Roles in Sociological Fiel Observation

7/29/2019 Roles in Sociological Fiel Observation

1/8

Roles in Sociological Field ObservationsAuthor(s): Raymond L. GoldSource: Social Forces, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Mar., 1958), pp. 217-223Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2573808 .

Accessed: 13/09/2013 11:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 161.116.173.157 on Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:18:01 AM
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2573808?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2573808?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/8

ROLES IN SOCIOLOGICALIELD OBSERVATIONS 217base of the county has shifted from agricultureto industry as shown by occupational trends.

SUM-MARYFollowing the location of a major steel plant

in a rural Utah county, thousands of new peoplecame into the area to seek industrial employmentand many more people living in the county mi-grated occupation-wise into industry. Fromprevious studies in the field of labor mobility, aseries of hypotheses wereset up and tested to see ifthis situation showed trends in agreement withother such situations.1. It was found in this study that the majorityof industrial workers came from the local labormarketwithin the county. Following this, workersmigratedinto the county from contiguous countiesin the state. While most of the workerswere fromUtah, somewere from out of state and, contrarytoexpectations, the majority of workersdid not comefrom contiguous states. Evidently recruitingpoli-cies and other factors drew workers to Utah frommore distant states than from adjoining states.2. While it is generally true that it is the youngermen who migrate, and this study indicated thatonly ten percent of immigrant workers were over45, there was no direct inverse correlationbetweenage and distance of migration.In this case insteadof age decreasingas distance increased, there wasa positive correlationbetween age and distance.

3. It was also hypothesized that labor turnoveris a function of migratory tendencies, age, andeducation. It was found as expected that thoseworkerswith previous recordsof termination weremost likely to terminate their employment andmove on. Also as expected the younger workershad a higher termination record than older work-ers. In the case of education, three studies hadfound that the more educated were more likely tobe occupationally mobile. This study found thatthe terminated workers had less education on theaverage than those who continued their employ-ment.

4. As workers migrated into the industrial area,the trend was to seek residenceon accessible roadsto the workplant in communitiesclose to the plantwith adequate community services. This is inagreement with other studies. It was also evidentthat workersin the county formerlyliving in ruralareas moved into closer urban communities asthey obtained employment in the steel plant.

5. Within the rural county itself there was amarkedshift in population composition from ruralto urban and a decided change in occupationaltrends from agriculture to industry. We wouldexpect now the trend of behavior in most activitiesin the county to be more consistent with urbanthan with rurallife.

ROLES N SOCIOLOGICALIELDOBSERVATIONS*RAYMOND L. GOLD

MontanaStateUniversityUFORD JUNKER has suggested four

theoretically possible roles for sociolo-gists conducting field work.' These rangefrom the complete participant at one extreme tothe completeobserverat the other. Between these,but nearer the former, is the participant-as-ob-server;nearer the latter is the observer-as-partici-

pant. As a member of Junker's research team, Ishared in the thinking which led to conceptualiza-tion of these research roles. After the work of theteam was completed, I continued the search forinsight regarding processes of interaction learningin field observation in a special study of my own.2A considerableportion of this study was devotedto exploration of the dimensions of Junker's role-conceptions and their controlling effects on theproduct of field study.

* Read before the nineteenth annual meeting of theSouthern Sociological Society, Atlanta, Georgia,April 13, 1956.1Buford Junker, "Some Suggestions for the Designof Field Work Learning Experiences," in Everett C.Hughes, et al, Cases on Field Work (hectographed byThe University of Chicago, 1952), Part III-A.

2Raymond L. Gold, Toward a Social InteractionMethodology for Sociological Field Observation, un-published Ph. D. dissertation, University of Chicago,1954.

This content downloaded from 161.116.173.157 on Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:18:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/8

218 SOCIALFORCESMy aim in this paper is to present extensions of

Junker's thinking growingout of systematic inter-views with field workers whose experience hadbeen cast in one or more of these patterns of re-searcher-subject relationship. All of these fieldworkershad gathered data in natural or nonexperi-mental settings. I would like in this paper to ana-lyze generic characteristics of Junker's four fieldobserverrolesand to call attention to the demandseach one places on an observer, as a person and asa sociologistplying his trade.

Every field work role is at once a social inter-action device for securinginformationfor scientificpurposes and a set of behaviors in which an ob-server'sself is involved.3While playing a field workrole and attempting to take the role of an inform-ant, the field observer often attempts to masterhitherto strange or only generally understooduni-verses of discourse relating to many attitudes andbehaviors. He continually introspects, raising end-less questions about the informant and the de-veloping field relationship, with a view to playingthe field work role as successfully as possible. Asociologicalassumption here is that the more suc-cessful the field worker is in playing his role, themore successful he must be in taking the inform-ant's role. Success in both role-taking and role-playing requires success in blending the demandsof self-expression and self-integrity with the de-mands of the role.

It is axiomatic that a person who finds a rolenatural and congenial, and who acts convincinglyin it, has in fact foundhow to balancerole-demandswith those of self. If need be he can subordinateself-demands in the interest of the role and role-demands in the interest of self whenever he per-ceives that either self or role is in any way threat-ened. If, while playing the role, someone withwhom he is interacting attacks anything in whichhe has self-involvement, he can point out to him-self that the best way to protect self at the momentis to subordinate (or defer) self-expressionto allowsuccessfulperformancein the role. In other words,he uses role to protect self. Also, when he perceives

that he is performing inadequately in the role hecan indicate to himself that he can do better bychanging tactics. Here he uses self as a source ofnew behaviors to protect role. The case of usingrole to protect self from perceived threat is one ofacute self-consciousness, a matter of diminishingover-sensitivity to self-demands by introspectivelynoting correspondingdemands of role. The case ofusing self to protect role from perceived threat isone of acute role-consciousness,a matter of dimin-ishing over-sensitivity to role-demands by intro-spectively indicating that they are dispropor-tionately larger than those of self. Both casesrepresent situations in which role-demands andself-demands are out of balance with each other asa result of perceived threat, and are then restoredto balance by appropriate introspection.

Yet, no matter how congenial the two sets ofdemands seem to be, a person who plays a role ingreatly varied situations (and this is especiallytrue of a sociologist field observer) sometimes ex-periences threats which markedly impairhis effec-tiveness as an interactor in the situation. Whenattempting to assess informational products offield work, it is instructive to examine the fieldworker'srole-taking and role-playing in situationsof perceived, but unresolved, threat. Because hedefines success in the role partly in terms of doingeverything he can to remain in even threateningsituations to secure desired information, he mayfind that persevering is sometimes more heroicthan fruitful.

The situation may be one in which he finds theinformant an almost intolerable bigot. The fieldworker decides to stick it out by attempting tosubordinate self-demandsto those of role. He suc-ceeds to the extent of refrainingfrom "telling off"the informant, but fails in that he is too self-con-scious to play his role effectively. He may think ofcountless things he would like to say and do tothe informant, all of which are dysfunctional torole-demands, since his role requires taking therole of the other as an informant, not as a bigot.At the extreme of nearly overwhelming self-con-sciousness, the field worker may still protect hisrole by getting out of the situation while the get-ting is good. Once out and in the company of un-derstanding colleagues, he will finally be able to

3 To simplify this presentation, I am assuming thatthe field worker is an experienced observer who has in-corporated the role into his self-conceptions. Throughthis incorporation, he is self-involved in the role andfeels that self is at stake in it. However, being ex-perienced in the role, he can balance role-demands andself-demands in virtually all field situations, that is, allexcept those to be discussed shortly.



4/8

ROLES IN SOCIOLOGICALIELD OBSERVATIONS 219achieve self-expression (i.e., finally air his views ofthe informant) without damaging the field role.4

Shouldthe situation be such that the field workerfinds the informant practically inscrutable (i.e.,a "bad" informant), he may decide to perseveredespite inability to meet role-taking and role-playing demands. In this situation he becomesacutely role-conscious, since he is hypersensitiveto role-demands,hyposensitive to self. This partialbreakdownof his self-process thwarts his drawingon past experiences and current observations toraise meaningful questions and perceive meaning-ful answers. At the extreme, a role-conscious fieldworkermay play his role so mechanically and un-convincingly that the informant, too, developsrole-and-self problems.

The following discussion utilizes these concep-tions of role and self to aid in analyzing field workroles as "master roles" for developing lesser role-relationships with informants.5 While a fieldworker cannot be all things to all men, he routinelytries to fit himself into as many roles as he can,so long as playing them helps him to develop rela-tionships with informants in his master role (i.e.,participant-as-observer,etc.).

COMPLETE PARTICIPANT

The true identity and purpose of the completeparticipant in field research are not known tothose whom he observes. He interacts with themas naturally as possible in whatever areas of theirliving interest him and are accessible to him as

situations in which he can play, or learn to play,requisite day-to-day roles successfully. He may,for example, work in a factory to learn aboutinner-workings of informal groups. After gainingacceptance at least as a novice, he may be per-mitted to share not only in work activities andattitudes but also in the intimate life of the work-ers outside the factory.Role-pretense is a basic theme in these activities.It matters little whether the complete participantin a factory situation has an upper-lower classbackground and perhaps some factory experience,or whether he has an upper-middle class back-ground quite divorced from factory work and thenorms of such workers. What really matters isthat he knows that he is pretending to be a col-league. I mean to suggest by this that the crucialvalue as far as research yield is concerned lies morein the self-orientation of the complete participantthan in his surface role-behaviors as he initiateshis study. The complete participant realizes thathe, and he alone, knows that he is in reality otherthan the personhe pretends to be. He must pretendthat his real self is represented by the role, or roles,he plays in and out of the factory situation in rela-tionships with people who, to him, are but inform-ants, and this implies an interactive constructionthat has deep ramifications. He must bind themask of pretense to himself or stand the risk ofexposureand researchfailure.In effect, the complete participant operates con-tinually under an additional set of situational de-mands. Situational role-and-self demands ordi-narily tend to correspond closely. For this reason,even when a person is in the act of learning to playa role, he is likely to believe that pretending tohave achieved this correspondence (i.e., fourflush-ing) will be unnecessary when he can actually "behimself" in the role. But the complete observersimply cannot "be himself"; to do so would almostinvariably precludesuccessfulpretense. At the veryleast, attempting to "be himself"-that is, toachieve self-realization in pretended roles-wouldarousesuspicionof the kind that would lead othersto remain aloof in interacting with him. He mustbe sensitive to demands of self, of the observerrole, and of the momentarily pretended role. Be-ing sensitive to the set of demands accompanyingrole-pretense is a matter of being sensitive to alarge variety of overt and covert mannerismsandother social cues representing the observer's pre-

4An inexperienced field worker might "explode" onthe spot, feeling that role and self are not congenial inthis or any other situation. But an experienced fieldworker would leave such a situation as gracefully aspossible to protect the role, feeling that role and selfare not congenial in this situation only.

5Lesser role-relationships include all achieved andascribed roles which the field worker plays in the actof developing a field relationship with an informant.For example, he may become the "nice man that oldladies can't resist" as part of his over-all role-reportoirein a community study. Whether he deliberately sets outto achieve such relationships with old ladies or dis-covers that old ladies ascribe him "irresistible" char-acteristics, he is still a participant-as-observer who in-teracts with local old ladies as a "nice man." Were henot there to study the community, he might choose notto engage in this role-relationship, especially if beingirresistible to old ladies is not helpful in whatever masterrole(s) brought him to town. (Cf. any experiencedcommunity researcher.)



5/8

220 SOCIAL FORCEStended self. Instead of being himself in the pre-tended role, all he can be is a "not self," in thesense of perceiving that his actions are meaningfulin a contrived role.

The following illustration of the pretense of acomplete participant comes from an interviewwith a field worker who drove a cab for manymonths to study big-city cab drivers. Here a fieldworker reveals how a pretended role fosters aheightened sense of self-awareness, an introspec-tive attitude, because of the sheer necessity ofindicating continually to himself that certain ex-periences are merely part of playing a pretendedrole. These indicationsserve as self-assurancethatcustomersare not really treating him as they seemto do, since he is actually someone else, namely,a field worker.Well, I've noticedthat the cab driverwho is a cabdriveracts differently han the part-timecab drivers,who don't think of themselvesas real cab drivers.Whensomebodyhrowsa slamat men who driveonlypartof theyear,suchas, "Well,you're usta goddamncabdriver!," heydo one of twothings.Theymay makeit known o theguythat theyare nota cabdriver; heyare somethingelse. But as a rule, that doesn't workout, because he customercomesbackwith, "Well,ifyou'renot a cab driverwhat the hell are you drivingthis cabfor?"So,as a rule, they mostly justrationalizeit to themselves y thinking,"Well, his is not my roleor the realme. He just doesn't understand. ust con-siderthe sourceanddrop t." But a cab driverwho isa cab driver,if you make a crack at him, such as,"You'rejust a goddamncab driver!"he's going totakeyou out of the back seat andwhip you.

Other completeparticipant roles may pose moreor less of a challengeto the field worker than thosementioned above. Playing the role of potentialconvert to study a religioussect almost inevitablyleads the field worker to feel not only that he has"taken" the people who belong to the sect, butthat he has done it in ways which are difficult tojustify. In short,he may suffersevere qualmsabouthis mandate to get informationin a role where hepretends to be a colleague in moral, as well as inother social, respects.All complete participant roles have in commontwo potential problems; continuation in a pre-tended role ultimately leads the observerto reckonwith one or the other. One, he may become so self-conscious about revealing his true self that he ishandicapped when attempting to perform con-vincingly in the pretended role. Or two, he may

"go native," incorporate the role into his self-conceptions and achieve self-expression in the role,but find he has so violated his observer role that itis almost impossible to report his findings. Conse-quently, the field worker needs cooling-offperiodsduring and after complete participation, at whichtimes he can "be himself" and look back on hisfield behavior dispassionately and sociologically.While the complete participant role offers pos-sibilities of learning about aspects of behaviorthatmight otherwise escape a field observer, it placeshim in pretended roles which call for delicate bal-ances between demands of role and self. A com-plete participant must continually remind himselfthat, above all, he is there as an observer: this ishis primary role. If he succumbs to demands ofthe pretended role (or roles), or to demands ofself-expression and self-integrity, he can no longerfunction as an observer. When he can defer self-expression no longer, he steps out of the pretendedrole to find opportunities for congenial interactionwith those who are, in fact, colleagues.

PARTICIPANT-AS-OBSERVERAlthough basically similar to the complete ob-server role, the participant-as-observerrole differssignificantly in that both field worker and inform-

ant are aware that theirs is a field relationship.This mutual awarenesstends to minimize problemsof role-pretending; yet, the role carries with itnumerous opportunities for compartmentalizingmistakes and dilemmas which typically bedevilthe complete participant.

Probably the most frequent use of this role is incommunity studies, where an observer developsrelationships with informants through time, andwhere he is apt to spend more time and energyparticipating than observing.At times he observesformally, as in scheduled interview situations; andat other times he observes informally-when at-tending parties, for example. During early stagesof his stay in the community, informants may besomewhat uneasy about him in both formal andinformal situations, but their uneasiness is likelyto disappear when they learn to trust him andhe them.But just when the research atmosphere seemsripe for gathering information, problems of roleand self are apt to arise. Should field worker andinformantbegin to interact in much the same wayas ordinary friends, they tend to jeopardize theirfield roles in at least two important ways. First,



6/8

ROLESIN SOCIOLOGICALIELD OBSERVATIONS 221the informantmay become too identified with thefield worker to continue functioning as merely aninformant. In this event the informant becomestoo much of an observer. Second, the field workermay over-identifywith the informantand start tolose his research perspective by "going native."Should this occur the field worker may still con-tinue going through the motions of observing, buthe is only pretending.Although the field workerin the participant-as-observerrole strives to bring his relationshipwiththe informant to the point of friendship, to thepoint of intimate form, it behooves him to retainsufficientelements of "the stranger"to avoid actu-ally reaching intimate form. Simmel's distinctionbetween intimate content and intimate form con-tains an implicit warningthat the latter is inimicalto field observation.6When content of interactionis intimate, secrets may be shared without eitherof the interactors feeling compelled to maintainthe relationshipfor more than a short time. Thisis the interaction of sociological strangers. On theother hand, when form of interaction is intimate,continuationof the relationship (which is no longermerely a field relationship)may become more im-portant to one or both of the interactorsthan con-tinuation of the roles throughwhich they initiatedthe relationship.In general, the demands of pretense in this role,as in that of the complete participant, are continu-ing and great; for here the field worker is oftendefined by informantsas more of a colleague thanhe feels capable of being. He tries to pretend thathe is as much of a colleagueas they seem to thinkhe is, while searchingto discoverhow to make thepretense appear natural and convincing. When-ever pretense becomes too challenging, the par-

ticipant-as-observer leaves the field to re-clarifyhis self-conceptions and his role-relationships.OBSERVER-AS-PARTICIPANT

The observer-as-participant role is used in stud-ies involving one-visit interviews. It calls forrelatively more formal observation than either in-formal observation or participation of any kind.It also entails less risk of "going native" thaneither the complete participant role or the par-ticipant-as-observer role. However, because theobserver-as-participant'scontact with an inform-ant is so brief, and perhaps superficial,he is morelikely than the other two to misunderstand theinformant, and to be misunderstoodby him.These misunderstandings contribute to a prob-lem of self-expression that is almost unique to thisrole. To a field worker (as to other human beings),self-expression becomes a problem at any time heperceives he is threatened. Since he meets morevarieties of people for shorterperiods of time thaneither the complete participant or the participant-as-observer, the observer-as-participant inclinesmore to feel threatened. Brief relationships withnumerous informants expose an observer-as-par-ticipant to many inadequately understood uni-verses of discourse that he cannot take time tomaster. These frustratingly brief encounters withinformants also contribute to mistaken percep-tions which set up communication barriers thefield worker may not even be aware of until toolate. Continuing relationships with apparentlythreatening informantsoffer an opportunity to re-define them as more congenial partners in inter-action, but such is not the fortune of a field workerin this role. Consequently, using his prerogativeto break off relationshipswith threatening inform-ants, an observer-as-participant,more easily thanthe other two, can leave the field almost at willto regain the kind of role-and-selfbalance that he,being who he is, must regain.

COMPLETE OBSERVERThe complete observer role entirely removes a

field worker from social interaction with inform-ants. Here a field workerattempts to observe peo-ple in ways which make it unnecessary for them totake him into account, for they do not know heis observing them or that, in some sense, they areserving as his informants. Of the four field workroles, this alone is almost never the dominant one.It is sometimes used as one of the subordinate rolesemployed to implement the dominant ones.

6"In other words, intimacy is not based on thecontent of the relationship.... Inversely, certain ex-ternal situations or moods may move us to make verypersonal statements and confessions, usually reservedfor our closest friends only, to relatively strangepeople. But in such cases we nevertheless feel that this'intimate' content does not yet make the relation anintimate one. For in its basic significance, the wholerelation to these people is based only on its general, un-individual ingredients. That 'intimate' content, al-though we have perhaps never revealed it before andthus limit it entirely to this particular relationship,does nevertheless not become the basis of its form, andthus leaves it outside the sphere of intimacy." K. H.Wolff (ed.), The Sociology of GeorgSimmel (Glencoe,Illinois: The Free Press, 1950), p. 127.



7/8

222 SOCIAL FORCESIt is generally true that with increasingly more

observation than participation, the chances of"going native" become smaller, although the pos-sibility of ethnocentrism becomes greater. Withrespect to achieving rapport in a field relationship,ethnocentrism may be considered a logical oppo-site of "going native." Ethnocentrismoccurs when-ever a field worker cannot or will not interactmeaningfully with an informant. He then seem-ingly or actually rejects the informant's viewswithout ever getting to the point of understandingthem. At the other extreme, a field worker who"goes native" passes the point of field rapport byliterally accepting his informant's views as hisown. Both are cases of pretending to be an ob-server, but for obviously opposite reasons. Be-cause a complete observerremainsentirely outsidethe observed interaction, he faces the greatestdanger of misunderstandingthe observed. For thesame reason, his role carries the least chance of''going native."

The complete observer role is illustrated by sys-tematic eavesdropping, or by reconnaissance ofany kind of social setting as preparation for moreintensive study in another field role. While watch-ing the rest of the world roll by, a complete ob-server may feel comfortablydetached, for he takesno self-risks, participates not one whit. Yet, thereare many times when he wishes he could ask repre-sentatives of the observed world to qualify whatthey have said, or to answer other questions hisobservations of them have brought to mind. Forsome purposes, however, these very questions areimportant starting points for subsequent observa-tions and interactions in appropriate roles. It isnot surprisingthat reconnaissance s almost alwaysa prelude to using the participant-as-observerrolein community study. The field worker, feelingcomfortably detached, can first "case" the townbefore committing himself to casing by the town.

CONCLUSIONSThose of us who teach field work courses or su-

pervise graduate students and others doing fieldobservations have long been concerned with thekinds of interactional problems and processes dis-cussed above. We find such common "mistakes"as that of the beginner who over-identifies withan informant simply because the person treatshim compassionately after others have refused togrant him an interview. This limited, althoughvery real, case of "going native" becomes much

more understandable to the beginner when wehave analyzed it for him sociologically. When hecan begin utilizing theory of role and self to reflecton his own assets and shortcomings in the field,he will be well on the way to dealing meaningfullywith problems of controlling his interactions withinformants.

Beyond this level of control, sophistication infield observation requiresmanipulating informantsto help them play their role effectively. Once afield worker learns that a field relationship inprocess of being structured creates role-and-selfproblems for informants that are remarkably simi-lar to those he has experienced,he is in a positionto offer informants whatever kinds of "reassur-ances" they need to fit into their role. Certainly afield worker has mastered his role only to the ex-tent that he can help informants to master theirs.Learning this fact (and doing something about it!)will eliminate nearly all excuses about "bad" or"inept" informants, since, willy-nilly, an inform-ant is likely to play his role only as fruitfully or asfruitlessly as a field workerplays his.7

Experienced field workers recognize limitationsin their ability to develop relationships in variousroles and situations. They have also discoveredthat they can maximize their take of informationby selecting a field role which permits them toadjust their own role-repertoriesto research ob-jectives. Objectively, a selected role is simply anexpedient device for securing a given level of in-formation. For instance, a complete participantobviously develops relationships and frames ofreference which yield a somewhat different per-spective of the subject matter than that which anyof the other field work roles would yield. Thesesubjective and objective factors come together inthe fact that degreeof success in securing the levelof information which a field role makes availableto a field worker is largely a matter of his skill inplaying and taking roles.

Each of the four field work roles has been shownto offeradvantages and disadvantageswith respect

7In a recent article on interviewing, TheodoreCaplow also recognizes the key role played by thefield worker in structuring the field relationship. Heconcludes, "The quality and quantity of the informa-tion secured probably depend far more upon thecompetence of the interviewer than upon the respond-ent." "The Dynamics of Information Interviewing,"American Journal of Sociology, LXII (September1956), 169. Cf. also the studies by Junker and Gold,op. cit.



8/8

AN ANALYSIS OF THE VALIDITY OF HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRES 223to both demands of role and self and level of in-formation. No attempt has been made in this re-port to show how a sociological conception of fieldwork roles can do more than provide lines ofthought and action for dealing with problems andprocesses of field interaction. Obviously, however,a theory of role and self growing out of study offield interaction is in no sense limited to that area

of human activity. Learning to take and playroles, although dramatized in the field, is essen-tially the same kind of social learning people en-gage in throughout life.In any case, the foregoing discussion has sug-gested that a field worker selects and plays a roleso that he, being who he is, can best study thoseaspects of society in which he is interested.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE VALIDITY OFHEALTH QUESTIONNAIRES*EDWARD A. SUCHMAN AND BERNARD S. PHILLIPS

CornellUniversity Universityof NorthCarolinaGORDON F. STREIB

CornelUniversityOCIALresearchershave long recognizedthe importance of physical health as a de-

LJ terminant of an individual's attitudes andbehavior.'Disease, physical disability, and mentaldisorderoften set restrictive limits upon the indi-vidual's choice of activity and color his generaloutlook on life. Attempts to determine the extentof this influence, however, raise important meth-odological problems concerning the measurementof the health status of an individual. There arerelatively limited opportunities when the socialresearcherhas recourseto actual medical examina-tion of his subjects; much more often he mustrely upon the subject's own reports of his medicalsymptoms or his generalhealth. The development

and testing of reliable and valid health self-ratings,thus becomes an essential step in the progress ofthe social scientist's investigation of the role ofhealth in human behavior.The medical profession has also evidenced in-terest in recent years in the utility of question-naires as aids to medical diagnosis. For example,various screening techniques have been developedto serve as aids in psychiatric diagnosis.2A methodhas been suggested whereby diseases may bematched with their respective sets of symptoms inthe diagnosisof a wide rangeof diseases.3Hence, apreliminary appraisal of an individual's healthbased on questionnaireresponses could be used asan aid to medical diagnosis.A questionnaire whichmay serve this purpose has been developed at theCornellUniversity Medical College.4This paper is a part of a larger research project

conducted by the Department of Sociology andAnthropology, Cornell University. The investigationwas supported by grants from the Lilly Endowment,Inc., and the National Institute of Mental Health,United States Public Health Service (Grant M-1196).The authors are pleased to acknowledge the assistanceof Dr. Wayne E. Thompson who collaborated in settingup the design for the analysis and the procedures forconducting the statistical tabulations.I See, Gordon F. Streib, "Morale of the Retired,"Social Problems, Vol. 3 (1956), pp. 270-276; BernardKutner et al., Five Hundred Over Sixty (New York:Russell Sage Foundation, 1956), p. 128 ff. For anexample of the importance of health as a variable infamily adjustment see Earl L. Koos, Families inTrouble (New York: King's Crown Press, 1946), esp.p. 63.

2 See, for example, H. J. Harris, "The CornellSelectee Index: An Aid in Psychiatric Diagnosis,"Annals of the New YorkAcademy of Science, 46 (1946),pp. 593-605; J. Zubin et al., "Retrospective Evaluationof Psychological Tests as Prognostic Instruments inMental Disorders," Journal of Personality (1953), pp.342-355.

3Robert S. Ledley, Logical Aid to SystematicMedical Diagnosis, unpublished paper presented at theAnnual Meeting, Operations Research Society ofAmerica, May 10-11, 1956.

4Keeve Brodman, Albert J. Erdmann, Jr., IrvingLorge, Harold G. Wolff, and Todd H. Broadbent,"The Cornell Medical Index-Health Questionnaire Asa Diagnostic Instrument," Journal of the AmericanMedical Association, 5 (April, May, June 1951), pp.152-157.

This content downloaded from 161.116.173.157 on Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:18:01 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	teresa-ines-paillacoi-colinir
View:	228 times
Download:	0 times

Roles in Sociological Fiel Observation

Documents