Party on Rural Socio-logical Problems in Europe. Food and Agr. Org. UN, Rome.1968.
90
92 8/70 4M CP