Experimento 7 Evolución en superficie

performed at different locations by other members of the family. For instance, a respondent could report that his son went ploughing at 6 a.m. and returned at 2 a.m. but he could not estimate how much of the time was actually spent on ploughing. Respondents tended to report in greater detail about their own activities but less completely about those of the other members of the family, and it was not possible to contact all members of each household to obtain this information. We also found that the respondents tended to understate the- contributions of the children, especially in domestic activities like fetching water, washing clothes, etc. Another limitation of this method was that certain activities, though productive and useful, were not reported if the respondents did not feel them important enough to be reported: there was emphasis only on the major activities performed during the day. A similar tendency of respondents to be selective in what they choose to report was observed by Peet (1974:38a) in Nepal. We found that some of the respondents tended to overestimate the time spent on productive activities, maintaining that they had very little or no leisure time.

Use of the recall-sequential method proved to be more advantageous in that respondents could report the activities performed in sequence without much difficulty. Respondents' estimations of time use were reliable and they did not feel any difficulty in making estimates. On the basis of our observations, we prepared an activity check-list in order to minimize respondents' reporting errors. We found that a combination of the recall-activity specific and the recall-sequential methods, though more time consuming, helped a great deal in obtaining reliable estimates of time use.

It should be noted that, more often than not, surveys are used to obtain results in a very short time and from a large sample during which it is not possible to study attitudes and behaviour. As has been pointed by Reinharz (1979:74) Tin the case of the questionnaire, the actual behaviour is the mode of responding rather than the response's content'. Martin Trow writes:

The amount of information people can tell us, quite simply and reliably, about their past experience is very great; and it is only in the light of that information, that we can frequently understand their behaviours in the 'here and now'... (1957:34)

This point is highly debatable as it takes at least several weeks for both the investigator and the respondents to develop a degree of mutual trust that is vitally necessary for obtaining detailed information. In conducting a quick survey, it would be erroneous for social scientists to assume that respondents are completely honest and their attitudes are 'stable and accessible'. It would also be unfair to expect the respondents to understand every question and to willingly divulge their most private thoughts (Reinharz, 1979:74). Surveys have one inherent limitation and as Caldwell points out:

It is unlikely that the knowledge or attitude data - even the ideal family size information - will stand up to rigorous examination in each individual society, precisely because it will be shown that there was a blurring of concepts or that the assumptions built into the questions were inappropriate at that time for many members of the society (1982:2).

An example taken in the context of another segment of our investigation is the variation in responses to the use of family planning. In the process of enumerating the households, we enquired about family planning acceptance and all those who had accepted

Page 28 sterilization readily came forward with the information while others flatly denied that they had used any method, which we suspected was often far from the truth. A month later when interviewed in depth, the very same respondents who had earlier denied using any method at all, gradually admitted that they had resorted to induced abortions, talking freely about why they preferred induced abortions, who the abortionist was, how much they had to pay, from where they obtained the money and how they felt before and after the abortions. In south Indian villages, the activity patterns of individuals are determined by the kinship system, the role of neighbours and the community. As has been pointed out, the marginal farmers depend mostly on their own children and their relatives and neighbours to farm their lands. It was only through participant observation and in-depth interviewing that it was possible to understand the meaning and usefulness of activities in the context in which they were performed.

2.3 Direct Observation

The greatest advantage of using direct observation as a method of data collection lies in -the fact that respondents’ reporting errors are avoided, and, in a study of the control of activity, errors in the estimation of time use are also avoided. Data can be accurately recorded and reliability enhanced (Hull, 1981:55).

In the conduct of a demographic investigation there are instances when the respondents resent being subjected to a lengthy interview. It is not that they do not want to answer questions but they would like to terminate the interview so that they can attend to more pressing and urgent activities, especially if they stand to earn

money. Direct observation enables the investigator to leave the respondents alone to do whatever they wish or have to do. The respondents feel free and not tied down. However, it can be argued that the very presence of the investigator may prevent the respondents from doing certain things which they normally would have done. In other words, how normal, representative and important are activities when they are being observed ? In a sense, direct observation is 'obtrusive1 and the respondents may regard it as an intrusion into their privacy and freedom. We found this to be partly true in certain households and in certain situations. The head of one household was not prepared to have male investigators near his house all the time because he felt that his unmarried daughters needed protection. In another instance, the members of a Harijan household did not mind their activities being observed and extended all co-operation, but requested that their activities related to the preparation and sale of illicit liquor be ignored and not recorded. Their only worry was about the consequence of the record falling into the hands of the police. However, their fears were allayed when we assured them that our records were confidential and the contents would not be revealed to anyone they might worry about. In yet another case, a Harijan woman would not cook snails as she thought it indecent to do so in our presence. We explained to her that the very purpose of our investigation would be lost, and, with an understanding grin she

started cooking snails.

In short, there are people who do not want their activities to be observed and there are others who try to be more civil and dignified in the presence of an investigator, especially when they speak to the other members of the household. But this we found to be true only for

Page 30 a limited number of households, and even then, only for the first few hours of observation. As time went by we became a part of the environment and the respondents hardly took any notice of us. What became important was that there was no evidence of any feeling of resentment or discomfort. Initially, most respondents felt amused, but once they understood the nature of the investigation, to the best of our knowledge, they went about doing what they normally would have done.

The direct observation of a household for a period of five days or a week helps in establishing rapport with the respondents. This enlarges the scope of the investigation and greatly enhances the reliability of the data collected in subsequent interviews, which are focused on specific issues. At the end of the five day period of observation, instead of being glad that it was all over, many of the respondents felt genuinely sorry that we would no longer be there the next day. Our subsequent visits to the households were cheerfully welcomed and the respondents freely answered questions about all matters which interested us. In addition, the respondents did us a valuable service in the sense that they spoke well of us to their neighbours, friends and other villagers. In fact, often when we were observing a household, some of the neighbours walked over to ask us if we were going to observe their households too. They were not satisfied with a negative answer and we had to explain why we could observe activities only in a selected sample of households.

Direct observation also provides a better understanding of the functioning of the household as a social organization. We were able to observe and record how different members in a family reacted to

each other, what roles they played in the day-to-day management of the household, the basis of work allocation, how responsibilities were shared by the family members, how important decisions were arrived at and who made them. In an interview, respondents may tend to understate, for instance, their own levels of consumption while emphasizing how much the other members of the family consume. Through direct observation we were able to obtain a clear picture of the consumption pattern.

If there are advantages in using direct observation as a method for collecting data, there are some disadvantages as well. The number of households that can be observed is limited by the time and resources at the disposal of the investigator. In the case of a time budget study, direct observation is undoubtedly more labour intensive than other methods of data collection. It is not possible for an investigator to observe and record simultaneously the activities of more than three persons. The investigators should be not only trained and alert but also acceptable to the respondents. As three of the investigators were from the same village, they could identify themselves with the respondents and this made all our tasks easier. However, in a community highly stratified according to caste, it was sometimes difficult for an investigator of a lower caste to observe activities in a higher caste household. In the affluent households, where most of the female activities take place inside the house, only

female investigators can do the job; but it may be hard to find female investigators who are prepared to live and work in a village over an extended time.

Page 32

Another disadvantage of this method is that it is not possible to prevent some respondents from disappearing out of sight, and it is not always possible to follow them everywhere. To this extent, the observation is not complete and has necessarily to be supplemented with retrospective questioning. It must also be noted that the observation technique is limited and not sufficient in itself; certain types of demographic data, such as fertility and pregnancy histories and other basic statistics, can only be collected through an interview.

2.4 Participant Observation

Participant observation has been interpreted as a method of data collection wherein the investigator deliberately participates in the activities of the study population to observe and understand the phenomena he/she is interested in (Kluckohn, 1940:331-43). But in south Indian villages, there is hardly a role into which a social demographer can fit and most of the time the only option available to the investigator 'is to be what he really is - a friendly and curious outsider' (Srinivas, 1979:4). In a village setting where the investigator is only a temporary resident, total conformity with the population is not only unnecessary but also impossible (Whyte, 1951:497).

Participant observation has also been defined as a process in which the observer lives with the respondents in their natural life setting to gather data. In the initial stages of an anthropological study it is common for the respondents to feel apprehensive about a stranger living in their midst who wishes not only to observe them but

to ask. all sorts of questions about their private lives as well. The village leaders who provided assistance in making our work in the village possible thought that they were in a position to provide answers to all our questions as well, and a few of them were surprised at our intention to visit every household. But gradually they learned that while we needed their co-operation, we would know the village and study what we intended to only by visiting all the households - an experience reported by many others (Wiser and Wiser, 1971:27). At the beginning of my field work we had to answer many questions about our background, our intentions, the questions we were going to ask and why we wished to ask them. What were we going to do with the responses and how would the whole exercise benefit the respondents ? We were, after all, strangers from a distant city whom no one in the village knew. In other words, the villagers were the investigators and we were the respondents. However, as we settled down in earnest to do our job, the early apprehensions vanished and the villagers came to accept us as a part of their everyday life. Even the more educated among the villagers used to confess that they could not understand the full rationale behind our study and they were worried if their responses would land them in trouble. But, once they were convinced that any lack of response would only harm our interests, they opened up and in a matter of time they were not merely respondents but good friends. Our presence in the village was taken for granted. Researchers often become so involved that they 'go native'. After a month's stay in the village we found ourselves in a situation where our opinion was sought on a variety of matters. We were called upon to settle quarrels between brothers-in-law, while parents used to request us to tell their children to attend school regularly. During

Page 34

times of crisis we were approached for financial assistance which we provided because we could understand the plight of those respondents who asked us for help assistance. All the money we lent was promptly repaid and even the people who did not seek such assistance felt glad that we were of some help to their needy neighbours and friends. People used to voluntarily provide information about events in their own households, in their neighbours’ households and in the village. They knew that we would cross-check such information but they did not mind .

The greatest single advantage of living in the village was that we could freely move about and observe whatever we wished to. This helped us understand better the nature of activity control. Using our observations as a yardstick, we were able to check and verify the completeness of the data we had gathered using other methods. We could see why people belonging to certain caste groups had to perform certain activities and why others did not perform them. We could understand the role of male children in households where there were no female children and vice versa. We could understand how activities were divided among the different members of the household. Often we observed that children substituted for parents in performing certain activities as they were aware that their parents were either ill or otherwise engaged. The children were as concerned as the parents about the welfare of their families and performed activities of their own accord usually without any motivation or order from their parents. In short, our observations enabled us to understand activities, both economic and social, at the village level and at the individual level. The picture that emerged from the retrospective survey and direct observation became clearer when we linked it with our own

observations. One evening, one of the respondents was found walking into the village with a cow. The retrospective survey told us that he had spent a good part of the day in travelling to a nearby village to purchase the cow and our observation told us that he had purchased the cow so that his young grandchild would have sufficient milk.

A very important aspect of village life which we could study only through observation relates to group dynamics and factions. At the village level We could observe that each caste group formed a faction but the more important feature was that the dominant caste group in the village was itself divided, a phenomenon reported earlier in rural India (Lewis,1958:114; Srinivas,1976:221-32). There were two factions always warring other over a number of issues. Members of both the groups were related to each other through birth or marriage and therein lay the main problem. The groups were fighting with each other for supremacy as land ownership passed from one group to the other because of inheritance and marriage. Another sore point was an extramarital affair which resulted in an alleged suicide. We realized that we were treading on delicate ground, and in the interests of our research we should not give the impression of being sympathetic to either faction. Fortunately, the members of the two groups understood the purpose of our stay in the village and kept us above their factional politics. Members of both factions were equally friendly and co-operative and they presented their own side of the stories, allowing us to arrive at our own conclusions. It was interesting to observe how the leading caste group in the village behaved, but more interesting was the effect this factional fighting had on the rest of the community. Both these factions had their own supporters in the other caste groups; there were neutrals who carefully steered clear

Page 36

of any trouble by staying away from both factions, as well as fence sitters pretending to be good to both factions while on the lookout for the winning side. But, by and large, all the caste groups were affected by the factional disputes in the leading caste. The worst affected were the landless labourers of the scheduled castes. We could observe that some of the Harijans had to work only for a landlord belonging to one faction as they had been doing so for