Fl 0 I ‘ /IIII\\ ‘ ,4 ((fl-ni“ » '\ * “W!” «an! m WIVES!“ r v _ 1 2:3.) t 9) ”1:ng ' “N 1 1 20: OCT 2 2 2004 MR 1 o 2009 022809 3112.04 OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETUMDG LIBRARY MTERIALS: Place in book return torelno charge from circulation records DTNENSIONS OF WOMEN'S WORK INVOLVEMENT ON FAMILY FARMS: A CASE STUDY OF TWO MID-MICHIGAN TOWNSHIPS BY Polly A. Fassinger A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology 1980 ABSTRACT DIMENSIONS OF WOMEN'S WORK INVOLVEMENT ON FAMILY FARMS: A CASE STUDY OF TWO MID-MICHIGAN TOWNSEIPS BY Polly A. Fassinger Taking into account the social organization of agriculture in two mid-Michigan townships, the study focuses on variabilities in work patterns of women on hobby, small and larger farms. Housework, farm work and off-farm employment are considered. Information was obtained from 124 women from nuclear family, farm operator households through a mail questionnaire. Stage in family life cycle, use of farm laborers, nature of farming enterprise, and seasonal variations in hours spent farming are considered. Findings suggest that women are most involved with bookkeeping, paying farm bills, gardening, keeping an eye on produce markets, and ordering and obtaining farm supplies. Women on larger farms are more actively engaged in farm work and more frequently are the sole source of off-farm income for their households. Size of farm seems to have little to do with range of household activities. The importance of women's off-farm employment is implied through a number of associations. To three very special women in my life: Glad, Robin and Jude. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is extremely difficult to express the appreciation I have for my advisor, Harry Schwarzweller, who aided me in virtually every step of this undertaking. The expert analytical and editorial advice he shared, the personal encouragement he offered, and the enthusiasm he gave to the study helped make this an enormously supportive learning experience for me. I am also grateful for the wise suggestions of Barrie Thorne and Marilyn Aronoff and their desire to motivate me to examine the sociological relevance of my interests to broader issues in women's lives. Dora Lodwick, Eileen Nutting and Mike Dorow spent many long hours on this project; my work would not be the same had it not been for their help. And, of course, special thanks once again to the kind folks of Brookfield and Venice townships who shared their time and slices of their lives with us. Finally, a note of appreciation goes to Rich, a consoling companion throughout this project; his patience and optimism will always be a source of amazement and inspiration for me. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER I INTRODUCTIONOO0.0000000GOOOOOOCOOOOOCOO00.0.1 The Work Involvement of Farm Women in the 20th Century: A Literature ReVieVOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00...0.0.00.000000000006 Census Records of the Early 20th Century.............7 Time StUdies Of the 19208...00..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIO census Reports Of 1930 and 1940.000...0.0.00.000000013 world war II Land ArmieBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.013 The Postwar EraOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0......0.00.00.0014 Decision-Making in the 19608........................l9 The Seventies: Reexamining Women's Roles............21 Synopsis: Research Approach Weaknesses...................25 Heth°d°logical FlaVSOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0....0.0.0.0....25 Unrepresentativeness...........................25 Unclear measurement procedures.................26 Unexplained variables..........................27 Conceptual Inaccuracies.............................27 Implied homogeneity of farm women..............27 Stringent separation of family and economy.....28 Inarticulate application of the concept Of diViBion Of labor...................29 Unidimensional depictions of women's work......30 Reconceptualizations and New Directions..................30 summary...0.00000000UOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0031 CHAPTER II RESEARCH DESIGN: DATA AND METHODS.........33 setting and Study PopulationOO0.0.0.0.000...0.0.00.00000034 Data Collection Procedures...............................35 subsets Of concernOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOO0.0.0.0000000000000038 Non-Operator Farm Family Households.................39 Farm Operator Households............................42 flabby farmSOc...OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....42 small farmsOOOOO0....IOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.43 Larger farmSOOOOOOOO0.0000000000000000000......44 iv POCi Of AttentionoooOOOOOOOOO..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0......0.45 study variaDIEBOOOOOOOOOO0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC00.46 Farm Task Participation.............................46 Household Task Participation........................49 Off-Farm Employmentoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo00.0050 Stage in Family Life cyc1eOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.000051 Use of Other Farm Laborers..........................52 Nature of Farming Enterprise........................52 summarYOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOI00.00.0053 CHAPTER III DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS...............55 Social Organizational Characteristics 0f Farm Operator HousehOIdBOOOO0....0.0.0.00000000000000056 Farm work Route..00...OO0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.56 Farm and Household Task Performance.................67 Off-Farm EmploymentOOOOOOO0.0.0.0...0.00.00.00.0000075 Review of Situational Differences...................79 Pattern variabilitieSOOOOOOO00.00.000.000.0.0.0.00000000079 flabby FarmBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000000079 small ParmBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0000000000000000.0.0.083 Larger FarmsOOQOOOOO...00......0.0.00.0000000000000085 CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS...........88 Research Problem and Approach...................J........88 Findings and CODClUSionBooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo0.91 Questions for Further Inquiry............................94 General Research IssueBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.96 POlicy IssueSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.000000000000000000097 LimitationBO'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.00000000099 NOTESOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00.0.0.0.000000000103 APPENDIXO0.0....0.0.00000000COOOOOOOOOOCOOOO0.0.0.000000105 BIBLIOGRAPHYOO00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0000...00.0.00107 LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1. Comparisons in Agricultural Struc- ture of Brookfield and Venice Townships 37 TABLE 2. Farm Family Types in Brookfield and Venice Townships 40 TABLE 3. Farm Work Hours Per Week by Husbands and Wives During Busy Season, by Scale of Farming Operation 59 TABLE 4. Percentage Contribution of Wife to Total Farm Work Hours of Husband and Wife, by Scale of Farming Operation and Season of Year 62 TABLE 5. Percentage of Women Doing Some Farm WOrk, by Seasonal Pattern of Activity and Scale of Farming Operation 64 TABLE 6. Farm Work Hours Per Week by Husbands During the Busy Season, by Scale of . Farming Operation 65 TABLE 7. Percentage of Husbands Doing Some Farm Work, by Seasonal Pattern of Activity and Scale of Farming Operation 66 TABLE 8. Number of Selected Farm Tasks Performed by WOmen and Per Household, by Scale of Farming Operation 68 TABLE 9. Number of Selected Household Tasks Per- formed by Women and Per Household, by Scale of Farming Operation 70 TABLE 10. Farm and Household Task Participation Scores of Women, by Scale of Farming Operation 71 vi TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Rank Order of Selected Farm Tasks in Which Women are Most Actively Engaged, by Scale of Farming Operation Selected Farm Tasks Reported as Normally Done on Over 80% of Farms, by Scale of Farming Operation Number of Adult Household Members Ems ployed Off-Farm, by Scale of Farming Operation ‘ ' Off-Farm Employment Pattern of Husband and Wife, by Scale of Farming Operation 0 Associations between Selected Study Variables, by Scale of Farming Operation Selected Characteristics of Farms, by Scale of Farming Operation Selected Characteristics of Nuclear Family, Farm Operator Households, by Scale of Farming Operation vii 72 74 76 78 82 105 106 FIGURE 1. FIGURE 2. LIST OF FIGURES Page Average Total Number of Farm Work Hours Per Week by Household, by Scale of Farming Operation 58 Hours of Farm Work Per Week by WOmen During Busy Season, by Scale of Farming Operation 60 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The seventies saw an increasing concern about the changing structure of American agriculture and a growing politicization of the farming community. Organizations, such as the American Agriculture Movement, which evolved from the struggle of farm families with soaring inflation, high taxes, energy shortages and uncertain markets, became more militant and far more visible on the national scene. Farm people felt that these pressures were forcing them to make cutbacks, take off-farm jobs, sell out, or, worse yet, go bankrupt. The widespread reality of these problems is evidenced by a continually declining United States farm population (United States Census, 1978). Still, while calling for 'parity' and seeking governmental assistance in the amelioration of their problems, most are somehow adjusting to the economic crunch, coping with market uncertainties and continuing to survive as viable family farm enterprises. By increasing their farm acreage, doing custom work, reorganizing their management practices and supplementing farming with industrial jobs, they are dealing with the crippling economic impingements. Students of the changing social organization of agriculture have very little information available from which to formulate a clearer image of the patterns by which modern farm family members organize their lives, exercise their ambitions and, in the process, achieve a measure of personal and familial satisfaction in these times. The concept of a family farm enterprise is utilized in the literature to capture the familiar situation in which household members labor together for the mutual benefit of the farm operation. Like most income producing enterprises, farm operations invariably depend upon the labor of a number of persons to insure their viability. A farming operation, in other words, is not merely the activity of one "farmer" (as we are sometimes led to believe), but rather a result of the concentrated effort of a work group. The labor of women and children is often mentioned as an important contribution to family farms. Still, research concerning labor inputs on American farms and the organization of work has focused mainly on direct farm production activities (such as fieldwork and barn chores) -a segment of the enterprise in which American farm women have historically not been prominent figures. We prefer to regard family farms as multifaceted economic organizations involving not only farm labor inputs, such as fieldwork and barn chores, but also "hidden factors of production,“ such as housework and childcare. As Oakley (1974), Millman and Kanter (1975), and Secombe (1973) have suggested, the productive activities of housework, household maintenance and childcare are often not recognized for their significance in sustaining human life. For example, producing and storing food for home consumption and for hired hands is a maintenance function of enormous significance to the family farm enterprise. Prompt, hearty meals whose preparation requires the attention of one or a few family members facilitate unimpeded farm work routines. The perception of housework and childcare as nonproductive is an illusion about unpaid labor which touches all households. Exclusion of the I'hidden factors“ from an analysis of work on American family farms would provide only partial understanding. A more holistic picture of family farm enterprises necessarily draws attention to women's roles in farming operations. Responsibility for housework has typically fallen upon the shoulders of farm women, thus we assume that if all facets of work on family farms (such as farm work, housework, and childcare) were considered, an investigation of farm women's roles would display a wide spectrum of contributions. Yet, the varied contributions of farm women to family farms are poorly documented. Although popular farm magazines are filled with testimony to the significance of this segment of the American farm family (e.g., Pollard, 1977), public and social scientific acknowledgement is relatively weak (Joyce and Leadley, 1977). The actual and potential contribution by farm women to American agriculture has always been great. As mentioned, farm women have traditionally been responsible for housework and childcare. Yet, these tasks have often differed substantially for farm women from those of their urban counterparts. Farm women, on the whole, have been shown to engage in more home food production and food preservation activities than urban women. In addition to housework and childcare they often provide support for the family enterprise through work on the farm and from paid employment off-the—farm. These activities--housework, childcare, farm work and off-farm employment-~may be combined into various arrangements relevant to economic needs and circumstances. Particularly in light of the many changes in the social position of women that have occurred in the past decade, our curiosity should be heightened as to new or accumulated roles women may now have in modern farming operations. Empirical evidence concerning the effect of these social developments (beyond basic demographic data) is largely unavailable. Thus, many of us still rely upon the picture of farm life deriving from the earlier literature: the traditional homestead with tightly maintained sex-typed roles --a place where women are self-professed helpmates (as noted by Flora and Johnson, 1978). Unfortunately, many depictions, such as the above, rest upon stereotypical versions of farm life rather than upon careful research. The reality of farm people's lives is often viewed from a romanticized perspective. Recent transformations make such typifications particularly suspect. Flora and Johnson (1978) remark: “The stereotypical image of rural women can not be relied upon too heavily, how- ever, for the growing diversity of rural women will eventually shatter it“ (1978:180). New structural opportunities, such as increased rural employment options for women (Sweet, 1972), provide a basis from which new, innovative responses to economic and social needs can and perhaps are being instituted. Our consciousness of past neglect of women in social scientific research (Bernard, 1973: Millman and Kanter, 1975: Joyce and Leadley, 1977) should make us skeptical of conclusions about farm women's contributions to family farms deriving from unsubstantiated sources. Rather than relying upon traditional imageries and normatively reinforced points of view for understanding the life and work patterns of farm women, we need to reexamine our basic assumptions and gather more information. In addition, we must be sensitive to the notion of ”changing roles" and cognizant of when we are uncovering patterns which, although "new" to our knowledge, have been in existence for decades or longer. The topic and questions being raised here are exceedingly complex: What are the forms and scale of involvement of contemporary farm women on family farms? The farm tasks they engage in comprise only one, albeit important, element of participation; the hidden factors of production must also be acknowledged. The following literature review surveys ways in which past researchers have understood farm women's work involvement. Its purpose is twofold: l) to sensitize the reader to flaws and omissions in research on 20th century American farm women, and 2) to provide a basis from which suggestions for more fruitful methods of studying farm women's participation may arise. The Work of Farm Women in the 20th Century: A Literature Review Data on women's farm labor patterns before the early 19003 are scarce and found primarily in documents such as diaries, letters and poetry. A burgeoning of social scientific investigations and increasingly sophisticated censuses have focused attention on the need for greater breadth and quality of knowledge about farm women's lives in the 20th century. Sociologists and demographers have provided glimpses of the contributions being made by women to agriculture: yet, detailed excursions into the everyday lives of farm women remain rare. The following literature review provides an overview of contemporary social scientific studies concerning farm women's work. Evidence about women and farming comes from census reports about female farm workers, the “time studies" of the 19208, literature on the land armies of the 19403, studies of farm family (husband-wife) role relations during the 19508, farm family decision-making surveys from the 19608 and examinations of farm women's labor patterns in the 19708. Because this review is mainly concerned with women on family farms, it is important to recognize that the Department of Agriculture's notion of a family farm has undergone changes in the course of this century. During the early 19008, a family farm was considered to be an operation which ''ought to be able to support a family and fully employ its labor“ (Brewster, 1979). Transformations instituted in the 19408 acknowledged that a moderate amount of outside labor might be employed on a family farm. Beyond the forties, the definition no longer demanded virtual self- sufficiency of the farm family: since the late fifties, the family farm has been recognized as a business 'in which the operator is a risk-taking manager“ (Brewster, 1979) and thus it includes part-time and very poor farms. census Records in the Early 20th Century The census is one of the earlier sources of systematic information about the work of women on family farms. Procedures by which the census recorded the labor of women and other unpaid farm workers have undergone numerous changes in the course of this century. Its representations of women's contribution to family farms vacillates in response to a variety of definitions and enumeration instructions. In the beginning of the 19008, the census made no attempt to record the unpaid work of family farm members. A farm laborer was distinguished from a farmer (the primary operator of a farm enterprise) as a person (over 14) “who works on a farm for a stated wage (in money or its equivalent) even though he may be a son or other relative of the person who conducts the farm" (Hill, 1929:18). According to the 1900 census, women accounted for 15% of all farm laborers. Given the focus on wages in this definition, it may be safe to assume that female migrant workers or seasonal fruit and vegetable pickers predominated in this classification. In the census of 1910, however, the definitions were changed and the category of unpaid farm laborer was introduced. Enumerators were given special instructions to record as farm laborer 'a woman working regularly at outdoor farm work, even though she works on the home farm for her husband, son, or other relative and does not receive money wages“ (Hill, 1929:17). Although ambiguous, this modification provided an initial opportunity to document the input of unpaid family workers. The impact of the new terminology was evident when census returns displayed a sharp increase in women's overall employment rate: a rise which could, in part, be traced to the large percentage of female farm laborers. A 143.8% increase in women agricultural laborers was shown by the 1910 data (Hill, 1929:18). In 1910, women comprised roughly 25% of the farm laborers and 4% of the farmers (United States Census, 1914). Census directors mistrusted the remarkable 1910 information on women and after a study of occupational returns, they assumed an overenumeration of farm workers. WOmen doing only “incidental farm chores" were thought to have been frequently recorded as laborers. Accordingly, the 1920 census initiated a further change, reshaping the substance of the definition of farm laborer. In 1920, the instructions to census takers read: l'li'or a woman who works only occasionally, or only a short time each day at outdoor farm or garden work, or in the dairy, or in caring for livestock or poultry, the return should be 'none:' but for a woman who works regularly and most of the time at such work, the return should be farm- laborer-home farm: farm laborer-working outz....a8 the case may be“ (Hill, 1929: 17). The 1920 version did not specify the matter of wages. By implication of the contrast between 'farm laborer-home farm” and “farm laborer-working out,“ enumerators may have assumed unpaid workers were to have been excluded. However, this particular element of the definition was vague; its impact upon the final tabulations is unclear. The 1920 statistics recorded over a 45% drop in women agricultural laborers since 1910 and a 51.2% decline in female "farm laborers-home farm.‘l According to this census, 31% of "farm laborers-home farm“ and 20% of all farm laborers were women (Truesdell, 1926). This sharp reduction in the count of women agricultural workers may also have been exaggerated by a shift in the timing of the census enumeration, from April in 1910 to January in 1920. Earlier reporting most likely reduced the 10 number of women farm workers due to the more seasonal nature of their farm labor (only occupations for the specified week were reported). Time Studies of the 19208 In 1925, the government instituted the Purnell Act to facilitate the study of rural life. One outcome of this act was what are now referred to as 'time studies” of rural women and their work. Although primarily interested in the organization and use of time in housework, the studies also acknowledged the involvement of women in farm chores. With the exception of Studley's (1931) projectl, female volunteers were requested to record their daily activities on a 24 hour time sheet for a typical week. At the end of this time period, data were collected and tabulated. Investigations through interviews or observation were never attempted. The farm women participating in these time studies could not be said to represent any specific population. Convenience samples of persons suggested by extension agents were predominant. Response rates were usually low. One study (Wasson, 1930) which noted the actual percentage of replies obtained from the survey, revealed a very low return rate of one third, of which only 75% were utilizable. Not surprisingly, the results from these studies were often interpreted by the authors as typifying farm women in a given state or area, even though the possibility of systematic error and distortion was, of course, rather 11 great. For example, the process of recording one's time demanded the attention of each volunteer for a complete week. Those women most extensively engaged in farming, working off-farm, homemaking and/or raising a family may have been less willing or able to utilize their scarce free time for this cause. The time studies were analyzed in an elementary fashion. Farm women in these studies, on the average, were reported to devote approximately 53 hours per week to housework, which was about 83% of their total labor time. The single most demanding activity, providing food (by cooking meals, storing garden food, etc.), averaged as high as 50% of the women's work time in Wasson's (1930) sample. Substantial prOportions of these women baked bread and preserved food in addition to their daily preparation of meals. Studley's (1931) sample supplied almost all of their families' milk, eggs and potatoes from their farms. Most women were burdened by the necessity of tending wood stoves, carrying water to and from the house, wring-laundering clothes and cooking for the entire family and hired hands. All this, of course, was in addition to daily housekeeping and childcare chores. A fascinating piece of information about women's farm tasks emerged from calculations of yearly average time expenditures doing farm workz: 11 hours and 45 minutes per week or 17.5% of the average farm wife's work week. Actually, large seasonal differences were found. Wasson's 12 (1930) "average" South Dakota farm woman engaged in farm labor almost twice as much in the spring and summer than in the fall and winter. Only one mention was made of the ranges of time expended in farm work, which spanned from none for some women to over 35 hours per week for others (Wilson, 1929). Women reported caring for chickens, tending the garden and working in the dairy operation as the chores with which they were most involved. Unfortunately, details about these tasks are absent and thus an inventory of skills can not be gleaned from the data. Only peripheral reference was made to other farm tasks done by women such as fieldwork, livestock, management and fencing. The conditions and motivations which prompted women to participate in the various farm tasks and to devote enormous amounts of time furthering the family farm enterprise were left unexplored: this is a regrettable gap in our knowledge about these women's lives. Though much information is missing from the time studies noted above, they are valuable records of the history of American farm women's involvement in farm tasks and housework. The data provide clues about the time demands of various farming activities and help form a contextual description of working conditions in the early part of the century, particularly for those farm homes without conveniences such as indoor running water, electricity and heat. 13 Census Reports of 1930 and 1940 Following the time studies of the 19208, farm women's work was given little scholarly attention until the 19508. Census information, however, indicates that in 1930, 28% of all unpaid family farm laborers were women. By 1940, the percentage fell to 20% alongside the century's declining rural farm population. Additionally, occupational information about farm residents was available for the first time: 6.7% of farm women were employed off-farm in 1940 (Sweet, 1972:564). World War II Land Armies During the early 19408, a significant development occurred in the farm labor role of women: this change received much coverage in the popular press but went virtually without comment in the social scientific literature of the time. Due to civilian labor shortages and rising industrial wage levels caused by the war mobilization, male farm workers became scarce. The government's response to this problem was to create a "land army," composed mainly of women and teenage children, which could provide farm labor in needed areas. Though at the time several hundred thousand women were already engaged in farm work as female farmers, migrants, and unpaid workers (Colvin, 1942), the aid of an estimated three quarters of a million additional women (primarily rural non-farm and urban) was thought necessary to meet agricultural labor demands (Need for Women in Agriculture, 1944). 14 Women were encouraged to lend their time and energy to this cause. Various appeals suggested they would be involved in tasks such as corn tasseling, hay pitching, wheat and vegetable harvesting, peanut shaking and dairy and poultry work in return for small stipends (Hall, 1943:1945: Colvin, 1942; Need for Women in Agriculture, 1944). Unfortunately, investigations were never conducted on the work women actually performed in the land army; the extent of their involvement and its impact remain somewhat of a puzzle. The Postwar Era In the late 19408, census planners once again decided to modify the definition of unpaid farm laborer. The 1950 census incorporated the clause that "a person must be engaged in at least 15 hours of work during the census week" to be classified as an unpaid family worker (United States Census, 1953). Once again the nature of farm 'work' was not specified and, although one might suspect that the new,.. rigid standard of 15 hours of work might reduce the count of farm women involved in farming operations, census directors believed the 1950 increase of 68% more unpaid women farm workers demonstrated that the new definition could more accurately uncover females' aid. Thus, while the farm population continued to decline in this postwar era, a sharp rise was reported in the proportion of unpaid women farm workers from approximately 20% in 1940 to 35% in 1950. This also was a time when interest in the structure and 15 function of the American family was escalating. Social scientists had begun to explore the nature of the division of labor in conjugal units. Parson's (1955) landmark work on familial expressive and instrumental roles, a thesis which assumed the existence of solidarity among married couples as a result, in part, of a particular sexual division of labor, played a key part in establishing the intellectual guidelines for these inquiries. This transition in sociological history was influential in shaping examinations of family labor and the work of women on farms. Studies from the 19508 and 19608 often imposed instrumental (presumed to be male) and expressive (presumed to be female) segregation on family units and concentrated upon women as socio-emotional leaders. Rural sociological analyses were no exception. Reports deriving from the 1954 Detroit Area Study of 731 urban and 178 rural families had great impact upon sociological impressions of the division of labor and women's work (Blood, 1958: Blood and Wolfe, 1960). Conclusions relied, much like the earlier time studies, upon gross representations of men and women's work. The initial analysis (Blood, 1958) was primarily a rural-farm versus urban comparison of the work women do. Blood's hypotheses were that farm women in contrast to urban women: 1) perform a larger share of house tasks and 2) help more often in their husbands' occupation. Basically, Blood's findings supported his original expectations. Farm 16 women received less aid from their spouses with the 8 household tasks studied than did urban women. Noted also were the extensive amounts of home production activities of the farm women, such as sewing, baking, gardening, and canning and freezing garden food. Fifty-five percent of these farm wives acquired most to nearly all of their vegetables, baked goods and clothes by home production in contrast to only 1% of the urban sample. Additionally, 70% of the farm sample directly helped in their husbands' occupation, while only 8% of the urbanites mentioned similar involvement. Since the subjects were given the opportunity to label themselves direct aides (as did the majority of farm women), ”helpmates" (through housework and control of family consumption), or indirect, emotional supporters, this can be considered a significant finding. Clearly these rural farm women's self-perceived role, which emphasized instrumental activities rather than expressive ones, was not anticipated by the Parsonian frame of reference utilized by Blood and Wolfe. Blood's (1958) investigation of women's participation in home and farm work offers important insight into mainstream sociological perceptions of women's work in this postwar era. We should not lose sight of the fact that Blood and Wolfe perceived of a woman's farm work as an element of her husband's occupation. One may speculate that this characterization arose from the authors' ignorance of the roles women had earlier on family farms, evidenced by 17 this comment: “The answer seems to lie in the nature of farming as an occupation. It in- volves many tasks (especially those connected with the care of livestock) which require little strength or skill and for which women can therefore be utilized as helpers“ (Blood, 1958:173). The failure to obtain firsthand information about the work and skills of women in their sample underscores only one major flaw in Blood and Wolfe's research3. Straus (1958:1960) utilized the concepts of instrumental and expressive roles also in his postwar studies. He sought to assess the wife's influence upon the successfulness of her husband's farming operation. Interestingly, he measured the woman's input by her score on a personality trait test which tapped levels of a supportive, complimentary role. He hypothesized and found that successful farmers tend to have wives with high scores on a scale testing integrative-supportive personality traits. The impact of a supportive spouse in a stressful situation, such as the Columbia Basin irrigation project's settlement area which Straus studied, is, of course, potentially very positive. But, Straus neglected to consider the direct economic contributions of women's production activities on the farm's success. Only two items of information were gathered about women's farm work: 1) if she ever aided in farming and 2) if she had a garden and preserved food. The wives of successful growers more often 18 had gardens and preserved food than the wives of less successful farmers; yet, this involvement was perceived by Straus as part of an emotional-supportive role. Amounts of time and managerial skill a woman devoted to farm work were apparently regarded as of minor importance, since these contributions were not considered. In a later investigation of technological adoption practices by farmers, Straus (1960) employed an index of 46 items, 15 of which he found discriminated (though not significantly) between wives of high adopters and low adopters. Again, home production labor such as gardening and meat production was labeled as integral to the supportive role. The 'fit' of an integrative-supportive role conceptualization to the empirical realities of farm women's lives remained unchallenged in the sociological literature for many years. Generally, factual information about farm women's work was taken for granted and regarded as easily and adequately understood (e.g., see Gross, 1958, for description of women's farm labor without any empirical reference). As a result, those who helped shape our perceptions of farm life in the 19608 were largely unconcerned with the work of farm women and, indoctrinated with the practices and perspectives of postwar researchers, their studies tended to pursue farm women's "supporting“ role and how this affected the decision-making process and the rapid adoption of recommended farm practices. 19 Decision-Making in the 19608 The decade of the sixties brought a continuing decline in the farm population and an increase in the proportion of women employed in the United States. Census data indicate there was a decrease in the absolute number of unpaid women farm workers (United States Census, 1963). But farms were depending more and more upon women as unpaid labor: 44% of the unpaid farm workers in 1960 were women (an increase from 35% in 1950). Furthermore, 16.4% of farm women were employed in off-farm jobs (an increase of 7.2% from 1950) (Sweet, 1972:564). One of the first studies reporting on the lives of farm women in the sixties came from Wilkening and Bharadwaj's (1966) survey of approximately 500 Wisconsin farm couples. These farms were clearly dependent upon unpaid family help for labor: less than one third ever hired even seasonal help (1966:9). Husbands' cited their wives as prominent aids: 44.9% worked over 21 hours per week on farm tasks while 23% performed over 40 days of field work during the year. Additionally, 14.6% of the women had off-farm jobs. Women were heavily involved in such chores as caring for the ' poultry enterprise and cleaning milking utensils: feeding livestock, milking, and tractor driving were also mentioned. Unfortunately, Wilkening and Bharadwaj offered somewhat simplistic portraits which did not do justice to the complex information available to them. Although women and men performed a variety of overlapping chores (a division of 20 task participation between males and females was frequently not clear), the authors chose to underscore the presence of unique (and separate) male and female roles on these farms. The dynamic patterns in the lives of their subjects were lost in the authors' conclusions. Wilkening and Bharadwaj also reported the effect of women's involvement in farm tasks4 upon their participation in farming decisions among these 500 farm couples (Wilkening and Bharadwaj, 1967:1968). Farm task participation was strongly associated with involvement in both major and minor decisions on the farm; household work participation also gave women an integral role in home decisions. Women's farm work role had a direct influence not only on the production activities of a farm, but also upon farm management, mediated through the variable of farm size, which was found to have a curvilinear effects. More specifically, an extensive work role by the woman was positively associated with high participation in farm management activities by the woman, but only on moderate size farms. Sawer's (1973) attempt to explore influential factors in the participation of women in decision-making on farms reinforces Wilkening and Bharadwaj's 1968 findings. She reported correlations of .49 for task performance6 and general farm management decision-making and .42 for task performance and adoption practices for a sample of 67 Canadian farm couples. Other factors associated with the involvement of women in farm decision-making included size 21 of operation (acreage and income) and family size, all negatively related, while education and age played little or no part. The Seventies: Reexamining Women's Roles Research concerning farm women has never been very abundant; with the rise of the women's movement in the United States, however, there has been more concern about various dimensions of women's lives, including their status and roles. Within the last decade there has been a moderate increase of studies dealing with farm women. The striking change in this research, as compared with the fifties and sixties, was a rekindled curiosity concerning the work of farm women, who, by 1970, comprised 61% of all unpaid farm workers (United States Census, 1978). Kohl's (1977) exploration of 139 Canadian ranching families must be recognized as the first strong challenge in the rural sociological literature to the assumption that women's work (including housework and childcare) is qualitatively separate from economically productive work on the farm. She outlined the linkages between daily family life and the maintenance of a viable farm operation. Kohl understood the sexual division of labor to operate in two ways: ideologically and in practical application. This useful distinction underscores the pitfalls of previous research which assumed these two facets of the division of labor were complimentary, if not identical. In contrast, Kohl showed that one common ideological conception of the 22 division of labor, where responsibility for the home is a woman's and responsibility for the business rests with a man, contradicts the practice of these farm families; women were vital participants in the "men's world." Aside from numerous outside chores, such as baling, fencing, caring for cows, running errands and riding in roundups, women often managed the records of the operation. Farm women did most of the letter writing, bookkeeping, and recording of farm data. Kohl referred to these women as “controllers of information,‘ a powerful role particularly evident during contact with outside agencies, and one which has a positive influence upon women's participation in decision-making on these farms. In spite of the lack of congruence between ideological conceptions about the division of labor and these people's everyday lives, gender-role distinctions were reinforced in the daily conversations of family and neighbors, causing an inherent double burden for women. On the one hand, house chores were assumed to be the farm wife's sole domain, while, on the other hand, direct labor (and managerial contributions to the enterprise had become an expected role: in point of fact, the farming operations Kohl studied were clearly dependent upon the farm wife's participation. Interviews with women from family farms in Vermont, Oklahoma and Colorado were initiated by Boulding (1979) during the late 19708. Her interest was, in some respects, a response to the scarcity of information and the slant in 23 research toward “what men think women do" (l979:5) as opposed to what women say or are observed to do. Her pilot study was her first attempt to investigate the labor of women; few (27) were actually interviewed. Boulding's sessions with women elicited dimensions of women's activities previously untouched. The coordinating efforts of females and the "go-fer" (errand running) duties they performed were said to hold the farming operation together (these are rather amorphous, irregular activities often done concurrently with incidental chores). Boulding articulated the job of veterinarian, such as birthing and breeding, and the job of information gatherer, such as surveying the current farm literature. Although Boulding mentioned the inherent role of domestic work in the running of farm enterprises, this item was omitted from her analysis. In 1979, Wilkening and Ahrens surveyed 532 Wisconsin farm women. Citing previously unexplained questions about women's farm work, they developed hypotheses about the effect of structural factors such as farm type (dairy vs. nondairy), life cycle stage, husband's off-farm work and husband's education. The impact of type of operation was evidenced only on dairy farms without hired help which grossed under $20,000. Life cycle did not show the relationship expected: women with children under 14 were more likely to do bookkeeping and farm chores--perhaps pointing to the overwhelming 24 economic needs of younger farm families. A positive association was shown between women with high levels of daily farm work and husbands' with off-farm employment on dairy farms only. Husbands' education had little or no effect, while the higher the women's education, the less likely she was to do chores or fieldwork. On the basis of an in—depth participant observation experience in a Colorado farming county, Pearson (1979) drew the first typological portrait of female farmers. Pearson rigidly defined women's relationship to agricultural production as subsuming only direct agricultural labor inputs, and left homemaking a peripheral issue. Dual roles of domestic and farm laborer are awkwardly embedded within this first attempt to abstract dimensions of women's involvement in farming. Although an important study, Pearson's research explores only one element of women's participation on family farms and neglects the impact of their off-farm income, home production and childcare. Contemporary researchers have begun to reexamine the fundamental characteristics of farm women's work. They are aware of the numerous distortions and omissions which have occurred in the past, but even recent research has many of the same shortcomings which flawed earlier works. An attempt will now be made to bring these common stumbling blocks into clearer perspective in the following summary evaluation and assessment of the 20th century literature on farm women's work. 25 Synopsis: Research Approach Weaknesses The weaknesses which pervade this century's literature on farm women's work seem to derive from a combination of methodological flaws and conceptual imprecisions. The more obvious methodological flaws include unrepresentative samples, unclear measurement procedures, and unexplained variables. These problems present the critical reader with serious questions as to the reliability and validity of information in many reports. Inaccuracies concerning, for example, the implied homogeneity of farm women, the relationship of family to economy, the conceptualization of the division of labor, and the multidimensionality of women's work present us with the need to rethink many current perceptions of the American family farm within the social organization of agriculture. Methodological Flaws nggpggggnsatiygnggg. Although numerous studies claim to offer conclusive results about the characteristic work roles of farm women, few have a solid statistical basis upon which to stake their claims. Populations are rarely defined and samples are frequently selected for their special characteristics, rather than for their typicality in representing a given situation or geographic region to which the author wishes to generalize. This problem is evidenced in the works of Crawford (1927), Wilson (1929), Wasson (1930), Studley (1931), Kohl (1977), Royzne and Vail (1978), Pearson (1979) and Boulding (1979). In addition, the 26 nucleus of concern has been that of white farm families who, although not always middle class, appear far removed from a subsistence level lifestyle. The plight of Black and migrant farm women is only beginning to receive attention (e.g., Smith and Jenkins, 1979; Barton, 1979). Unc ear m as eme t oc du 8. There is often no clear rationale for the selection of farm and house task items utilized to measure women's involvement; the issue of validity is never addressed. For example, no rationale was supplied for the selection of the 8 home tasks in the Detroit Area Study (Blood and Wolfe, 1960). Only two of the eight items appear to be daily activities (get husband's breakfast on work days; do the evening dishes), while 2 have the characteristics of weekly duties (keep track of money/bills; grocery shopping). The remaining 4 included seemingly occasional chores (repair things: straighten the house for company) and seasonal ones (shovel the walk; mow lawn). In addition, the studies did not inquire about the work of children, who may have performed any of the eight items: thus, the answers may not accurately represent the familial division of labor. Sawer (1973), Wilkening and Bharadwaj (1966: 1967: 1968) and Wilkening and Ahrens (1979) also err in this direction. Futhermore, often we are given no knowledge of the substance of women's tasks. Only rough areas of their involvement are suggested in the literature. For example, even though we are aware of women's high degree of work 27 participation on dairy farms, we must still raise the question, "What is the nature of women's farm work and skills in these operations?" Direct observation of women's work is rare and present only in the works of Pearson (1979), Kohl (1977), and Boulding (1979). Unexplained variables. Simple, unelaborated analyses which offer no control for the effects of such conditioning components as farm type and size, stage in the family life cycle, and off-farm employment patterns are predominant. Little illumination is given to the complexity of women's lives and familial circumstances. The works of Crawford (1927), Wilson (1930), Studley (1931), Blood (1958), Blood and Wolfe (1960), Straus (1958: 1960), Wilkening and Bharadwaj (1966), Kohl (1977), Royzne and Vail (1978), Boulding (1979), and Pearson (1979) are of this flat analytical style. Conceptual inaccuracies Implieg hogogegeity of gagm gemen. An unfortunate ramificatidn of the many unexplained variables is the implied homogeneity of farm women. Studies which fail to take into account situational differences leave one with the impression that such conditions are not very important in determining how farm women organize their lives. Indeed, the social contexts and labor demands of the various types of farming operations with which women are involved and which affect the patterning of their daily activities have rarely, if ever, been researched by sociologists. 28 Stringent separation of family and economy. The ideological separation of family from economy has historical roots which predate this century's research on women (Zaretsky, 1973). As a consequence, social scientists have not always perceived of women's work in the family as directly related to economic production activities, nor have they acknowledged women's housework and childcare as integral components in the maintenance and socialization of labor force members (Benston, 1969: Oakley, 1974). This separation is particularly awkward in the study of rural farm families whose daily lives are inextricably tied to the dynamics of production on their farms. The classical sociological perspective on the relationship between family and economic production was given theoretical legitimation through Durkheim's (1933) thesis of asymmetrical male and female familial roles. Durkheim's way of approaching the phenomenon tended to reinforce the perception of women as marginal to economic production and, in turn, thus motivated some scholars to broadly interpret farm women's work under the rubric of ”emotional, integrative support“ (see, for instance, Parsons, 1955; Straus, 1958; 1960: Blood, 1958; Blood and Wolfe, 1960; and Wilkening and Bharadwaj, 1966). The cash income that farm women have contributed from off-farm employment to the maintenance of viable family farm households has been virtually ignored (for a possible exception, see Sweet, 1972). 29 Inarticulate a lication of the conce t of d v on o 1222;. Many problems stem from erroneous use of the concept of division of labor. Early sociological researchers employed the notion freely, refrained from describing its parameters, resisted specifying operational definitions and, consequently, have left an extremely difficult trail to follow. This vagueness is evident in the works of Blood (1958), Blood and Wolfe (1960) and Straus (1958: 1960). Wilkening and Bharadwaj (1966) provide an excellent example of this problem when they declare 'the division of farm and family tasks follow traditional lines" (l966:7), but then go on to acknowledge considerable task overlap and joint participation. Since they neglect to define what they mean by the I'traditional division of labor," we have no way_ of evaluating such a claim. Many researchers falsely assume that ideological ' conceptions of the division of labor are identical with people's daily work routines. This assumption occurs even in the face of evidence contradictory to such assumptions (e.g., Blood and Wolfe, 1960; Straus, 1958; 1960; Gross, 1958: Wilkening and Bharadwaj, 1966). Most exposes on rural farm life are still infused with notions of extremely rigid splits between farm life for males and females (e.g., Flora and Johnson, 1978). Kohl remains the sole investigator to distinguish between common conceptions of the division of labor and people's everyday work activities which, as she points out, generally display unique characteristics. 30 Separate work spheres for males and females, an idea often reinforced in the daily conversations of farm people, are not necessarily congruent with the reality of their lives. Unidimensional depictions of women's work. Rather than grasping the multifaceted reality of women's involvement on farms, the literature overflows with unidimensional “snap- shots" (e.g., Crawford, 1927; Wilson, 1929; Wasson, 1930; Studley, 1931; Blood and Wolfe, 1960; Wilkening and Bharadwaj, 1966). A fixation on average tendencies in women's farm activities has stifled the evolution of useful typologies; we are only on the verge of developing workable paradigms for research (as evidenced by Pearson, 1979). The fruitfulness of future conceptualizations rests upon our ability to articulate women's spheres of participation. As mentioned previously, some scholars (such as Kohl, 1977; Pearson, 1979: Wilkening and Ahrens, 1979 and Boulding, 1979) have given recognition to the importance of women's housework and/or paid employment (in addition to farm work), yet little effort has been made to weave these themes into a coherent whole. Reconceptualizations and New Directions The present study represents an effort to overcome many of the weaknesses in previous research of farm women's work involvement. Designed to gain a more holistic picture of women's contributions to family farms, the study attempts to reformulate some troublesome conceptual issues which have plagued research on this topic. 31 The backbone of our approach entails three main features. To begin with, situational diversity is taken into account by considering three kinds of farming operations: hobby, small, and larger scale farms. The work roles of women in these three qualitatively unique situations will be examined. Further, within each of these settings the influence on women's work participation of other kinds of situational factors, such as stage in family life cycle, will be explored. Secondly, the family farm household is conceptualized as an economic unit which includes home production; our approach does not require the illusory split between family life and economically productive activities. Finally, three spheres of farm women's work are examined: farm work, housework, and off- farm employment. In this respect, a multifaceted perspective on women's contributions to family farms is presented. Another essential work sphere, that of childcare, is unfortunately not included in our analysis. Summary This chapter reviewed, very briefly, some of the major studies of farm women's work involvements. It considered various research based upon census data, the time studies of the 19208 and 19308, examinations of husband-wife role relations in the 19508, decision-making surveys of the 19608, and reports on women's farm work in the 19708. Although each of these studies provide some insights we may learn from, the approaches taken by research on this topic, 32 we submit, have been bothered by numerous conceptual and methodological problems, such as the implication that farm women constitute a homogeneous category, and the view that farm women's work constitutes a standardized, normatively specified, undifferentiated set of roles. The present study attempts to reformulate a number of these problems. This, we anticipate, will lead to a more realistic view of contemporary work patterns of American farm women. Three research strategies are employed: 1) taking into account social situational variabilities, such as scale of the farming operation; 2) conceptualization of household work as an integral part of the family farm enterprise; and 3) consideration of the multidimensionality of women's work (in this case, farm work, housework and off- farm employment). The chapter to follow specifies our study population, data collection procedures, study variables, and the population subsets of concern which will be the primary subjects of our analysis. CHAPTER II RESEARCH DESIGN: DATA AND METHODS Studies of work by women on family farms have utilized various data gathering procedures: census enumeration, survey, direct observation, focused interviews and psychological testing. The present inquiry attempts to build upon and incorporate information from a combination of methods. A rather detailed description of the setting and local situation was obtained from interviews of neighborhood informants and the systematic analysis of data from public documents. We wanted to understand the social organizational context within which the more structured foci of inquiry would be pursued and we wanted to have a firmer idea of the range of farm types and farm family forms that existed in the study site area. In—depth interviews with selected women generated specific ideas and insights relevant to the formulation of a survey instrument to assess the farm family's division of labor. A mailed questionnaire was merely a final phase of our research. 33 34 Setting and Study Population The farm family households in two south central Michigan townships, Brookfield (in Eaton county) and Venice (in Shiawassee county), are the objects of interest for this study. The term |'family household" refers to any collection of persons who reside together at the same address, including non-kin. A 'farm,' by definition, is a unit of 10 acres or more of agriculturally zoned land. To be considered a "farm family household,“ at least one household member must be the owner and/or operator of a farm. Encompassed within the definition of a "farm" is all agriculturally zoned land, including that which is idle or non-tillable, and woods (of 10 acres or more). Each farm is associated with at least one farm family household (that of its owner); hence, a few "farm family households" are merely owners of land which is not being utilized for agricultural purposes. A number, of course, are merely owners of farmland that is operated by another family. The application of the term “farm family household,“ therefore, is awkward in some cases; but, since these families are tied, at least in an ownership capacity, to agricultural production and possibly even in a more direct way in the future (since some idle acres could be converted into productive ones), no households were excluded from our survey on the basis of the current use of their land. Since a separate thrust of this study is to understand the structural interrelationships between full and part-time 35 farming in Michigan, the townships' propinquity to nearby industrial centers was a primary consideration in their selection. Both are within reasonable commuting distance to cities with many employment opportunities (Lansing and Flint); both townships are experiencing growth in number of rural residents; and both are vulnerable to the pressures of metropolitanization of urban fringe areas and the consequent decline in available farm acreage. Cash crop farming (corn, small grain, field crops) now predominates, althOUgh some dairy operations still manage to survive and prosper. Neither township contains an urban center and both are very similar, and basically "rural" in their community amenities. The social and economic characteristics of these two townships parallel each other, which is why they were selected. Data Collection Procedures Public records, including the 1977 township tax rolls, Agricultural Soil Conservation Service files and county platt books, along with informal interviews, served as the basis from which an overview of the study population and local situation was formulated. These sources provided information on the number, location, and size of land parcels owned by each household, the land valuation, and the ownership designation (mailing address). Neighborhood informants clarified and complimented these data by providing details about the type of farming being practiced by a particular farm family, major crops produced, land 36 tenure arrangements, sex and age composition of every household, and the non-farm occupations (if any) of adult members of each household. In all, 454 farm household units were enumerated in this manner; 243 in Venice township and 211 in Brookfield. Eventually, nine cases were excluded from the questionnaire survey phase (due to sale of land, etc.). Cross referencing of these documents and information from informants revealed few dissimilarities in the basic agricultural structure of Brookfield and Venice townships. Average acreage owned by farm households is about 142 acres in Brookfield and 131 acres in Venice. Operator households tend to farm an average of 221 acres in Brookfield and 254 acres in Venice. Median acreage farmed by the 121 operator households in Brookfield and the 122 in Venice are nearly identical: 175 acres and 170 acres, respectively. Agricultural production activities in these townships are predominately market oriented. American family farms have been undergoing structural changes in the 20th century, involving the consolidation of small farms and the expansion of larger farms (Johnson, 1969). Thus, we expected to find a wide variation of farm sizes in these communities, and in fact, we did. The acreage owned per farm household ranges from 10 to 800 acres, while the average operated ranges from 10 to as much as 1300 acres. 37 TABLE 1. COMPARISONS IN AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE OF BROOKFIELD AND VENICE TOWNSHIPS BROOKFIELD VENICE Mean Acres Owned by Farm Operator Households 142 131 Mean Acres Operated by . Farm Operator Households 221 254 Median Acres Operated by Farm Operator Households 175 170 Number of Farm Operator Households in Township 121 122 In an additional phase of data collection, lengthier interviews were conducted with a number of women whom informants described as actively engaged in their family farm operations. Our aim was to obtain insights into the kind of work done on their farms and how they themselves participated. From this and materials gleaned from prior studies of the division of labor on American family farms (see, Crawford, 1927: Wilson, 1929: Wasson, 1930: Blood and Wolfe, 1960; Wilkening and Bharadwaj, 1966: Sawer, 1973), a questionnaire was developed for a mail survey of our entire study population base (Nb445). Farm and household division of labor was a major theme of this instrument. A total of 28 farm tasks and 28 household items were represented to tap work patterns of all household members along four dimensions: whether they 1) do the task alone and, presumably, have full responsibility for that particular activity, 2) do the task with another's help, but presumably 38 have major responsibility for the activity, 3) jointly perform the task with other(s) and, presumably, share the responsibility, or 4) help other(s) to do the task but,. presumably, do not have the main responsibility for the activity. In addition, the questionnaire elicited information on the scale of farming, nature of the operation, farm management practices and household composition. Approximately two months after the initial mailing, and after a prompting letter, questionnaire remailing, and personal hand written notes had been sent to all nonrespondents, personal contacts were initiated with all remaining families who were assumed to operate farms in Brookfield or Venice townships. A total of 298 households returned completed questionnaires. Nine provided information which indicated that they should not have been included in the original mailing (ownership of less than 10 acres, no longer in farming, etc). One household provided information that was judged to be internally inconsistent and unusable. Thus, 436 farm households constitute the basic study population and information was obtained from 288 (66%) via mail questionnaires. Subsets of Concern Our respondents come from a variety of family household structures. The most common, the nuclear family household (a male and female couple, with or without children), constitutes eighty-three percent of our sample. In "all 39 other“ cases, an adult male or female lives alone (13%) or with an adult child (4%)7. While the above distinctions give some insight into family forms and the relationships which exist among family members, they do not suggest the specific relationships of households to agricultural production; the latter is crucial to our present undertaking. Perhaps the most important distinction relative to farming is whether the families are farm operator households (with at least one member engaged in operating the farm) or non-operator households (owning agricultural land, but not directly operating the farm themselves). The relationships of nuclear and all other family households to agricultural production (whether farm operators or not) is discussed below. Non-Operator Farm Family Households Non-operator households are associated with farming basically through their ownership (but not direct operation) of farm land. Although usually overlooked in studies of farm families, these households are a significant segment of the agricultural community. They often maintain close connections with the local agricultural situation by the renting, leasing, or sharecropping of their land. Farm management decisions are sometimes influenced directly by these landholding families; they may have a lot to say about cropping activities on their farms. Non-operator households constitute 51% (Nal48) of our study population (see Table 2). They own, on the average, 40 8m 8... SN . .288. on m mm manna ummuma we v we manna Hacsm an v mm mason ammo: muoumuomo such A.ouw .cmucmu ma ccmav mva mm oHH muoumuomolcoz gauging vague—magnum Adsoa moaafiecm mocuo Had modaqscm ummuosz EHQNIUanuuqqulflddauu mmHmmZZOB mUHzm> nz< qumeoomm 2H mumwfi HAthm Edda .N mqm< common uoaodm cod ova own can cc co av on pl) - b p b b I I - J 8(87-N) NHSMVT 8(ZEIN) TTVWS 8(SZ'N) 38303 ZOHHCGEQO OZuIKGh hO.ua¢Um ac .OaOammaca an nan: mam mm=Oz K103 t¢¢h MO manta: 44898 u0£mfl>¢ .H M¢DUHm 59 TABLE 3. FARM WORK HOURS PER WEEK BY HUSBANDS AND WIVES DURING THE BUSY SEASON, BY SCALE OF FARMING OPERATION (Percentage) Scale of Farming Operation HOBBY SMALL LARGER (N828) (N=4l)* (N§50)* Farm Work Hours Per Week By Hpsbende end Wives 6-20 hours 36% 7% 0% 20-60 hours { 46 52 12 60-100 hours 14 34 50 over 100 hours 4 7 38 *A few cases are omitted from the base number due to missing information. 60 .couuosuoucd m:«mn«§ 0» one amass: once accumuno lama muouuuc ../// .// 7a 2.... N. 8777777777 77777777 .7.” ”A? 75 M 777777 .. 11m 777777. /‘:/ /3/ ZOHB¢¢mmO 02H!¢