E C O N O M I C A N D P O L I T I C A L W E E K L Y May 10, 1969

see their role as that of an airplane pilot who does not have to "know the location of every house and foot­path".9 They cannot afford to get lost in the "underbrush of facts" and in the "savage disputes about whether the underbrush is a pine forest or a tropical jungle' ' .10

Those who deal with detailed case studies also apologia for "exclusive preoccupation with historical parti­cularism" (p 9), as it is "inimical to the growth and refinement of theory, particularly theory arising from com­parative studies and knowledge" (p 9). They justify their attempt by assert­ing that their contribution lies in "pro­viding insights and instances for new and more valid general theory" (p 9), and in reminding the theorists that not only are they far from arriving but that they arc going astray.

These counter-claims and mutual apologies are a result of the realities of social life, which contains both uni­formities and peculiarities, contrasts and admixtures. This is the dilemma of social theory and social scientists today arc on the horns of it.

While the cross-national compari­sons help to assimilate generalities, the single nation study done in com­parative perspective and with possibi­lities for systematic comparison can help make variations and deviations more meaningful.

NOTES

1 Some researches have used trichoto-mous framework and continuum approach, but I do not see how a more elaborate construction can avoid contrasts, at least at a logi­cal level. This is not to say that trichotomous framework or conti­nuum approach is not different. It is and perhaps nearer to empirical reality.

2 A good example is Reinhard Ben-d ix : "Nation-Building and Citizen­ship1', New York , 1964. He rejects the dichotomy between tradition and modernity and emphasises admix­ture (pp 6-8) and yet while deal­ing with the case of India he talks of enormous contrasts between tra­dition and modernity (232-33, 233 n and 241 n).

3 A term used by Harry Eckstein: 'A Perspective on Comparative Politics, Past and Present', in Eckstein and Apter (eds): "Com­

parative Politics", London, 1963, P 4.

4 Lucian W Pye; "The Non-Western Political Process", Journal of Politics, August 1968.

5 "Same Social Requisites of Demo­cracy", APSR, March 1959.

6 "Social Mobilisation and Political Development'', APSR, September 1961.

7 For an excellent example of such a comparative, approach see Ro­bert Dhal (ed): "Political Opposi­tions in Western Democracies", Yale, 1966.

8 For a detailed discussion of this argument sec Neil J Smelser: "Notes on the Methodology of Comparative Analysis of Economic Activi ty", Social Science Informa­tion. Vol V I , No 2-3, April-June 1967.

9 An analogy used by Barrington Moore, Jr; "Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy"', Bos­ton, 1967, p xiv.

10 Ibid, p xiv. Many examples can be cited, but see in particular Reinhard Bendix: op at pp 4-5 and 31-32; Lucian W Pye. "Politics, Personality and Nation-Building", New Haven, 1964, pp xii i-xiv and xvi i .

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Data Collection Techniques The Case of Sociology and Social Anthropology

T K O o m m e n

The substantive concerns of a particular discipline including the nature of the society that it investi­gated are important determinants of the techniques which it employs for data collection.

Traditionally social anthropologists concerned themselves with relatively simple societies and sociolo­gists usually studied complex societies. These differences determined the nature of techniques for data collection. But now social anthropology is becoming increasingly concerned with folk and urban societies.

With this marked shift, there is no accompanying shift in the techniques employed for data collec­tion. Participant observation is not merely unrewarding in the study of complex societies; it is also partial because it is confined to some segments only, which have their own biases.

While social anthropology is exploratory, sociology is explanatory. The former describes generally without hypothesis, the latter uses systematic procedures to arrive at generalisations.

[The author wishes to thank T N Madan and D N Dhanagare for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.]

B A S I C A L L Y there are only three tech­niques of data collection: 1) Eliciting verbal responses from respondents by asking questions either through a mai lul questionnaire or, through an interview schedule or. interviewing in­formants, in an informal way, wi th or without the aid of an interview guide. 2) Observing behaviour, either as a

p r l i c i print observer or as a non-parti­cipant onlooker. 3) Analysing docu­ments, which may be public (eg, a cen­sus report) or private (e g, a personal letter).

It is necessary at this point to bear in mind the distinction between the techniques of data collection and the methods of arrangement and analysis

of data for, one frequently comes across this confusion. For instance, w h i b discussing the techniques of data collection, scaling techniques are occa­sionally mentioned. Scaling technique is a method of arranging data, collected through verbal responses. Similarly, content analysis is not a technique of data collection; it is but an analysis of

809

May 10, 1969 ECONOMIC A N D P O L I T I C A L W E E K L Y

810

E C O N O M I C A N D P O L I T I C A L W E E K L Y May 10, 1969

the raw data available in a document, T A T tests of various kinds are devices to elicit either verbal responses from the respondent or mechanisms which lead to the production of a document, if the respondent is asked to record his feelings. Biograms are also to be re­garded as documents, since the respon­dent is asked to write about his opinion or feelings about a given theme or incident.

It is commonplace to recall here that the relevance of a particular tech­nique of data collection is dependent upon the type of the data sought to be collected. Yet, for a variety of reasons, not always rational, each discipline has employed one or another of these tech­niques. Thus economists usually collect their data through verbal res­ponses using questionnaires and inter­view schedules or public documents. The psychologists, by and large, collect their data by asking questions or ob­serving human behaviour under con­trolled laboratory conditions. The social anthropologists have invariably prefer­red participant observation or un­structured interviews of selected infor­mants. Sociologists arc probably more eclectic in this context and employ almost any of the techniques depending upon the nature of the study at hand.

The advantage or disadvantage of a particular technique of data collection cannot be understood unless it is ex­amined against the purpose of the study for which it is employed. Yet, one fre­quently comes across arguments for or against a given technique; the demon­stration of the superiority of one tech­nique and/or the debunking of another technique. To my mind, such exercises stem from an abysmal ignorance of the fundamental relationship between the nature of the data collected and the purpose for which it is collected. In this article, I propose to demonstrate that the substantive concerns of a par­ticular discipline, including the nature of the society that it investigates, are important determinants of the tech­niques it employs for data collection. Since my familiarity, though inade­quate, is largely confined to sociology and social anthropology, I w i l l develop my discussion wi th special reference to these cognate disciplines.

SEPARATE DISCIPLINES

To start wi th , one may ask, arc socio­logy and social anthropology separate disciplines at all? We frequently come across suggestions to "combine" de­partments of sociology and social anth­

ropology and to "integrate" these dis­ciplines.5 It is implied in such sugges­tions that these disciplines differ, at least in some respects. However, there arc a few sociologists and social anth­ropologists who consider that these dis­ciplines are basically the same. In fact, I know of only three writers who have made bold and categorical statements in this connection. Eisenstadt while eva­luating the contribution of social an­thropologists to the study of complex societies, writes: " I t should be empha­sised from the beginning that in my view there is no theoretical distinction between sociology and social anthro­pology,"2 Fallding, while discussing the subject matter of sociology, opines: ". . . cultural and social anthropology comprise nothing more nor less than the sociology of simpler peoples. So I think one is entitled to claim all of it for sociology."1 Srinivas, talking about the problems in the study of one's own society laments: " . . . the traditional but irrational distinction between socio­logy and social anthropology is so disas­trous. A true science of society must include the study of all societies in space as well as time—primitive, modern, and historical."4

We should not make the mistake of dismissing a viewpoint as insignificant because it is upheld only by a small number of persons, especially since the large majority of sociologists and social anthropologists are trained only in their respective disciplines. The large majo­rity of social anthropologists emphasise the distinctiveness of their discipline, I w i l l refer only to a few here. Levi-Strauss5 considers social anthropology as a discipline devoted to the study of simple (primitive) societies and John Beattie6 regards it as a discipline main­ly discussing 'other cultures'. Not only is the distinctiveness of social anthro­pology emphasised but its superiority over sociology is insisted upon. Thus Dumount asserts: " . . . sociological un­derstanding is more advanced by the social anthropologist looking upon a foreign society than by the sociologist looking at his own" 7 and Barnes is convinced of the superiority of the slow and indirect field techniques specific to social anthropology. He writes, while reviewing Frankenberg's "Village on the Border''; "The ethnographer, wi th his traditional distrust of direct questions and questionnaires, and his desire to do more than test a bald hypothesis or establish a correlation, is particularly well qualified to observe these lengthy and devious sequences of social action

and to analyse them in sociological terms".8 It is therefore, obvious that to the large majority of social anthropo­logists, not only is their discipline dis-tinctivcly different from sociology, but is also 'superior' to i t . It is against this background that the discussion which follows is to be viewed.

NO SHIFT IN TECHNIQUES

Traditionally social anthropologists concerned themselves with relatively simple societies (primitive or tribal societies) and sociologists usually studied complex societies and this was one of the distinctions employed to de­note the differences between these dis­ciplines. The differences in the nature of societies investigated was an im­portant determinant of the techniques employed for data collection. Thus, social anthropologists collected their data mainly through participant obser­vation and informal interviews of a handful of informants. On the con­trary, sociologists employed mailed questionnaires and interview schedules along with observation (not necessarily and always participant) and combed documents of various sorts to collect data.

For a variety of reasons, which are not our concern for the moment, social anthropologists extended their interests to folk and urban societies.9 Thus we have today urban anthropology, anthro­pology of industrialisation, etc. While minor concessions are occasionally shown in regard to the techniques of data collection, by and large, the majority of social anthropologists cling to observation, particularly participant observation to collect their data. That is to say, while there is a marked shift in the substantive interest of social anthropology, from simple to complex societies, there is no concomitant shift in the techniques employed for data collection. This seems to be an anomal­ous position.

The assumption in the above state­ment is this: the nature of the social system from which we collect data is an important determinant of the tech­niques of data collection. In a simple society, which is relatively more inte­grated and homogeneous, the interde­pendence of the structural components wi l l be more intimate. Unless we look at the system as a whole, wo are like­ly to miss the meaning of several aspects of behaviour which we need to know. Second, these systems10 have greater internal autonomy for. they arc

811

May 10, 1969 ECONOMIC A N D P O L I T I C A L W E E K L Y

812

E C O N O M I C A N D P O L I T I C A L W E E K L Y May 10, 1969

small-scale societies. The dependence of a simple society on the outside world is relatively less and this too facilitates a clearer understanding of the society as a whole through observation. Third, usually simple societies are small-sized societies where it is physically pos­sible for an investigator to observe most of the situations over a period of time. Fourth, the events and activities in a simple society are relatively less as compared w i t h complex societies. For instance, the absence of a mul t i ­pl ic i ty of secondary groups or the near absence of voluntary organisations or the absence of an elaborate system of political recruitment through periodic elections, a l l confine the activities of men to a few situations. A l l these fac­tors favoured the employment of parti­cipant observation as a technique of data collection. In fact, participant ob­servation which is eminently suited to study a simple society may be disad­vantageous if employed to study a complex society.

PARTICIPANTI OBSERVATION UNREWARDING

Let me elaborate (his. In a large-scale society w i th considerable struc­tural differentiation, it w i l l not be pos­sible for a researcher to observe even most of the situations not to speak of al l situations, for a variety of reasons. I w i l l list a few here. I) If he "parti­cipates and observes one of the seg­ments of the population he may be-come unacceptable to other segments. Therefore, in order to be a participant observer in one of the segments he should alienate himself from one or more of other segments. This is parti­cularly true of a rigidly stratified society like Indian society,11 2) In a highly differentiated society, there arc a variety of situations and all these can­not be faithfully observed, within the time usually available and /or expended by the researcher for his field work. This is true also of specific communi­ties in a complex society. Thus it is far easier to study a village through obser­vation as compared with a city. 3) Since the autonomy of complex societies is very l imited, it is virtually impossible to draw their boundaries, except in geographical and/or political terms. At any rate, the complex societies, wi th frayed edges and loose textures are contantly exposed to alien influences and this makes them less amenable to tidy observation.

The above reasons make it clear

that it is virtually impossible to under­take participant observation of complex societies as a whole. A l l that one can do is to observe a particular subsys­tem and/or confine the observations to specific situations. This means, the holistic orientation of social anthropo­logy to the study of societies w i l l necessarily change. We can, however, retain the holistic orientation while studying "total institutions" in a com­plex society,12 The point I want to make is this: if social anthropologists opted for participant observation, as the technique of data collection, while studying simple societies, there are sound reasons for that. But to employ the same technique while analysing a situation which is far more complex and hence different, w i l l not be very rewarding, to say the least.

INNOCENCE AND KNOWLEDGE

There is yet another reason why participant observation became the favourite: technique of data collection for social anthropologists. Conven­tionally, they have studied 'other' cul­tures and every time the attempt was to study a new culture or society. This means that the observet was innocent of all aspects of the system he studied. Therefore, it was necessary to study the system in toto and there was a strong case for pursuing the holistic approach. This called for ravenous col­lection of data, to observe and record whatever one comes across, without always knowing the full meaning of these events and occurrences and their interrelationships while they were ob­served or studied. On the contrary, if one studies one's own society,13 one starts with some understanding of the system under observation. Insofar as one knows the values and ideolo­gies underlying actions in a society, ob­servation need only be undertaken to locate the gap between the ideal and the actual,14 that is to understand be­haviour in specific contexts. There is no need or virtue in observing all men in all situations, under such cir­cumstances. Available documents can be analysed or questions can be asked in order to ascertain what proportion of population subscribes to the prevalent value system or ideology.

One serious limitation of participant observation as a technique of data col­lection stems from the context of par­ticipation itself. The investigator can "participate" in community life only through certain formal roles. For in­

stance, it may not be possible for him to play the role of a priest (as the community may not accept h im in such a role) but he may enter the community as a shopkeeper. This means that the researcher cannot "participate" in most of the "central roles'' in the system. Even when he participates in certain 'peripheral roles", the acceptance of

the community may not come forth so easily. In all probability, the investiga­tor w i l l remain "an outsider", in rela­tion to most activities and events in the system. In any event, it w i l l be very difficult to decide when the com­munity has actually accepted h im as "one among them". This is to say that the dividing line between non-partici­pant and participant observation is not at all clear. The question to be asked, therefore, is when can we say that a researcher is accepted as an insider, as a participant in the system? I am told by several Indian social anthropologists, when they recalled their field experiences, that they were inducted into the communities they investigated by ascribing a specific "kinship status" or they were recognis­ed as "insiders" by being called upon to act as conciliators in quarrels, etc. These overt manifestations of "accept­ance" arc more apparent than real. At any rate, if I undertake to do partici­pant observation in a particular urban settlement, I do not know how a speci­fic kinship status w i l l be accorded to me. Again, if I undertake an investiga­tion of a hospital, I do not know how wil l I be inducted into the status-sys­tem of the hospital. Of course, one can think in terms of disguised partici­pation and refuse to reveal one's iden tity. This, in turn, creates a number of ethical and moral problems.15'

VERBAL RESPONSES

Though the need to study actual be­haviour and hence the merit of partici­pant observation as a technique of data collection is universally acclaimed by social anthropologists, much of the anthropological data is based not on observation but on verbal responses. The difference between the anthropolo­gist and the sociologist in employing the question as a technique of data col­lection stems from the fact, that, while the former selects a few respondents as key informants and interviews them in an informal way without the aid of an interview schedule, the latter usual­ly interviews a larger number of res­pondents selected in a systematic way

813

May 10, 1969 E C O N O M I C A N D P O L I T I C A L W E E K L Y

through certain statistical procedure and invariably employs a structured schedule. These differences not wi th ­standing, it is safe to say that much of the data is collected by sociologists and social anthropologists by asking ques­tions and eliciting verbal responses. Yet, it is true that social anthropolog­ists usually look at the data collected in a sociological study through question­naires and interview schedules with distrust. This distrust and probably dis­taste, I feel, is a carry-forward of the obsersion of social anthropologists with their earlier universe of study. The level of education being low in t r ibal and peasant societies, the use of mailed questionnaire is ruled out. Even asking structured questions for definite ans­wers regarding complicated issues w i l l not always be a rewarding exercise when the respondent is illiterate. The re­searcher working w i t h simple societies wrll find it more rewarding to frame his questions to suit the intellectual and educational level of the particular res­pondent he interviews and, since inter­viewing is usually confined to a hand­ful of key informants, the processing and arrangement of data do not pose a problem.

INFORMANT BIAS

A special problem emanates from the collection of information by social anthropologists from a small number of informants. Only infrequently, if at alt, social anthropologists make the "status" of their informants known to their readers. There is good reason to believe that most of these informants are either those who occupy exalted positions — priests, kings, chiefs of castes, com­munity leaders and the l ike — in the society,10 or the aberrant, maladjusted and atypical individuals in the com­munity. The very fact that they accept the "status" of informants renders them atypical. The important personalities would consider it as their "duty" and the deviant individuals may regard it as a welcome opportunity to air their dissatisfactions. If the informants arc well-integrated members of the com­munity, their views represent the ideal rather than the actual. On the contrary, if we select the low status or marginal individuals who are less integrated into the system as informants, there is good reason to believe that we w i l l get a dliferent account of the situations and events in the society studied.17

What I am hinting at is that just as there is observer or interviewer bias, there can also be an informant bias.

In order to counter this problem wo need to select a representative sample of informants or respondents from different strata or segments of society and should try to understand their viewpoints. To achieve this we have to employ certain systematic pro­cedures to select the sample of infor­mants. This calls for the use of statis­tical techniques which would, in turn, help in quantification of data. I am not suggesting that quantification is a virtue in itself but if we stand to benefit by quantifying the relevant data we must do so. To recall the pertinent words of Homans, "Let us make the important quantitative, and not the quantitative important".18

One merit of data collected through participant observation and from a small number of key informants is that it is qualitative and depth data. Indeed it offers important insights towards an understanding of the society under in­vestigation. However, since the data are not collected from a representative population, their amenability to gene­ralisation is considerably reduced. While the social anthropologist usually asserts the "uniqueness" of the situation he studies by saying that, "this is not so in my village", even this is an er­roneous generalisation, for, he has known not the viewpoint of the com­munity as whole, or a representative population in the community, but only that of a few individuals who are his informants." Here is a serious case of mistaking the part for the whole.

THE MATTER OF HYPOTHESIS

I have suggested at the very outset of this article that the nature of the data collected is dependent upon the purpose for which it is collected and this, in turn, influences the techniques employed. The main concern of social anthropologists, as pointed out earlier, was to understand other cultures, the way in which people live and behave. Therefore, most of the social anthro­pological studies arc "exploratory" in character. One goes out to discover and report facts. To do this, one need not start wi th a specific hypothesis. In fact, one rarely comes across a social an­thropological study which has started with a hypothesis. This "diffuse orien­tation" and lack of ini t ia l "focus" also permits the collection of qualitative data through participant observation. In con­tradistinction to this, since sociologists study their own societies they are al­ready participants in the culture to a

certain extent and hence participant observation is a contradiction in terms in such a situation. Second, since it is virtually impossible to participate in al l situations in a complex society, socio-logists confine their interest to and focus their attention on one of the aspects of the system. This being so, in order to achieve their object, sociolo­gists should start wi th certain assump­tions and hypotheses, and look for cer-tain correlations and causal links. In so doing, their studies become "expla­natory" in character. Preoccupied with this end, the sociologist is compelled to collect data through sources other than observation also. Insofar as this is undertaken systematically, the data yield themselves to quantification.

SOCIAL PATHOLOGY

The sociological concern for expla­nation also calls for an understanding of the causes of social pathology. In attempting to explain the causes of various social problems, the sociologist cannot depend upon the technique of observation. It w i l l not do if he ob­serves a few selected situations and gathers interesting information. He should also know the magnitude of the problem. Moreover, it is not always possible for him to "participate" in the event or the subsystem concerned. To illustrate, if a sociologist is to study the ''causes" of prostitution, he may not be in a position to collect the data through participant observation. At any rate, in order to locate the various causes of prostitution he should know the details regarding a large number of cases and for this he should undertake a social survey of prostitutes. If our concern is to understand the magnitude of a social problem, we cannot secure the result by knowing how a few of the persons afflicted by the problem live and behave but we should also know how many such persons exist. Second, if the data are to be useful for the social planner or social reformer, it is insufficient to have a description of the pattern of life of the persons concerned. We need specific data in a quantitative form regarding the relevant aspects which wi l l aid the contemplated rehabi­litation. A l l these call for the employ­ment of questionnaires and interview schedules as tools of data collection.

Before I conclude, a few clarificatory remarks are in order. My purpose is not to advocate for or against a parti­cular technique of data collection. Rather the contrary. The burden of ths

814

ECONOMIC A N D P O L I T I C A L WEEKLY May 10, 1969

present article is that all techniques of data collection are important and use­ful . More specifically, the relevance of a particular technique is to be viewed contextually. I believe, there is no merit or defect in a particular technique of data collection. However, if the tech­nique is employed in the wrong context it becomes a l iabili ty instead of an asset. I have argued that the reasons for the emphasis on participant obser­vation as a technique of data collection by social anthropologists is to be locat­ed in the nature of societies that they have investigated, the purpose of their investigation and the type of data they have collected. That is to say, it is not because of the inherent strength of the technique that social anthropologists have adopted participant observation as their method, but because of the sub­stantive content of their studies. Sim -larly, if questionnaire, interview sche­dule and the like are the more popular technique of data collection among sociologists, it is not because sociolo­gists arc always eager to quantify their data and ignore the importance of qua­litative data, but because their subject matter and areas of concern facilitate the employment of these techniques.

NOTES

1 See, for instance, M N Srinivas, S C Dube, I P Desai and N Prasad: "Report of the UGC Review Committee on Sociology", Delhi, 1961.

2 S N Eisenstadt: "Essays on Comparative Institutions", John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1965, p 69.

3 Harold Fallding: "The Sociologi­cal Task", Pr-entice-Hall, New Jersey, 1968, p 71.

4 M N Srinivas: "Social Change in Modern India'', Bombay, Allied Publishers, 1966, p 154.

5 See Claude Levi-Strauss: "The Scope of Anthropology" and "Anthropology: Its Achievements and Future'', in Current Anthro-pology, Apr i l 1966, pp 112-123 and 124-127.

6 Sec John Beattie: "Other Cul­tures", Cohen and West. London. 1964.

7 Louis Dumount in "Contributions to Indian Sociology", 1966, p 23.

8 J A Barnes: "Politics without Par­ties", Man, 59, January 1959, p 15.

9 In my view we can distinguish between three basic types of socie­ties: tribal, folk and urban. For a detailed statement and clarifica­t ion, see T K Oommcn: "The Rural-Urban Continuum Re-ex­amined in the Indian Context", Sociolaftia Ruralis, 7, March 1967, pp 30-48.

10 Howley distinguishes between "in­dependent communities'*. and

"dependent communities" based on their ecological patterns. The tribal societies with their virtually self-sufficient residential aggrega­tion and social integration are in­dependent communities. As com­pared to this the peasant and urban societies are dependent communities. This dependence in turn means that the destiny of the dependent community is not en­tirely endogenously controlled. See Amos Howley: "Human Ecology'*, Ronald Press, New York, 1950, pp 223-232.

11 For a pointed discussion of the problems that a field worker faces in a caste-ridden society, see Andre Beteille: "Caste, Class and Power", Oxford University Press, Bombay, 1966, pp 9-12. While describing the dilemma he faced Beteille writes: "Had I lived with the Brahmins, the non-Brahmins would not have moved freely with me. Had I lived with the Adi-Dra-vidas, the agraliaram would have been inaccessible." He continues: "I have tried in some measure to understand social life from within, in terms of the values and mean­ings attributed to it by the people themselves." We fail to under­stand how this is possible in the light of the first statement quoted above. Discussing the disadvan­tages in living with the Brahmins and studying Sripuram, the Tan-jore village, Beteille notes: "Had I lived with the Adi-Dravidas this study would perhaps have had a different focus A somewhat dif­ferent picture of Sripuram . . . would perhaps be the outcome." And this is the basic weakness of the technique employed.

12 See Erving Goffman: "Asylums", Doubleday Anchor. New York, 1961.

13 For an understanding of the prob­lems involved in and advantages of studying one's own society, see M S Srinivas: op c i t , pp 147-63.

14 To concentrate on this dimension of the problem is a challenging task. As Levy observes: "The dis­tinction between ideal and actual structures is one of the most vital and useful tools of analysis of any society, any time, any where. In one form or another men have been aware of it , since time began for them." Marion J Levy, Jr: "Modernisation and the Structure of Societies", Princeton Univer­sity Press, Princeton, 1966, Vol I, p 26.

15 I w i l l not go into this problem here. Other students of methodo­logy had discussed this issue at length. See especially. Edward Shils: 'Social Inquiry and the Autonomy of the Individual' in Daniel Lerner (ed): "The Human Meaning of the Social Sciences", Meridian Book Co, Cleveland, 1959, pp 114-57, and Kai T Erik-son: "A Comment on Disguised Observation in Sociology", Social

Problems, Vol 14 (4), Spring 1967. pp 366-73.

16 See, for instance, the heavy reli­ance of Fir th on the Tikopia Chief. Raymond F i r th : "Tikopia Ritual and Belief", George Allen and Unwin, London, 1967. In studying the family and kinship among the pandits of Kashmir, Madan heavily relied on five in­formants. His description of the five informants shows that they arc all educated and land owning individuals. Sec T N Madan: "Family and Kinship: A Study of the Pandits of Rural Kashmir", Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1965, pp 243-6.

17 Several social anthropologists re­cognise the possibility of an "ex­ternal point of view" regarding a society. At the same time, they are eager to look at the data from "within ' ' and understand the com-munity-vtetf of the society. For a discussion on this, wi th special re­ference to India, see Louis Dumount: 'Contributions to Indian Sociology', 1966, pp 21-25; T N Madan: Ibid, pp ,9-16 and T N Madan 'Contributions to Indian Sociology', New Series, 1967, pp 90-92. What I am suggesting is that, insofar as the informants are not representative enough we cannot get at the "inside" view of the community, in its manifold ramifications.

18 George C Homans: "The Human Group", Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1951, p 22.

19 At any rate there is no virtus in ceaselessly emphasising the uni­queness of one's universe; this is an activity no better than butter­fly collection as Leach would put it. The point is that the emphasis on the unique circumscribes the possibility of any valid generali­sation which is the aim of scienti­fic endeavour. See Edmound Leach: "Rethinking Anthropo­logy", The Athlone Press, London, 1961, especially pp 1-10.

Bokaro Orders for KCP Madras A CONTRACT for the supply and erection of equipment for the lime and dolomite plant to Bokaro Steel was signed on Apri l 28, 1969 with KCP of Madras, Only 500 tons of the equip­ment are to be imported from the USSR and the balance of 4000 tons wi l l be supplied by KCP Madras. The value of the contract is Rs 3.3 crores. KCP are to supply three rotary kilns, each 3.6 metres in diameter and 75 metres in length. Two of them wi l l be installed for production of lime and one for dolomite, each capable of pro­ducing 300 tons per day. KCP wil l also supply electrostatic precipitators and other allied equipment.

815

May 10, 1969 E C O N O M I C A N D P O L I T I C A L W E E K L Y

816