MSU — RETURNING MATERIALS:
P1ace in book drop to

LJBRARJES remove this checkout from
.-:—. your record. FINES win

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped be10w.

 

t1. .1": 1 3‘:: 9"

, j .5. ..l v--__ 9.: f, I:
L3 — "r .1
... 2r MW
gm
\
1 A 26 8

flag? 2 b 1‘;
~:rOjL££;S 'QI’
”goéw

‘

 

 

RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION
IN RURAL FAMILIES:
AN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY

BY
Carol Ann Barrett

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Human Environment and Design

1984

Copyright by
CAROL ANN BARRETT
1984

ABSTRACT
RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION

IN RURAL FAMILIES:
AN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY

BY
Carol Ann Barrett

This research involved the exploration of
characteristics related to residential satisfaction in rural
settings using ethnographic interviewing techniques in order
to formulate a possible theory of residential satisfaction.
The study was accomplished in two phases. The first phase
consisted of an analysis of transcripts from 20 rural
family interviews conducted as part of a related research
project in order to highlight attributes of residence in a
rural area. The second phase consisted of reinterviewing
five of the original 20 families. Topics for these
interviews related to attitudes and meanings held by family
members about their rural home as well as behaviors engaged
in by individuals in and around the residential environment.
The families represented a variety of rural residential
lifestyles and family life cycle positions. It is suggested
that rural residential satisfaction is related to goals and
values held by family members for their residence. The
goals that were discovered in these families included
maintaining control over the residence and family members,
competency in behaviors related to rural living, and the

promotion of a sense of belonging among family members.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter

I.

II.

INTRODUCTION I I O I O O O O O O O I O O 0

Importance of Residence . . . . . . . .
The Study 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O

The Research Problem . . . . . . . . .
The Informants . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Review of Residential Satisfaction
Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Integrative Model . . . . . . . . . .
Research Problem With Integrative Model
Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phase one C 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Respondent Selection . . . . . . . . . .
Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phase mo 0 C O O O O O I O O I O O O O 0

Family Selection . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interviewing and Other Techniques . .

Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

Page
-vi

vii

Chapter

III.

IV.

V.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . .

Overview of the Original Twenty
In tel-Views O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Summary of the Phase One Interviews
Information Grids . . . . . . . .
Concepts for Phase Two Interviews

Five Family Case Studies . . . . . .

Family 4 - The Bester Family . . .
Family 7 - The Hall Family . . . .
Family 15 - The Calvin Family . .
Family 20 - The Figer Family . . .
Family 21 - The Ghost Family . . .

INTEGRATION OF THE FIVE FAMILY CASE

STUDIES WITH THE PHASE ONE INTERVIEWS

Goals 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
Goals from the Five Case Studies . .

Belonging . . .
Continuity . . .
Identification .
Group Identity .
Non-Belonging . . . . . .
Environmental Belonging . . . .
Environmental Behaviors Promoting

Belonging . . . . . . . . . . .

Competency . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Without Superfluity . . . . . . .
Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Control of Land Resources . . . .
Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Children . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research Summary . . . . . . . . .
Revised Integrated Model . . . . .
Integration With Past Satisfaction

Research . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page
40

41

41
43
44

50
50
55
60
66
72
79
79
82
83
84
85
86
87
90
91

93
95

96
98
101
102
104

104
106

110

Chapter Page
Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Competency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Implications For Future Research . . . . . 112
Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Elaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

APPENDICES
Appendix
A. METHODOLOGICAL CONCERNS . . . . . . . 116
B. NUMBER CODES FOR THE ORIGINAL 20
INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
C. LETTER TO FIVE FAMILIES . . . . . . . 120
D. TYPES OF QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . 122
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page

1 Date, Time and Family Members Present
At InterViews O O O I O O O C I O O O O O O 35

2 Acreage, Land Use and Existance of a Family
Garden by Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3 Housing Age, Housing Adjustments,
Personal Efforts, and Energy Sources
by Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4 Number, Ages and Parental Goals Related
To Children by Family . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5 Share/Trade/Barter Activities and
Organizational Participation by Family . . 48

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

1 Integrated Model of Residential
Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2 Revised Integrated Model of
Residential Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . 107

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

When we build, we have said . . . this is
where we will build and this is where we will
stay. (Interview, Family 4, 8-3-84, p. 8)

I'm a country boy. I like to be able to have
a party here, step outside and holler at one
of the kids and not have to worry about the
person next door listening to me, or when I
go out here and fire the tractor up and go
out and plow the fields, or mow or whatever

I do, I don't bother anybody and they don't
bother me. (Interview, Family 20, 5-7-84,

p. 19)

I do really feel strongly that unless you're
a family that you would like to do things
together, you would not be happy. We do
everything together . . . I guess what I'm
saying, rural life is a family life.
(Interview, Family 16, 4-30-84, p. 30)

I grew up in the city of [about 50,000 pe0ple]
18 years . . . but I love the country, I love
outdoors, I'm an outdoors person, I like to
hunt and I love to fish. I like to see things
grow. I like livestock. (Interview, Family 1,
6-30-83, p. 6)

People say all sorts of things about the places they
live. The things they say can indicate their pleasure or
displeasure with the residential environment. They can
reveal the boundaries of their residence, sometimes

including elements of the house, property, neighborhood or

the community. The term 'residence' is not constant. It

can change from person to person based on the experience of
the individual as a member of a family, a member of a
neighborhood or a member of some other group.

The places where pe0ple live have been studied by
researchers from a number of different disciplines
including anthropology, architecture, urban planning,
sociology, design, psychology, and geography. Often the
context of the study is limited to one aspect of the place
where people live. For example, geographers often
concentrate on large scale and topographical aspects of the
environment, sociologists often study the social dimension
of the neighborhood and the community, housing researchers
often limit themselves to the physical and social
characteristics of the house. This disciplinary
perspective limits the focus of the study. It facilitates
control of research variables and allows in-depth work in
one area of interest. On occasion results from different
studies are combined and synthesized into a larger
theoretical construct. Rarely is a research problem
studied from a holistic perspective initially.

_In the day-to-day world, the places where people
live are experienced as unified spaces, the yard relates to
the structure, the house is oriented to the street, the
family adjusts or rearranges the space to suit its needs.
Therefore, it may be possible to learn about residential
spaces by looking at them as interrelated with the social

structure of the family, neighborhood and community.

Importance of Residence

 

Residential spaces support a large number of
individual and family activities including such basic needs
as educational and interactional pursuits. Spivak (1973)
has hypothesized that humans need environments that support
13 archetypal behaviors including sleeping, eating and
grooming. In our culture these behaviors are most often
associated with a residence.

Family residential places are often referred to as
home. This term is used by all of us at one time or
another; its meaning is abstract and individualized. In
one sense we know what it means. It is a living place
associated with our earliest memories and our most basic
selves. We can perform any of the archetypal behaviors in
a different location; we can eat in a restaurant or sleep
in a motel, but the home is the place where we repeatedly
perform these basic behaviors most of the time.

Hayward (1975) discusses the concept of home as a
locus in space. This can refer to a geographical or a
psychological concept. Seamon (1979) describes how
respondents in his environmental experience groups spoke
about the world starting at their doorstep and radiating
outward in space. Locus can also refer to a psychological
space where a person returns to orient himself or herself

mentally before going out in the world.

Residences are important places for families. They
provide a space for the family to take possession. This
allows the family members to identify the space as their
home and identifies the individuals as a collective unit to
themselves and others. One of the functions of families is
the raising and socialization of children (Melson, 1980).
Proshansky (1978) feels that part of this socialization
includes the surrounding environment. It is his belief
that children grow and develop an ego identity within a
place. That place is incorporated into the image of self;
behaviors appropriate to the place are then developed.
Zajonc and Markus (1983) have hypothesized that preferences
based on affective responses are learned attitudes passed
down in the family. If this is true then the kinds of
places in which people grow up could affect their
residential preferences later.

People may attempt to live in environments similar
to the types of environments in which they were socialized.
This idea is supported by recent rural migration literature
(Sofranko & Williams, 1980). Many inmigrants to rural areas
from urban areas are actually return migrants, i.e., natives
moving back to a rural home.

It seems important to many researchers to study
residential environments as places that support individual
and family interactions and activities. In the past,
family residential space has been evaluated by means of

satisfaction measures. Individuals have been asked to

indicate satisfaction with various objective features of the
environment relating to housing, neighborhood or community
characteristics. There may be other characteristics of the
environment that are important to an individual or family

perception of satisfaction with the residence.

The Study

 

The Research Problem

 

This research is an attempt to discern important
characteristics related to residential satisfaction.
Attributes of the environment emphasized by the family or
individual will be explored. The residence is viewed
within the larger family context contributing to the
support of needs and/or goals expressed by individuals or
families living in a residential environment. An
ethnographic methodology was used to accomplish this
research.

The Informants

 

The data for this study were collected in a rural
township in southwest Michigan. Rural populations
represent a mixture of lifestyles. While the traditional
image of the country is one of farms scattered over the
landscape, the present reality is often different. Many
rural areas have experienced population growth in recent
years (Sofranko & Williams, 1980). The majority of these
inmigrants do not engage in commercial agriculture. There

are indications that many individuals perform dual roles of

farmer and off-farm worker. There are still farms run by
full-time farmers also. There may be a difference in
attitudes, values and behaviors relating to residential
satisfaction in these groups of people.

Housing satisfaction has been extensively studied in
urban settings with one exception. Gruber, et a1. (1983)
studied rural residents in North Carolina. Their survey
instrument was comparable to other urban studies; questions
about housing characteristics were prominent; questions
about rural lifestyle were unexplored. Rural environments
are anticipated to have unique attributes related to
residential satisfaction which prior research has not
adequately addressed.

The researcher has had limited experience with rural
populations. It is believed that this reduces the number of
preconceived ideas and biases that are brought to the
research. Thus, objectively this will allow a more flexible
and Open relationship to the data.

Definitions

 

Residence can be defined in a number of ways.
Geographers; Tuan (1974), Relph (1976), and Seamon (1979)
use the word 'place' to describe unique environments. It
is an abstract, amorphous term that refers to spaces that
have meaning attached to them by their usage or
identification.

Just exactly what constitutes a place is unique to

the individual. Tuan (1974) relates how two different

people from the same neighborhood will outline different
areas on a map to represent their concept of the
neighborhood. These unique neighborhoods are linked to the
behaviors, experiences and thoughts of the individual.

In the same way, family residential places are
specific to the family that lives there. The definition of
the place may change from person to person in the family
and there may be shared concepts as well. Parents may
include house, surrounding property and community
structures such as churches or the post office. Children
may include their school in their concept of place.

One of the most important aspects of a place is its
relationship to the person identifying it. It is not just
any room, any house or any community; it is a distinctive
space by virtue of the person or family that uses it. A
room near the kitchen becomes a dining room when the family
routinely uses it as a place to consume meals. Another
family may fill it with a desk, chairs and bookcases and
call it a den.

In this study the residence refers to those elements
of the environment that are identified as living space for
the individual or family. The most basic components are
the house, the property, the neighborhood and the
community. This definition is not confined to the physical
elements of the residence, it includes other environments
of importance to the respondent such as the social or

family environment.

Satisfaction has been defined as "the fulfillment of
a need or want" (Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary,
1976, p. 1194). In this study it refers to the meeting of
needs or desires of the individual in his or her residential

environment.

Review of Residential Satisfaction Literature

 

In order to formulate an appropriate framework to
begin a study of satisfaction, research from sociology,
home economics and psychology will be reviewed. This
literature represents past work with residential
satisfaction. In addition, theoretical literature on place
concepts will be discussed in the context of a working
model to be presented.

All of the studies reviewed used structured
interviews to collect data with the expection of Weidemann,
et a1. (1982); a written questionnaire was used in that
study. With the exception ofGruber, et a1. (1983), all
studies were completed in an urban setting. While some of
the variables studied, such as perception of density or
availability of public transportation, reflect this
orientation; many of the variables are applicable to a
rural population. A discussion of these variables will be
emphasized.

Socioeconomic variables such as age, income, race,
education, and number of children were used as exogenous

variables in studies by Galster and Hesser (1981), Onibokun

(1976), and Golant (1982). In Golant's study of
residential satisfaction of the elderly, income, race,
education, and marital status did not correlate with
satisfaction. Onibokun (1976) found that any occupation,
employment, higher income and more education were
correlated with less residential satisfaction in a public
housing development. In addition families headed by single
parents and with more children reported less satisfaction
in this same study. Galster and Hesser (1981) found this
same result in their study in the larger community. In
addition they found that age was correlated with housing
satisfaction and race was correlated with neighborhood
satisfaction.

Several studies were conducted in public housing
developments including Weidemann, et a1. (1982), Onibokun
(1976), Ahlbrandt and BrOphy (1976) and Rent and Rent
(1978). The applicability of the general findings is
limited for rural study, but there are several points of
interest in this literature. In Weidemann, et a1. (1982)
variables related to the safety aspects of the environment
were highly correlated with satisfaction. Other factors
including social interaction, perception of neighborhood
homogeneity and perceived atmosphere of the environment
were all related to residential satisfaction. Safety
factors were also correlated to residential satisfaction in
Ahlbrandt and Brophy (1976), however, their main predictor

of residential satisfaction was management techniques.

10

Neighborhood characteristics were examined in
several studies, of which Weidemann, et a1. (1982) has
already been discussed briefly. Variables relating to the
appearance of the physical environment were also correlated
with satisfaction. Galster and Hesser (1981) measured
neighborhood characteristics related to negative aspects of
the structural environment such as perception of abandoned
or dilapidated buildings in the neighborhood. The
perception of rundown buildings did correlate with
neighborhood dissatisfaction. Gruber, et al. (1983)
present a very comprehensive list of neighborhood
characteristics including such items as greenery in the
neighborhood, availability of shopping, upkeep of homes,
and amount of Open space. Variables measuring social
characteristics of the environment such as the presence of
friends were present in the factor analysis also. The
combined social and physical neighborhood factors were
found to be correlated with housing satisfaction. Rent and
Rent (1976) found that proximity of friends but not family
was indicative of satisfaction. Also satisfaction with
neighbors reflected satisfaction with residence.

Two of the studies included measures related to
characteristics of the individual. Rent and Rent (1978)
found that reported general life satisfaction had a
significant relationship with housing satisfaction. Golant
(1982) included measures of health, well-being and activity

in his study of the elderly. He found those who reported

11

more happiness and less activity out of the home were more
satisfied with their environment.

Speare (1974) and Morris, et al. (1976) conducted
early studies using residential satisfaction as an
intervening variable predicting mobility. While mobility
is not of specific interest in this study, a discussion of
the Morris, et al. (1976) model is important. In a later
book, Morris and Winter (1978) present a model of
satisfaction. The exogenous variables include socioeconomic
characteristics. These characteristics are mediated by
"norms" that relate to housing satisfaction (Morris and
Winter, 1978, p. 109). These norms include adequate
bedroom space for age and sex composition of the family,
ownership of housing and living in single family detached
housing. If any of the norms are absent then
dissatisfaction results.

There has been a general tendency for the research
to become more elaborative. Two of the earlier studies
(Speare, 1974 & Morris, et al;, 1976) used global measures
of satisfaction. Survey items in Speare (1974) asked for
satisfaction with six items: age and size of house, yard,
neighborhood, community, distance to work, and shopping.
Speare then used these to compute a satisfaction score. In
contrast, later studies have enumerated more and more
details about the environments under study. Objective
housing characteristics are broken down into size of rooms,

storage, number of rooms and so on; the neighborhood is

12

evaluated for the number of trees and the amount of greenery
among other detailed questions (Gruber, et al., 1983).
Weidemann, et a1. (1982) used a seventeen page questionnaire
with 236 questions detailing satisfaction with safety,
privacy, neighbors, appearance and maintenance of the public
housing deve10pment in which the study was conducted. While
results have been used for hypothesis testing of specific
research questions, a comprehensive model of satisfaction
has not been presented with the exception of the model
formulated by Morris.

One aspect of housing satisfaction literature that
has been infrequently mentioned is the high overall rate of
satisfaction reported by some studies. Speare (1974)
reported the frequencies within categories of his housing
satisfaction index. By computing the percentages it
appears that 16 percent of the respondents scored their
housing satisfaction as highly as possible; while 75
percent were satisfied with their housing. More recently
Gruber, et al. (1983) found on the average that 90 percent
of their respondents were on the whole satisfied with their
housing. Morris and Winter (1978) implied that high
reported satisfaction may be erroneous.

It is unquestionably true that survey
respondents in the United States by
and large respond in the "satisfied"
range of most satisfaction-
dissatisfaction questions. Obviously
a portion of that pattern must arise
from the "true" level of satisfaction.

Many of them must indeed be satisfied.
"Unwarranted" satisfaction (satisfaction

13

with a patently undesirable situation)
may be attributed to three factors.

Those factors are low salience,
idiosyncratic standards, and reporting
error, including random and systematic
error. (Morris and Winter, 1978, p. 155)

Golant (1982) takes a different view. He discusses
the paradox encountered in the study of housing and the
elderly. The elderly in many studies indicate satisfaction
with objectively undesirable environments. In his study he
indicated that satisfaction is linked to other life areas.
He feels that housing satisfaction is based on the
individual's perception of the environment.

Environments or situations will differ

from each other because individuals
interpret their contents and consequences
'differently and because individuals create,
select, and maintain environments that

have physical and social properties
consistent with their own diverse thoughts,
motives and behaviors. Environments
thereby become instilled with qualities
that are consistent with the characteristics
of their inhabitants. Viewed in this way,
the dwelling becomes an inseparable part
of the individual's total life situation.
Whereas society's objective standards of
quality guide a detached observer's
judgements, it is not only this objective
reality, but more importantly, the personal
meanings and uses of the dwelling, that
guide the evaluations of its occupants.
(Golant, 1982, p. 122)

One of the main goals in past housing satisfaction
literature has been to find areas of universal
dissatisfaction with the residential environment. It
seemed if universal standards could be arrived at such as

appropriate bedroom space for children and adults or

14

adequate parking for apartment residents and if these
standards were implemented, all dissatisfaction would
dissappear. The most basic assumption seemed to be that
physical characteristics determine housing satisfaction.

Up to this point there have been no studies that
seek to discover how individual or family behaviors affect
satisfaction with residence. To return to an earlier
example, one family uses their adjacent kitchen space for
dining, the other uses it for a den. Suppose the family
with the den is dissatisfied with the amount of space for
dining. Does it mean that the family is dissatisfied with
the amount of eating space but that they would be more
dissatisfied if they did not have space for books and
paperwork? Does it mean that they may move to a house with
more dining space? Does it mean that houses should be
built with bookcases in dining rooms? To restate the
point, satisfaction may be a result of how the residence is
used. Morris and Winter (1978) have mentioned the need to
find areas of dissatisfaction and how important these
dissatisfactions are to family members.

Another area that has been undeveloped by housing
researchers lies in the domain of values, feelings and
meanings related to the residential environment. Seamon's
(1979) work with his environmental experience groups has
attempted to rectify this lack. In his work he talks about
a broad concept he calls "At Homeness". There are several

subcategories under the label of "At Homeness" that

15

represent feeling states that respondents mentioned. These
subcategories include 'appropriation' or territoriality and
'warmth' which refers to security, memories and pleasant

emotional connotations in the environment.

Integrative Model

 

This study will attempt to integrate prior research
with findings from the present study in an effort to
amplify areas of importance to a theory of satisfaction. In
addition, areas that have been unexplored in the past will
be investigated. The way in which people use the
residential place has not been studied as it relates to
satisfaction. Meanings and values have not been considered
as influences on this concept. Finally the interaction of
the satisfaction reports from several household members has
not been studied. With the exception of Weidemann, et a1.
(1982) all the studies have interviewed only one household
member, usually the female head of household.

An integrative model was developed to guide the
research and to lend structure to the analysis. This
integrative model has two components: an affective-
cognitive dimension and a behavioral-functional dimension.
Each of these dimensions is thought to be imbedded in the

social milieu of the family. (Figure l)

16

 

emotional responses

 

I I
AFFECTIVE COMPONENTS :COGNITIVE COMPONENTS, BEHAVIORAL COMPONENTS: FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS

Subjective evaluation:perception, learning, behaviors engaged in

' structural and service

attributes of the
residence

environmental knowing by family members

_--

 

 

 

 

\

7 ~\ /

 

 

REPORTED ATTITUDES, MEANINGS REPORTED BEHAVIORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ /

RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Integrated Model of Residential Satisfaction.

The affective-cognitive portion of the model refers

to how people perceive and think about the environment.

Several theorists have discussed this area in past research

including Proshansky (1978), Proshansky, Fabian, Kaminoff

(1983) and Tuan (1974). Proshansky has hypothesized that a

concept called "place identity" exists in each person.

This identity

is a component of self identity.

By place identity we mean those dimensions
of self that define the individual's
personal identity in relation to the
physical environment by means of a complex
pattern of conscious and unconscious ideas,
beliefs, preferences, feelings, values,
goals, behavioral tendencies and skills
relevant to this environment. (Proshansky,
1978, p. 155)

The behavioral-functional dimension of the model

refers to how
behaviors are
obstructed or
apartment may
that families

environments.

the residence is used by the family, which
supported by the environment and which are
prevented. For example, living in an
severely limit activities such as gardening

could accomplish in other residential

17

Functional housing characteristics such as number of
bedrooms, sizes of rooms, outdoor space can influence
satisfaction. If deficits are severe enough they can cause
dissension in the household and necessitate a housing
adjustment such as altering the space or moving to a
different home (Morris, et al. 1976, Morris, 1978).

Sociocultural differences in housing use have been
described by Rapaport (1969). Are there factors based on
group identification that affect how housing is used or
what behaviors take place on the prOperty? In his book
about the West-Enders of Boston, Gans (1962) describes the
elaborate rituals of social visiting on an almost nightly
basis; this contrasts with the more formal visiting done
by the middle-class residents in a new community in
New Jersey (Gans, 1967).

In other words the person learns how to behave in
an environment, he or she learns how to navigate and
accomplish tasks in familiar settings, and becomes
proficient at environmental behavior. In relation to
family housing, members are taught what is appropriate
behavior in the home. In some families eating behavior is
not condoned in the bedroom; guests may only be entertained
in the living room and so forth. These family behaviors
are incorporated into the individual and become part of
their conception of housing.

Cognitive dimensions refer to those elements of

environmental learning that are facilitated by the senses;

18

such as hearing family rules and seeing nonverbal
behavioral clues, and are integrated into thoughts
expressed about the residential place.

Perception is an important part of cognitive
development. In a family, a daughter's perception of the
environment may differ drastically from the son's view.
This may be a result of sex role task differentiation or
differences in inheritance patterns. Tuan (1974) discusses
one study in which men and women were asked to draw lines
around their neighborhoods as presented on a map. Women
consistently included shopping places in their neighborhood
maps unlike the men in the study.

Differences in perception or cognition could result
from cultural or social group differences. In this study
it is possible that there might be some difference in
perception based on employment or length of residency in
the present home. Class differences could account for
differences in how tasks are performed in the house or in
the yard.

The other element of the cognitive-affective
dimension of satisfaction represents affective, evaluative
aspects of environmental interaction. This topic includes
values, attitudes and beliefs that are formed from emotional
reactions to the environment. The strongest feeling
associated with a place may be a concept Tuan (1974) called

'topophilia'.

19

The word "topophilia" is a neologism, useful
in that it can be defined broadly to include
all of the human beings affective ties with
the material environment. These differ
greatly in intensity, subtlety and mode of
expression. The response to environment may
be primarily aesthetic, it may then vary from
the fleeting pleasure one gets from a view to
the equally fleeting but far more intense
sense of beauty that is suddenly revealed.

The response may be tactile, a delight in

the feel of air, water, earth. More permanent
and less easy to express are feelings that one
has toward a place because it is home, the
locus of memories, and the means of gaining a
livelihood. (Tuan, 1974, p. 93)

Research Problem With Integrative Model

 

This research seeks to explore the relationship
between the functional environment, reported family
behaviors and cognitive-affective dimensions related to
residential place and residential satisfaction. The goal
is to discover those characteristics that contribute to
satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This information will
then be used to elaborate past satisfaction and research in
an attempt to build on an existing model and/or formulate a

theory of satisfaction.

Assumptions

 

1. There are cognitive and affective dimensions
of the individual that influence reported
residential satisfaction.

2. There are behavioral dimensions of how
individuals and families use the residence

that influence reported satisfaction.

20

3. There are functional attributes of the
residential environment that influence reported
satisfaction.

4. The respondent evaluates residential
satisfaction based on perceptions as an
individual and a member of a family.

5. Ethnographic methods are an appropriate
vehicle for this study.

To accomplish the goal of studying the cognitive/
affective and functional/behavioral components of
residential satisfaction in rural areas a two-phase project
was completed. Both phases involved field techniques,
principally ethnographic interviewing. The first phase
consisted of interviews with respondents from 20 households
on topics related to rural living such as agriculture,
housing, children and community interaction. The second
phase consisted of reinterviews with five of the original
families in order to question them about topics specifically
related to residential satisfaction. An analysis was
undertaken with both phases independently and then a final

integration was produced.

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

The research design is influenced by the research
problem mentioned previously: to determine characteristics
relating to residential satisfaction based on cognitive,
affective and behavioral statements made by respondents.
The exploration of these elements may then be used to
formulate a theory of satisfaction. A qualitative approach
will be used due to the exploratory nature of the research
problem. Qualitative methods are especially useful in the

formation or restructuring of theory because a comprehensive
examination of the elements contributing to the formulations
is possible.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) have discussed this
approach and have given it the name of "grounded theory."
Grounded theory is the "discovery of theory from data
systematically obtained from social research" (Glaser and
Strauss, 1967, p. 2). The general movement is from specific
events to the generation of theory. The process has been
described in the following way.

Whether the [social scientist], as he
jointly collects and analyzes qualitative
data, starts out in a confused state of

noting almost everything he sees because
it all seems significant, or whether he

21

22

starts out with a more defined purpose,

his work quickly leads to the generation

of hypotheses. When he begins to

hypothesize with the explicit purpose of

generating theory, the researcher is no

longer a passive receiver of impressions

but is drawn naturally into actively

generating and verifying his hypotheses. . .

Generating hypotheses requires evidence

enough only to establish a suggestion-not

excessive piling up of evidence to
establish a proof, and the consequent
hindering of the generation of new
hypotheses.

In the beginning, one's hypotheses may
seem unrelated, but as categories and

properties emerge, develop in abstraction

and become related, their accumulating

interrelations form an integrated central

theoretical framework-the core of the
emerging theory. The core becomes a

theoretical guide to the further collection
and analysis of data. (Glaser and Strauss,

1967, p. 39-40)

The qualitative approach used in this work is

ethnography. Ethnography has been defined as "the work of

describing a culture" (Spradley, 1979, p. 3). In this

instance it involves the study of residential satisfaction

in a rural setting. Ethnography can be accomplished using

many different techniques. In general, information and

data are obtained and analyzed from "what people
people know and the things people make and use."
1979, p. 5)

The study of residential satisfaction in

setting does not involve just one cultural group

do, what

(Spradley,

a rural

but many.

It is possible that the family relates to cultural subgroups

based on ethnic background, social class, or employment of

household members.

23

Limitations

 

There are several concerns and limitations that

should be mentioned as affecting the outcomes of this study.

1.

Inherent in the method used is the subjective
bias of the researcher. The researcher brings
her own preconceived ideas to the interview
situation, some that she is aware of, others
that she is not. In addition, the researcher
gives emphasis to some parts of the data to
highlight her interests. Particularly in this
study the researcher probably tends to be
influenced by prior satisfaction literature.
Ethnographic techniques are appropriate to use
in generating hypotheses. However, results
are not generalizable to other populations due
to the small number of respondents interviewed
in the study.

It is unknown how the presence of so many
different interviewers in the first phase of
this study affected the results.

The presence of the tape-recording equipment
may have affected the responses of those
interviewed. (For a more detailed discussion of

methodological concerns, see Appendix A.)

24

Strengths

 

There are strengths that should be mentioned in the

use of this method.

1. This method gives a more comprehensive picture
of the families than would be available using
other methods. Distinctions can be recognized
among family members and among the families.
These distinctions can then be explored.

2. The interrelationship between sources of data
such as interview responses, notes of
observations, and use of artifacts gathered
during interviews with respondents can be

analyzed.

Phase One

 

Phase one of this study consisted of interviews
with 24 rural families as part of a larger study of the
needs of rural residents in southwest Michigan. This
research was funded through the Agricultural Experiment
Station at Michigan State University as part of the Kellogg
Biological Station Rural Resources Education Project. The
initial goal of the interviews was to understand rural life
from the point of view of the respondents. There was
particular interest in problems encountered by the residents
that could be helped with rural education programs through
the Cooperative Extension Service. One township was
targeted to be studied intensively by the research group

involved with this larger project.

25

Respondent Selection

 

Initial contact with township leaders was effected
by a key informant who had lived and worked in the township.
This key informant was connected to Western Michigan
University. The informant did not participate in the
interviews but introduced members of the research team to
the township treasurer and township historians, and some
members of the township board. The families were selected
by two members of the research team using the township plat
map and information provided by the township treasurer.

The families were selected to represent the diversity of
lifestyles encountered in this particular township from
large scale agricultural farmers to small landholding rural
residents. Life cycle position, length of residence, and
income were also considered in the selection of families.
Several additional families were chosen to be interviewed at
a later time because their names were prominent in the
township and they represented characteristics not found in

the earlier sample.

Data Collection

 

Initial contact with the respondent families was
accomplished with an introductory letter. Within the week
after the letter had been sent the family was contacted by
one of the interview team to answer any questions the family
members might have and, if acceptable, to set up a

convenient time for the interview.

26

The interviews with 24 families were collected by
members of the research team in the summer and fall of 1982
and spring of 1983. Over 40 individuals were interviewed
from these families. Four interviews were not recorded;
one family refused to be taped (family 16) and there were
mechanical difficulties that prevented the recording of
three other interviews. These four interviews were not
included in the analysis for the study. A collection of 20
family interviews were used.

There were six different researchers involved in the
first phase of the interviews including this researcher.

As many as three but generally two peOple conducted the
interviews. Two researchers were involved in most of the
interviews: a human ecologist from Michigan State
University and an agricultural historian from Western
Michigan University.

The list of topics covered in these interviews
ranged from land ownership and use to self-sufficient
behaviors, energy usage, and agricultural production. The
interviews lasted anywhere from an hour to several hours.
In the week following the interview a letter of appreciation
was sent to each family.

The interviews were conducted with as many family
members present as possible. No attempt was made to
interview household members separately. This may have

affected some of the responses made by informants.

27

Data Analysis

 

Prior to the analysis of the data, the interview
tapes were transcribed by secretarial services at Michigan
State University. As a project graduate research assistant,
the researcher verified the transcripts with the interview
tapes marking any needed corrections. The corrected
transcripts were then retyped. Codes were initially
formulated by this researcher and another assistant on the
project. These codes were then approved by senior members
of the research group. Codes were then tested on several
of the interviews and checked for reliability by the
assistants. The coding procedure was revised in this way
several times until a simple, economical but comprehensive
coding scheme was formulated (Appendix B). On acceptance of
these codes by other research team members all interviews
were coded and then codes were verified by the assistants,
page by page.

In order to combine and highlight some categories of
information obtained in the original interviews, an
information grid was made of the original 20 families
(see pages 45-48). The original grids contained information
on agricultural sales, as well as attitudes, values, problems,
and frustrations. Information relevant to the purposes of

this study will be presented in the analysis section.

28

Phase Two

 

Phase two consisted of the reinterview of five
families from the original 20. Questions in this phase
concentrated on aspects of rural residence within the

framework of the present study.

Family Selection

 

The families chosen for this phase of the study were
selected for several reasons. First, four of the families
had been interviewed in the original interviews by the
current researcher. It was felt that some rapport had
already developed between the family members and the
researcher. Secondly, the phase one interviews would
supplement insights gained in the reinterviews. Third, the
families had characteristics relevant to the purposes of
this study; they represented a diversity of lifestyles
encountered in a rural environment. One family was involved
in large-scale agricultural production, one was a smaller
family farm, another consisted of nonfarming rural residents
living on 25 acres of land, another was a retired widow
living on 110 acres and last--a family new to the township
that had just completed their house. This last family was
not originally interviewed by this researcher, but their
situation was unique to the 20 interviews and was thought

to fulfill the purposes of theory generation.

29

Data Collection

 

The data collection in phase two followed a similar
format to phase one. Initial recontact with the families
was accomplished by letter (Appendix C). Within a week
after the letter was sent a telephone call was made to the
household. The researcher introduced herself to the person
on the phone and asked if a letter had arrived. In all
cases the letter had been received. The researcher then
briefly explained the purpose of the study as outlined in
the letter. The researcher emphasized the informal nature
of the interview using the word "talk" instead of "interview."
At this point three of the families agreed to reinterviews
almost immediately. Two other families indicated that it
was inconvenient at that time and to call again at a later
date. After three weeks these families were called again
and agreed to interviews.

Interviewing and Other Procedures

 

Questioning techniques. The main research technique

 

used in this study involved ethnographic interviewing.
Ethnographic techniques differ from survey question
techniques in a number of ways. First, the questions are
largely unstructured and closely follow the flow of
conversation. This allows the researcher to stop at
appropriate times and closely question the respondent about
the replies to any particular question. It is also
important in ethnographic techniques to understand the

respondent as an individual rather than trying to codify and

30

record the respondent's answer as it fits the researcher's
needs. The researcher tries not to assume or anticipate an
answer but uses questions to let the respondents tell their
unique viewpoints. Secondly, the researcher can follow
different themes if they become interesting or fruitful.

The researcher has the freedom to let the interview go

where it will as a technique to get a broad overview of a
topic and to develop new themes. Finally the researcher has
a second or third chance to follow up on different ideas
that emerge from the interviews. The researcher can
question, analyze, question again and analyze again rather
than being tied to one interview in time. In this particular
study this ability is an advantage; the time between
interviews was sometimes as long as a year and a half.

Types of questions. Several types of questions were

 

used in the course of the interviewing. The most basic type
of question is an information request. These questions were
very basic and were often used to get things going. The
root question is simply "tell me about . . . " For example,
"tell me about the kinds of things you do during an average
day."

Another type of question frequently asked deals with
categories of answers. This was used when the researcher
wanted to know all the kinds of things that were either part
of a larger topic or could be included under a heading. For
example, "What kinds of things do you do at the lake?" or

"How many kinds of organizations are there in the township?"

31

The first two types of questions were frequently
used during the first hour of the interviews because these
questions were meant to acquire as much information as
possible in a short time. Two other types of questions were
used more extensively during the second hour or on recontact
visits with families. The first type is a definitional
request. Often respondents will use words that represent
a larger concept. In this case the interviewer asked what
the respondent meant when using that word. For example,
one respondent told of wanting a "cozy" house (Interview,
Family 20, 5-4-84, p. 5) and the researcher asked what
'cozy' meant to the respondent.

Many questions were used to verify information that
the respondent had given. These questions took several
forms. Sometimes the responses were almost repeated
verbatim back to the respondent to ascertain if the
researcher had heard correctly. At other times a response
was rephrased by the interviewer and verification was
requested from the respondent. The last type of
verification procedure involved creating a new scenario to
see if the response matched the answer expected by the
researcher.

Other field techniques. To a lesser extent two

 

other techniques were used to gather information from the
five families. The first technique was participant
observation. During the interviews the researcher noticed

things or behaviors and wrote them down at a later time

32

period within 48 hours of the interview. These notes could
be used for a more in-depth analysis, but with this study
they were only used to indicate or support material in the
interviews. Further analysis could be accomplished at a
later date.

Floor plans were also available for four families.
Three of these families drew rough, hand sketched floor
plans at the request of the interviewer. One family
provided the working drawings for their newly completed
house. Again further analysis was not performed because
floor plans were unavailable from one family as well as
differences among the remaining floor plans. Some
respondents were happy to fill out the floor plans and a
great deal of effort went into the drawing. Others were
difficult to persuade to do the floor plans and these
tended to be less complete. This in itself does not prevent
analysis but for reasons of time and economy, these
artifacts were used sparingly so more time could be devoted
to other parts of the analysis.

General procedures. Only one family was interviewed

 

a day. It was felt that this allowed time to review the
tapes made that day and to record notes without confusion.
The general procedure consisted of the researcher driving to
the respondents' house and reintroducing herself at the door.
Once inside the house this researcher generally talked about
the study for a few minutes to relax the respondents. After

the first few minutes the researcher would request

33

permission to record the interview. All respondents agreed
to have the interview recorded.

Procedures did differ somewhat from family to family.
One of the farm families had been seen in the year between
the first and the second interview; at that time they filled
out pretest questionnaires for a survey which was the second
phase of the larger research project related to rural
educational programs. On recontact for this research the
wife agreed to be interviewed but the time of year precluded
her husband's involvement in the interview. (This was also
true of the other farming husband.) The first reinterview
with this family had to be terminated early and another
appointment set up. At the second reinterview the husband
came in for lunch and allowed the researcher to interview
him while all ate lunch. This family served as a model for
future interviews. One interview was completed before
seeing the other families and as a result of this experience
a list of possible questions was formulated that could be
used in other interviews (Appendix D).

The other interviews were accomplished in single
visits. The researcher found a single visit to be the best
procedure for two reasons. The interviews were inconvenient
for the two farming families because of the time of year;
they stated that this was their busiest time. Another
family postponed the interview because of the need to get
their garden in, another had a child graduating from high

school. The families seemed very busy. It was also

34

possible that the researcher might have only one

opportunity to interview in person so an attempt was made to
cover ground during the first contact with a follow-up
telephone contact later to verify information.

Another reason for the longer contact in the single
interview involved the researcher's personal observation
that the interviews worked better for her this way. The
first reinterview seemed to require time to warm up for
both the researcher and the respondents. The first hour
was spent confirming details from the original interviews
and the collection of floor plans. In the second hour of
the interview words would flow much more easily and the most
important details were gathered at this time.

There was some difference in the length of interview
time. The shortest reinterview lasted one hour and twenty
minutes with one of the farm families (family 7). Getting
permission for this interview was difficult and a third
interview was discouraged, but the respondent agreed to be
phoned for further questions. The longest time was spent
with the other farm family (family 15) and involved an
invitation to stay for lunch, this interview contact was
approximately six hours long.

As in the original interviews as many family
members as possible were encouraged to be present. Each
family differed somewhat. Details of the interviews appear

in Table l.

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Date, Time and Family Members Present
at Interviews.
{9
0!
e “71
‘1 s
4 SP‘9 0 A»
'P' o a, o W S
‘I o o e 5’ R 0
4. 9’0 a7 9 R I»
Family 4 8-03-82 1 hr. 30 min. Patsy, John, Kelly (D) ++
The Besters 5-20-84 3 hr. 10 min. Patsy, John C.A.B. +
7-06-84 30 min. Patsy (telephone) C.A.B.
Family 7 10-10-82 1 hr. 10 min. Alan C.A.B. ++
7-09-84 25 min. Julie (telephone) C.A.B.
Family 15 10-10-82 2 hr. 10 min. Jerry, Mo C.A.B. ++
The Calvins 4-26-84 1 hr. 20 min. Mo, Harry (S) C.A.B.
5-01-84 3 hr. 35 min. Mo, Jerry C.A.B.
7-09-84 25 min. Mo (telephone) C.A.B.
Family 20 5-03-83 1 hr. Bill, Margaret C.A.B. +
The Figers 5-07-84 3 hr. 15 min. Bill, Margaret, Rob (S) C.A.B.
7-06-84 25 min. Margaret (telephone) C.A.B.
Family 21 5-07-84 1 hr. 30 min. Ruth C.A.B. +
The Ghosts 4-28-84 2 hr. Ruth C.A.B.
7-09-84 25 min. Ruth (telephone) C.A.B.
+ - interviewer other than researcher
(S) - son
(D) - daughter

All the families were given gifts of baked goods

made by the researcher. In addition, two of the respondents

with dogs were also offered large dog bones for their pets.

The gifts were meant as a goodwill gesture for agreeing to

participate in the study. It was seen as an exchange

similar to the reciprocal sharing talked of in the original

interviews.

Following the interview the researcher would listen

to the tape on the drive home to review the interview. On

returning home notes would be made about the interview

consisting of time spent, visual observations of the house

and interiors and notes concerning the way the respondents

36

answered the questions. In the beginning an attempt was
made to transcribe the tapes verbatim, but this proved to
be impractical and took time away from preparation for other
parts of the study. Complete transcripts were made for two
of the families, notes were made on the other family
interviews and quotes pertinent to research objectives were
written down. Each tape was reviewed at least three times:
once immediately after the interview, once for transcription
of notes and once for an accurate transcription of specific
quotations. There was one exception to this procedure. One
of the tapes became demagnetized between the second and
third playback and a portion of the actual interview with
family 4 was lost; fortunately, notes and some quotes were
available for the lost sections.

The final contact with the families consisted of
telephone follow-ups to clear up any unanswered questions,
to verify information and give the families some feedback

as to the outcomes of the research.

Data Analysis

 

Several procedures were experimented with when
trying to find the best way to handle the data. In general,
several color coding systems were tried before a fairly
simple six color code system was selected.

The final categories used in the color coding were
formulated after reviewing information in the phase one

interviews and reviewing past satisfaction literature.

37

Initial uses of the color coding system closely paralleled
information thought to be related to rural residences. The
'Housing,‘ 'Family,‘ and 'Community' topics were all thought
to impact on residential satisfaction and had been studied
in the past by other researchers mentioned earlier.

'Energy use and self-sufficient behaviors' were often
discussed in the phase one interviews and seemed important
to rural residential lifestyles, and so were included in

the analysis. The 'Attitudes and Meanings' category related
to the affective dimensions of the satisfaction model are
presented on page 16. The 'values' component emerged as

a concept while reviewing the transcripts. The 'Control'
category also emerged very early in the analysis even before
the interviewing had been completed. It was then included
in the color coding. For a more detailed description of

the emergent themes see Chapter III.

Each family's transcripts, notes and floor plans
were placed in a notebook. The transcripts and notes were
then reviewed. Specific passages were bracketed with the
color that corresponded to that research topic. The color
system is presented below.

Red . . . Housing including adjustments, changes,

reported housing behaviors

Orange. . Family topics including communication
patterns, goals, family history

Green . . Community involvement including church
affiliation, community organization
membership, political involvement,
friends, neighbors

38

Yellow. . Energy use and self-sufficient behaviors
contributing to household food, fuel,
shelter needs

Purple. . Attitudes, meanings, values related to
all aspects of rural living including
children, land, home, and community

Blue. . . Control statements about the environment,
family or household

This system discriminated well when dealing with the
transcripts. Notes were written in the margins with the
appropriate color pen for outstanding examples. Each
transcript was reviewed when coding for each color category;
thus the transcripts were reviewed several times.

After the coding was completed each important idea
from the transcripts was entered on a colored 3 x 5 notecard
corresponding to the color of the coding pen. If a
quotation seemed especially relevant it was also typed or
written on the card. When a family's transcript had been
transferred to cards the data could easily be arranged in
outline form. Also common areas between families such as
housing could be combined for the purpose of looking at
similarities between the families. These cards formed the
basis for the analysis section.

This coding system was then used to code the
original 20 interviews for which transcripts were available.
To simplify the process of coding several hundred pages of
original transcripts, a general procedure was used. The
original number codes were consulted to indicate tOpics

relevant to this research. The pages with this material

39

were c0pied. These copies were inserted in a separate
notebook and the new color codes were used to bracket the
appropriate material.

Some confusion could be generated in the analysis
section of this document due to the change in interviewers.
The analysis section will refer to interviewers other than
the researcher in the third person. When information is
presented in the first person it refers to either direct
observation or questioning by this researcher.

It should be mentioned that all family names have
been changed. Names referring to geographical locations
have also been altered or removed. The names that are used
have special associations for the researcher. Since the
researcher expected to present material from the study in a
verbal exchange she changed the names to fit an easily

remembered formula.

CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis of ethnographic interviews involves an
iterative process: informants are interviewed, their
responses are analyzed, new questions are formulated and
respondents are again questioned. As the interview responses
are reviewed items of potential importance are noted and
the researcher attempts to collect other examples, establish
categories, build hierarchies and discover themes. In this
process some material is put aside and other material is
highlighted.

This is the same sequence used in this study. The
reporting of the data in chapter form may be misleading.
Some themes were discovered early in the analysis, others
became evident after the interviews were over. As mentioned
earlier several themes were found in the phase one interview
transcripts. These themes were suggested by past literature
and the goals of this study. These tOpics were purposely
included in the phase two interviews. In the process of
interviewing new themes became evident and were pursued by
the researcher. In this way the themes that are discussed

in Chapter IV emerged.

40

41

This chapter will be presented in several sections.
The first section will review some of the information
obtained in the original interviews. Informational grids
will be included to give an overview of all the families in
the domains of housing, community interaction, children and
land use. Concepts that appear related to the research
problem will be discussed.

The second section of this chapter will contain
information about the five families who were reinterviewed.
Material from the interviews will be presented as it
pertains to relevant study areas. The section will close

with a summary of three domains gleaned from the interviews.

Overview of the Original Twenty Interviews

 

The information relating to this study obtained from
the original interviews will be briefly summarized.
Informational grids with more detailed information will be
presented in the second section. Finally a review of
common concepts will appear in the third section.

Summary of the Phase One Interviews

 

Rural experience. Of the 40 respondents

 

participating in the original interviews, 15 were township
natives with farming background; another four were natives
without farming experience. Of the inmigrant group, four
came with farming experience from other areas, eight had
previous rural experience and nine had no farming or rural
experience prior to their move to the township. Most of

the households had one member either from the township or

42

with previous rural experience. Only one household was
comprised of people with no previous rural experience.

Land use. There was some diversity in land use
among the residents interviewed but most were involved in
some type of agricultural activity, either commercially or
for personal use. Of the farming families, three worked
over 500 acres, six worked between 200 and 375 acres, four
worked between 50 and 200 acres. Eight families lived on
less than 50 acres, three of these families had some
agricultural production. Virtually all the families had
gardens for household use. In addition 13 of the families
had some land in timber used for fuel purposes.

Housing. Housing was not discussed in depth in the
original interviews, but it was discovered that seven of
the families lived in houses over 80 years old. Nine of
the families lived in houses less than 25 years old. The
remainder were unreported. Thirteen of the families
reported burning wood for heating at least occasionally;
most of these families used wood harvested from their own
land. Five of the families that had homes under 25 years
old reported building the home themselves or doing extensive
hand labor when the house was being built. Others in older
homes reported doing major changes such as adding rooms,
replacing windows and other large remodeling efforts
themselves.

Family life. Family life and raising children were

 

tOpics of great interest to most respondents. Many of the

43

older farming families had a child who had come into the
farm business. Other farming respondents expressed a
desire for their children to farm. Nonfarming residents
also talked of their children's involvement in gardening,
raising animals and other pursuits at home. For some of
the newer residents, the main reason for moving to a rural
area involved a belief that it was a better place to raise
children. Some of the factors reported included the
opportunity to be more involved in the school and
extracurricular activities such as 4-H; more control over
the movements of the children and beliefs that children
were not being exposed to influence of drugs and alcohol.

Social networks. There were some differences in the

 

amount of community interaction reported. Many parents
were involved in 4-H as leaders and helpers. Religious
activities were often mentioned also. Most often a loose
network of support and friendship was reported to exist for
many of the families. Activities that contributed to this
network included sharing work, produce or machinery. It
was especially important to new inmigrants without vast
agricultural experience to be able to ask an older resident
for help or to receive it without the need to ask.

Information Grids

 

Information tables 2-5 are presented on pages 45-48
to give a brief overview of the type of information
obtained in the first interviews relevant to the purposes

of this study. Topics include children, housing, community

44

interaction and land use. Those families marked with an *
indicate families interviewed during the second phase of
this project. Boxes marked with an N.A. indicate
information not ascertained in the interviews. Families
are numbered according to the chronological order in which
they were interviewed.

Concepts for Phase Two Interviews

 

As a result of reviewing the original transcripts
several areas were identified which related to the focus of
the current study. These concepts were viewed as a basis
for preliminary questions during the reinterview phase of
the study. The most prominent concepts included familism,
self-sufficiency and community interaction.

Familism. Familism in this study refers to positive
attitudes or goals relating to family interaction and
continuance. Many of the respondents reported extended
family relationships within the township. In a few cases
families reported coming back to the township because of
their family roots. Several families mentioned the
importance of working together around the property or farm.
It was thought possible that family networks could be
related to residential satisfaction. That is, if a
household had a strong family network in the community this
would contribute to residential satisfaction.

Self-sufficiency. There were numerous

 

self-sufficient activities that respondents engaged in

extensively. Some families were committed to a less

45

 

omoouos saneuovuacoo as noxou peed

mfluUfl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no» so axed .cuoo uOu season 00 used uao nuns: cow one cod coozuom AN.
peed susoucu «wen» sawo0530ca
no» .cOAusouoou uOu odouu coco .uvoos nouo¢ 5H nouns mN :snu nova ow.
:uoo uOu schemes: on omeouoo apnea
so» .nooos nouns o .crsa no souoe m .30: sauce m~ can» mood ma
no» noououoa .aonsuu .scoxo«nu sosusu .upooz nouns mu coca nova ma
new prom .soooa .co«uesuoou .cuoo nouu< m nouns m~ can» one; he
, menus
so» used s.u:ousm sauna o-He «Shaun .acn .cuoo con one om coozuom ma.
.<.z unsound .ueons .ncsonmou .cuou nouns co~a nxuoz ca
so» unsueu o» mesa uso aucox nouns mw saga mmflu ma
oauueo womb mouou
.<.z acoxouzo .>u«so .ae: .ueon) .cuoo .nuoo com one oo~ coosuom -
mousse co uoELou mouon
no» 0» poucou peed 080a .ucoxoanu .aoonu..uueoo ooa one on coosuom Ha
. mouoo
new oauusu noon .auso .cuou .aoz .npooz can can con coosuom oa
. mouou
so» as: .oauuso noon .cuoo count ow on one mm cooauom m
menus
on» auso .moosu .uo~v003 can one cow coozuom o
nouns oom nonuocu uxuoz
.<.z casuu .cuoo .auaso .eouoo con uo>o nose 5.
nouou
.<.z nonuor .uoos .Soc .auoouo .cuoo .usocz can one oo~ coozuom w
.<.z cuoo .ao: .auuuo nouns com uo>o m
as» onerouo .ho: .cuoo .monuo: nouns mm can» mama o.
ncoxowno .Mueao mouom
no» .cuoo booze .ouauund .uOAIooo3 .cuoo .>o= can use ooa cooauom n
mouoo
as» used no nonsense» uso nucou .mumo com one oom coosuom w
mouom
no» :uoo mouo< m cm can mm cooauom a
cooumotNAeEam on: one; sunspot x~MEom
xaeseh Sn coouso >~wEeh a mo oocsuawxm can .0»: one; .omsou04 .~ munch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

poo: .Hwo .¢.z EOOunuun .conouwx count muse» on an:
accuuwpoe Oman .ocmnus:
poo: .Hwo an sauna aaascaowuo mono: sumo H .EOOupon pooc< «use» mm cm.
0003 .Auo .<.z cousasacH annex ma ma
poo: .Huo .<.z accusnupoos cuppa .pousasacn muse» - ma
mm000um
1.6 .683 9:33.. 5 39: 3.533 .<.z 33» o S
uofiuoucw
poo: .awo henna ooEuOuuoa muoczo ooHopOEou .Haoz 3o: .vouoasmcH muse» om ma.
0": .‘Oz 0‘02 O<Oz Vd
poo: .Hwo wooed posuouu0d muocko numb A .mEOOuown N oooo< mums» cod ma
nooz 9.: 3.6: .30 .393 3583.. 32:6 couoa can 33m .4.2 2
mzovcwa seaweaao oopo<
poo: .awo o>0uu poo: uawan oceans: .o>0uu 0003 ©0000 .pounasucu mummy +oo~ HA
ago .0003 060: wagon muoszo .¢.z mono» ma ca
ocomouox .owuuooau oeon uawso muoczo .<.z muse» ha a
poo: .<.z m600u N ooaopoEom mums» +ooa m
wooed mzoocflz .mocchAu uO«u0uc« Adm
Hwo uo umoe poEu0uuod muoczo m:«v:~oc« mcwaoooeou o>wnco»xm muse» mad h .
Ado .0003 .4.2 owaa cw poaoooeum .<.z o
0003 mcuao cow
HMO .owuuuoam .<.z .<.z muse» ma m
pwummfiowuuwm NHHEmu muaucu
poo: .Hwo ocoomsn xn pocowmoo omso: use: 3oz «euro: n v .
HMO .0003 uzo emu”: uoooa sumo .conuuwx ooaoooEom muse» om n
.<.z .<.z .<.z .<.z N
0003 .Hwo muoc3o xn ooEuouuod noon; .maamz oo>oe .mcdaopoeou none: mung» +ooH a
moonsom xmuocm munOuum Hegemuoa mucoEumsno¢1mcflmsoz om< madmaoz addeom
>«wEmh >n noouaom >muocm can uncuum Ascomuom .aucoEunan04 ocuusoz .om< mewmso: .n manna

47

 

uougmssp A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

auAAAnAsson s «o sooA use Eusu has vAsoa no: use» oouuoaxn .:On A .couvAAsu uAsos N AN.
ssus Asusu :A couvAAso u0>o Aouucoo sues o>sn sucousmvsoeon can 0\x NN
us ss>AA so. .suesuso eouu canoe UCAucsu peso-s: pas uousmssa ooAuusE .uounosso 0\a nN 0N.
sooA>uos
ooBus :A uoousu .sous Asusu cA ucAaAA cA coo-ououcA no: new voAuusE .acseuoo :A son A aA
Aouucoo cues .sous Asusu cA ous coquAco cuss: 30:3 .<.z moms
.sous Asusu :A couvAAzo so sousasouo suOA .UAcxnoquo aA >AAEsh .uouemsso A .ucon N NA
AJAAAnAucomwou
cusoA 09 Ian» ass) .eouvAAzu u0u unchouA>co seenvona ass: .<.z sums .aoupAAno us: NA
omoAAoo ou om on coquAnu :uon
uooaxs .ucqeusu AAAEsu OueA oo o» coquAno oxAA oAsoa sucousu :oa 0\> mA .uounmsso 0\> nA mA.
uouzmsso
uoaush :uA) ausu so xuos secs N uAsos A .acou uAsos N vA
sous Asusu :A 0>AA 0» ans! aAco coquAzo s>oAAon euzousa coupAAnu uosuo N .cou 0\> vA NA
Eusu o» oAAzu uonqu uooaxo van on aucousm uougmsso 0\a NA .cOs 0\> mA NA
omoAAoo cA ucoosua coo usovo .xuo:
o» 30: .auAAAnAscOAesu .aosAs> coon :usoA a» neon sues) uonusm NA .mA .NA .NA cons .scou v AA
sous
Asusu :A so>AA AAA». :0. A .Eusu ou econ ass) so: vAo uonuox econ uAsps N oA
nouAuou uoausuocsum can) EusHJNwB 0\xtnN .uouemssp A
:0. unconsoa .coquAzo oaAsu ou sousAo noon ous usous Asuam cN .oN .mN poms .acoa n m
muAsos
uA omsusoocu no: 0A0 aucousm .chEusu cA couvAAeo uo ocoz AAs .nuounoaso n .ucou n m
coAusonoo uOu Aoosos :sAusAuzu 0» on o» suouzmssp sues: uonuox mN .o .o poms .suounossp n n .
Busu o» couvAAso ans:
so: 6A6 uozuo: .EA: euAs ucAEusu sA so. A ussu poAonu uonusm econ uAsps N w
oaAs Eusu o» oxAA pAsoa can uocuo any .Eusu on» nxuo: son A anon uAsos N m
uozuomou uxuoz o:OAuo>o oussooo uAcx
omvo AAAEsu .oususu and :A ouAnoo Nona chnuacs on cs0 suouzmsso nuouswsso 0\> mA .0\> NA v .
uounmwso umomdsowv oA qNA poms .nuouzmsso N
uOu uo>Aoouso :Ass mesons: .Eusu any so uso sdAo: con 0\> AN AN .NN poms .mcom N n
VA .on
ocAEusu noon uucAsms >Aocouuu uusuot .Eusu econ uo ocoz .sn .mn .Av poms .ncon m N
mucousm\0u
coeds: pAsoca chnuacs NA NAAEsu cA Eusu moox o» coquAno ass: .<.z moms .coquAzo us: A
chusoquAgu ou oousAoz nosAs> pas noosuAuu< .coquAeu u0u oAsoo coquAnU uo nom< ocs uooesz AAAssm

AAAEsm an caupAAau o» oousAoa sAsoo Asucousm pas nous .uonEsz

.v UAnsB

48

 

mouse on: 0» auonzonc ssoAAs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0A¢ evosA .suonzvo: :uAJ oOsUOun nouszm AN.
Accsnuss. quuuo mAnec30u 0A0: .onmsoq oAuqu .zuv .ommmuu AAsuu 0AAnoeaocs some .noEdm AAsa u0u
.ausoos :A saAuos soon as: .nAzsuonEoe sousnu mAgacsoa soAu uonnqu: suAa vcsA sumo souszm ON.
Aoom sousna .coAusuocssou o: .cuou
oAzsusnEos gouszu oAsscsba souu o» uonzqu: :qu ossA souszm NA
ans .¢.z NA
:sasuAu us¢uesAo> s sA assess: ..¢.9.a .4.2 BA
unso: so xuo:
aAnasBOu Abuse: :A mAssusAEsE nouasu nuA: suonzque svoz mesons: nAc
ad :sOAuoE<
.coAco s.uslush .socsuo .nsouo o¢ ooAmuusox nous:- co ocsA sacs exuoz vA
euonnuAs: nuA3 uo mAzsesOu :A oo>Ao>cA cm\om .asuszs co ocsA sucou
uos .csou Abuse: «0 uusa assAssflssu suoercoo quuooa no so: uON eusn No es: soosua nA
scerAoov AsusuAsuAums succuus uA cons aoAuAAom,
35.58 5 2.32:: 3.6 .980 as 0395:: .si 2
ansAo uAnnsu pas auAsc .usom .suoous:
usoo .nAnauenflsl nousno mAnsesOu .usoseA :nv suonnon: on soAuuooousu ao>Au .AA
convoum mousse quoozonc
auAeSEEoo eA saAuos uoz. :uAs uonsA was auocAeusE souszm oA
s‘sz s‘sz a
.¢.z .¢.z m
zuusno :A usAcsmuo pcs usAcsAm 0A
suA) .aAsscsou >nuso: cA nausea :A oo>Ao>cu .4.2 h .
ussm on» cA ooAuuo mAcacIOu
0A0: as: unseen: .xu03 auAcsesoo soap equ o
unso on» :A ooAuuo eAnncaou 0A0: sashes: .<.z m
comma:
docuo ouuon uo suoosoA .znv nqucomuoEo can) uuooeonc use mdAo: v a
quAnoum
.<.z NuAsp :uAJ muoeooao: mdAo: n
0‘02 0‘02 N
nonfiuoc
ooAuuo dAszIOu nvo: >Aucouuso oqu :uAJ quuuondmsu uOu mused naszm A
coAusonAuusm AscoAussAcswuo uouusm\opsue\ouszm AAAEsm
NAAEsm an coAusdAoAuusa AscoAusNAcsouo ocs noAuA>Auo< uouusm\oosue\ouszm .m vosH

49

consumptive lifestyle; they often burned wood for heat,
raised large gardens, raised livestock of various kinds and
preserved these products by canning or freezing. The
informational grids (pages 45-48) give a more detailed
picture of this activity.

Community interaction. Indications of community

 

interaction took many forms. These included sharing,
trading or bartering with community residents, belonging to
township organizations, and less formal friendship networks.
Less bartering took place than sharing or trading. Sharing
was often mutual. For example, Family 1 gives pears to
another family and receives raspberries in return. This
could also be called a trade, but the respondents used the
term "share." In general the organizational interaction
was of two predominant types: religious affiliations and
organizations related to agriculture such as 4-H, the Grange
and more specialized groups for dairy farmers or poultry
farmers.

Friendships were discussed frequently in the
interviews. Friendships were not purely social; there were
indications that friends also supplied help when needed.
Friends or neighbors lent machinery, pulled equipment out of

ditches and came running in an emergency.

50

Five Family Case Studies

 

Family 4 - The Bester Family

The Bester family moved into their home in the
spring of 1984. This was the realization of a goal they had
worked toward for six years. Work was highly regarded in
this family and working together as a family unit was a
stated value to promote a goal of cohesiveness and unity.
As parents the Besters encouraged independence and self-
sufficiency in their daughters. Dissatisfactions with the
environment related to the unfinished nature of the house
and property.

John and Patsy Bester appeared to be in their
forties. Both were employed outside the home; John had
started his own engineering business and Patsy worked for
a utility company. They had two daughters: Kelly who just
finished high school and Milly who had just completed the
tenth grade.

Patsy and John originally bought the land in 1978.
Some of the reasons for buying the land were mentioned by
John.

. . . the combination of wanting a new home
and the kids into horses, and the more we
got out into the country and got away the
more we decided . . . we wanted some room.
(Interview, Family 4, 8-3-82, p. 4)

Once they had purchased the land they slowly began
adding things on it. First a barn was built for their

daughters' horses, second a pole barn for the tractor and

other equipment, next fences were built and finally the

51

house was completed. All this activity took place over a
six year period. In the interim before the house was
finished, they made two trips a day from their house in a
nearby city to their land to water, feed and exercise the
horses. Patsy indicated that this took a lot of "dedication"
(Interview, Family 4, 8-3-82, p. 3)

At the time of the first interview in 1982 the home
had not been built. The second interview occurred in May
of 1984, six weeks after the family had moved into their
new two story, colonial home. At the time of this interview
Patsy took me through the house pointing out details of the
construction. Patsy reported that this is their "dream
house" (Interview, Family 4, 5-20-84, p. 10) and they have
planned many details for the future.

The linkages between the physical environment,
values and meanings were suggested by some of the things
that Patsy said about the house. The house represented
many things to the Besters: "family" (Interview, Family 4,
5-20-84, p. 3); "memories" (Interview, Family 4, 5-20-84,
p. 8); and promoting family ties by working together
(Interview, Family 4, 8-3-84, p. 5). Patsy talked about
the help that they have received from family and friends
while building the house. For example, at one point Patsy
mentioned how one of the grandmothers helped paint Kelly's
bedroom. She stated that memories like that make the house

"special" (Interview, Family 4, 5-20-84, p. 8).

52

The value of working was very noticeable in this
family; the word itself appeared in conversation with the
family again and again. Patsy stated in the original
interview that "our family is quite close . . . It has
taken a lot of work on our part getting here and getting
back all the time" (Interview, Family 4, 8-3-83, p. 5).
Patsy indicated that this involved a learning process on
the part of the children.

They had to do a lot of learning, had to
work with us both closely . . . a lot . . .
I think it's made them extremely
self-sufficient. (Interview, Family 4,
5—20-84, p. 3)

This emphasis on working together was not unplanned

as Patsy indicated.
Children need to have responsibilities
. . . that's one thing we've tried to do
with this . . . there's a responsibility
here that we all have to pull together
on . . . and they know how important they
are to that responsibility . . . (Interview,
Family 4, 5-20-84, p. 3)

Patsy and John differed somewhat in their
attachment to the house and property. John appeared to be
more attached than Patsy to the structure. John told of
staying late at work throughout one winter while designing
the house, he carried the main design responsibility even
though the family helped by making suggestions. John also
built some special things in the house: a brick storage
unit in the kitchen for the microwave, a wooden floor in

one of the dining areas and a wooden staircase in the entry.

John also served as contractor while the house was being

53

built. He indicated that it would be "traumatic" if
anything happened to it. He stated "I have a lot of me in
this house, physically and mentally" (Interview, Family 4,
5-20-84, p. 8).

Patsy on the other hand stated that the "outside" is
special to her. (Interview, Family 4, 5-21-84, p. 8) Patsy
indicated that she likes to garden. John uses the near
environment to release tension.

It's just more relaxed and quiet. If I
want to get away from it, I can just

walk straight back there 200 feet and

I'm away from a lot of things. (Interview,
Family 4, 5-20-84, p. 6)

The Besters seem to care about the appearance of the
neighborhood. They initially chose the township as a place
to settle because of the zoning requirements.

We looked for quite a while in [the]
township. That's kind of where we wanted
to be because of zoning and because its
more agricultural and zoning is a little
stiffer as for letting them have junk cars.
(Interview, Family 4, 8-3-82, p. 1)

They also indicated that if the open land behind
them came on the market they would attempt to buy it. The
land was owned by the same man who sold them their land
originally; this man is thinking of selling out. Their
reasons for the purchase would be to control the way the

land is used and by whom it would be used.

Patsy--Well, we wouldn't want it just to
go to anyone, for anyone to build . . .

John--We'd try and buy right through if he
sold it. (Interview, Family 4, 5-20-84, p. 4)

54

Even though the Besters had not lived in the
township very long, they were already involved in community
activities. They acted as leaders for a children's horse
group. The did not belong to other groups because they did
not like "politics" in the groups (Interview, Family 4,
5-20-84, p. 5). On the other hand Patsy and John spoke
often and with warmth about their new neighbors and friends.
The next few statements were just a few of the many made by
the Besters in the course of the interviews.

Patsy--We made friends out here so fast . . .
people are so willing to help. (Interview,
Family 4, 8-3-82, p. 14)

John--We're probably as close to any of the
people here as we were with our one

neighbor who was right across the driveway
from us. [Referring to their best friend

in their last house.] (Interview, Family 4,
8-3-82, p. 3)

Patsy--Since we've been out here, there is
no doubt in my mind . . . you know you need
your neighbor and you may need him fast and
you're just closer . . . (Interview, Family 4,
5-20-84, p. 6)

They stated that their goals for the future include
finishing the house and making it as comfortable as possible
for the girls to come back to and for their own retirement.
Patsy seemed to have a great deal of pride in what they have
accomplished and she indicated what this effort meant to the
family.

If Kelly leaves and never comes back, she's
got roots . . . stability . . . she's got

it and Milly's got it and we've given it to
them. (Interview, Family 4, 5-20-84, p. 9)

55

Family 7 - The Hall Family

 

The Hall's major dissatisfaction is related to the
proximity of a subdivision to their farm. This created
difficulty in the running and expansion of the farm, one of
Mr. Hall's main goals. The kitchen was mentioned as a
source of dissatisfaction to Mrs. Hall; the size and layout
inhibit food preparation. Both the adults valued the house
and it provided the main reason for staying in their present
location. Both adults had indicated that the preservation
of their house was a long-term goal.

Alan and Julie Hall were in their mid-thirties.
They had three daughters, nine, six and two and a half
years of age. Alan ran a large agricultural operation with
over 800 acres in crop farming and 85 head of dairy cattle.
He also had a side business selling wood chips. Julie
worked in the home and was very involved with her church as
a pianist and organist.

The Halls originally bought the farm in 1977. The
house on the property was a large, white Victorian structure
and was about 115 years old. It had over 5,000 square feet
of floor space. The house was in bad shape when they first
bought it. Julie stated, "I just cried when I first saw
it." (Interview, Family 7, 5-17-84, p. 1) Alan described
the house in the following manner.

This house was a total wreck, in fact it
was so bad my wife wouldn't move into it
. . . the guy had lived here 20 years and

never done a thing to it. In fact, the
people that lived here just before we

56

bought the place . . . had cats and dogs
in here and they weren't potty trained

. . . there was even a billy'goat in here
and there was writing all over the wall

. . . it was really rough. (Interview,
Family 7, 10-10-82, p. 17)

Alan and Julie worked on the house for a year before
they moved in. Alan described the work done.

We went through and repainted the house,
fixed all the broken windows, put new
storm windows on it, insulated it, put
a new roof on it and redid the whole
downstairs and upstairs. (Interview,
Family 7, 10-10-82, p. 17)

Julie indicated that it was liveable when the
"carpet was down and the wallpaper in" (Interview, Family 7,
5-17-84, p. l).

The house is actually divided up into two household
spaces. Most of the house is used by the Halls. Alan's
grandmother lives in a duplex on one side of the first
floor.

Both Julie and Alan had developed a strong
attachment to the house. Even though the Halls were
interviewed independently they spoke of the historic roots
of the house. It seemed as if part of their attachment is
based on their efforts to preserve it. Julie mentioned that
people tried to get them to lower the ceilings or modify the
house in other ways but both the Halls resisted this. Alan
stated: "Just love it the way it is; I wish I had the money

to go through and maybe do it a little better" (Interview,

Family 7, 10-10-82, p. 20). Part of Julie's appreciation

57

of the house was based on her stated belief that "they
could never replace" this house (Interview, Family 7,
5—17—84, p. 10).

When Julie talked about the house and the family
she indicated that she tries to make it a special
environment for her family.

I want things nice. . . . I've gone into

a lot of people's homes . . . I've seen

a lot of kids' rooms . . . nothing matches,
maybe there's no carpet on the floor . . .
it'll be just a real small, square, little
room that it's just nothing . . . I guess

I just wanted things to coordinate, I want
bedspread and curtains to match, I want
nice little things in there that they would
like to use. They each have a little desk
in their rooms . . . I'm real proud of my
house . . . my kids are so proud of their
rooms. (Interview, Family 7, 5-17-84, p. 7)

The Halls attempted to segregate business and
family spaces in the house to a certain extent. This had
not always met with success, and in some cases was later
found to be undesirable. For example, Julie indicated that
Alan's office has been moved three times. The first time
the office was in another part of the house with a separate
entrance. Julie stated that Alan didn't care for this
arrangement in the wintertime because he wanted to be closer
to the family. They next tried it upstairs but Julie
indicated that it was unacceptable to have men walking
through the house to go upstairs to the office. At the
time of the interview the office was near the kitchen and

just off the back door but Julie mentioned that the space

was too small for Alan and the office will be moved again.

58

Julie also indicated that Alan did a lot of work in the
living room while watching television with the family.

Segregation was attempted with household workspaces
also. The laundry had also moved several times in the six
years they had lived in the house; at the time of the
interview it was upstairs. In the future the Halls would
like to open up the rest of the house and provide a special
place for Julie's musical instruments. Her piano and organ
were observed to be in the dining room. Julie stated that
these changes will be accomplished when Alan's grandmother
is no longer living with them.

The ability to segregate spaces and peOple in the
house is one of the things that Julie liked best about the
house. She stated that she "can escape" to her bedroom and
not hear the rest of the family when she needs time alone
(Interview, Family 7, 5-17-84, p. 8).

As the Halls have become more attached to the house
their implied satisfaction with the rest of the prOperty
had decreased. Alan stated he is having trouble getting
loans to expand his Operations. He stated the main reason
to be his proximity to residential neighbors; their farm
borders on a small subdivision only yards away from his
barnyard. He does not think the Right-To-Farm law protects
him.

But where I have my problems with the
Right-To-Farm law is getting money to
build anything here . . . I can't get

a new barn. They say well maybe you
have the right to farm now, if they

59

throw a big enough stink, maybe in five
years or ten years they can run you out

. . . they've suggested that I move out
of here, don't expand anything here . . .
(Interview, Family 7, 10-10-82, p. 16)

Julie stated there are also problems with dogs from
the nearby subdivisions attacking their cows. Many of the
residents in the subdivision allowed their dogs to run loose
and the Halls have had several incidents with them. Still
Julie indicated that their attachment to the house was
holding them back.

In fact, there's a lot of times the
farming hasn't worked out back here,
we needed to have a different dairy
set up, places didn't want to lend
you money because Of all the houses
over here . . . and we really should
have looked someplace else for our
farm. The only thing that made us
not want to move is our house. We
would go in a minute if it wasn't for
this house. (Interview, Family 7,
5-17-84, p. 10)

Most Of Julie's community interaction is
accomplished through the church she belonged to. The Halls
sent their two oldest daughters to the Christian school
held at the church. Julie indicated that next year the
girls will go back to public school because of the high
cost of the tuition at the church school. Julie stated
that she would prefer to send her children to the Christian
school because she believed the public school environment
was not as good as the church school setting.

I really didn't want my kids going there
. . . I know there's a lot of trouble

with drugs and this one guy taught . . .
he had an attitude . . . he didn't like

60

kids, only doing it for the money and
only sticking it out till his retirement
. . . I just didn't want those kind of
peOple training my child. (Interview,
Family 7, 5—17-84, p. 4)

Julie stated that she likes the new development in
the community including the restaurants and the new
shopping mall. She realized that her satisfaction with the
new development might conflict with other family goals. "I
suppose for the farm it's not necessarily good, there's a
lot more traffic." (Interview, Family 7, 5-17-84, p. 11)

In summary the Halls had somewhat conflicting goals.
On the one hand Julie and Alan have tried to create a
special environment for their family; it seemed that they
saw the house as fulfilling many of their individual goals
of providing business and living space. They also voiced
a strong value for preserving the house. On the other hand
they reported that their farming Operation suffered because
of the proximity to a residential subdivision. Julie
indicated that their attachment for the house had kept them

in an unsatisfactory farming environment.

Family 15 - The Calvin Family

 

The goals and values of the Calvins were closely
related to the continuation of the family and the farm with
special emphasis on the goals for children. Interaction
with children frequently took place in the working
atmosphere of the farm. The adults expressed the desire to
have both children go to college. Afterwards they would

like to see them decide to stay on the farm.

61

Their home was used for a variety of activities,
many seem to overlap into more than one domain. The dining
room was used for most business activities and also used for
meals and visits; sometimes more than one activity occurred
at the same time.

Jerry and MO Calvin were in their mid-thirties.

They had two children; Harry is 14 and Mary is eleven. They
were living on an 80 acre farm that included a white, two
story house, a large wood and stone barn and a smaller
.shed-type outbuilding. Jerry and MO also worked Jerry's
father's 320 acre farm and dairy. It's located about a

mile away from their present home.

Jerry was originally from the township. Mo is
originally from a city in Florida; they met one spring while
Jerry was vacationing and married several months later.

When Jerry was growing up he did not think that he
wanted to go into farming, partially because of his
allergies to some of the crops. After high school he worked
at a factory job in town. When his father retired, Jerry
took over the running of the dairy operation at his parents'
farm.

Jerry and Mo moved into their house in 1972. Prior
to that they had lived with Jerry's parents for three years.
Mo described it as "hairy" and "bad" (Family 15, 4-26-84,

p. 2). Jerry thought that the farm was bought "out of
necessity" (Interview, Family 15, 10-10-82, p. 2). "One of

them either-or situations." (Interview, Family 15, 5-1-84,

62

p. 24) At one point Mo mentioned that she had threatened
to leave Jerry if they didn't move but she laughed as she
told the story (Interview, Family 15, 4-26-84, p. 3).

They had looked for houses in town. Jerry
mentioned why he did not like any of these homes.

I guess being close to other houses . . .
that's the biggest thing. Didn't want
to live in town, didn't want to drink
city water. That's nasty. (Interview,
Family 15, 5-1-84, p. 23)

When the house went up for sale Mo indicated that
they bought it because "it was close [to the dairy], first
one that came up in the neighborhood" (Interview, Family 15,
4-26-84, p. 3).

When Jerry and Mo moved into the house there were
quite a few difficulties with the existing structure. Jerry
reported making several changes with the electrical, water
and sewage systems which had to be completed before they
could Obtain insurance on the place. For a year they lived
with two overhead lights and one electrical outlet that
worked. Still Mo indicated that it was a "pleasure" to move
into it (Interview, Family 15, 5-1-84, p. 27). Later work
included tearing down plaster and installing new wall
surfaces, painting and wallpapering. In order to save energy
new windows and insulation were added to the house. In the
last year a wood-burning stove had been added. Most of

these changes have been accomplished by the two of them.

For some things like the windows they hired help to put them

63

in. Mo indicated that she desired these changes more than
Jerry.
The most used room in the house was the dining room.
It was furnished with a diversity of items representing
some of these uses. To suggest a few of its uses: an
upright piano was evident flanking the arched Opening into
the living room. Directly Opposite the piano a filing
cabinet and a wooden bookcase stood. An aerial view Of the
farm hung on the wall over the filing cabinet. At the other
end of the room several folding chairs were leaning against
the wall. An armchair and small end table were positioned
in front of the folding chairs. A credenza was positioned
in one corner; the top held several piles Of papers. In
the very center of the room was a table with five chairs.
During my own return visits I was always led to the
dining room table. It turned out that many formal and
informal visits ended up at the table. When asked how the
room was used Mo stated the following.
Probably as much for business as we do for
family, we do all our figuring right here
at the table. The men come in, everybody
sits down, Jerry and I discuss . . .
(Interview, Family 15, 5-1-84, p. 19)
The dining room acted as a business center for the
farm, a place for children's homework and an entertainment
spot for family and friends. Mo indicated that the dining

room was as much a business place as a family meal place and

the uses at times conflicted.

64

The house was furnished with an eclectic mix of
furniture and almost everything had been purchased at
auctions. Mo stated that both she and Jerry like Old
things, and she hated to see furniture discarded or
otherwise wasted. Mo also spoke Of an attraction to its
"character," her appreciation is tied to its practical
aspects and she likes to imagine how it was used.

We were talking about that rolltop desk
. . . I don't know what it is but it's
got character, maybe, a feeling . . .
like . . . I could imagine . . . it's
got the wings that hinge where they had
those great big books, where they Opened
up, it had to work at a night job, train
station maybe. (Interview, Family 15,
5-1-84, p. 17)

When asked if she was dissatisfied with any part of
the house MO stated "no". Later she indicated that the
kitchen could use some storage space. While completing the
floor plan Mo stated "we sleep in this little biddy room
that you have to cross the bed to cross the room" (Interview,
Family 15, 4-26-84, p. 11). When asked specifically if this
caused dissatisfaction, Mo indicated that it didn't. MO
indicated that the room was used "only for sleeping"
(Interview, Family 15, 4-26-84, p. 25).

Even though Jerry and Mo indicated that they are
very satisfied With the house they are somewhat ambivalent
about it. Jerry was waiting to move back to his parents
home when it becomes available. He indicated a definite

attachment to the other house and does not feel the same

way about his present home. "I'd always lived at home . . .

65

moving away from home was . . . its just not my house . . .
this will never be my house" (Interview, Family 15, 5-1-84,
p. 24). Mo expected to move to Jerry's parent's house but
spoke of the convenience for the dairy business rather than
an emotional attachment to the structure.

The outside space was strongly valued by Mo, she
indicated that it was her favorite thing about their home.
The children both had outdoor hobbies; Harry had a
motorcycle and Mary had a horse.

The farm and house were very much integrated for
family interaction. One of the most important places for
this activity was the dairy barn. The whole family
participated in the afternoon milking. Mo indicated that
she even took the kids when they were babies. This was
related to a value for family involvement in the farming.

You know to work at something that you
both enjoy, this type of work . . . I
used to be a nurse, and I really like
that. I probably could go back to it
now but if you're going to farm I think
it has to be a family thing. (Interview,
Family 15, 10-10-82, p. 15)

Mo and Jerry would like their children to stay in
farming but realize that the decision is theirs. Financial
arrangements have already been made so "they'll be able to
walk into it if they want." (Interview, Family 16, 5-1-84,
p. 14) Mo Calvin stated that she would like them to go to

college before that time.

66

Both the adults indicated that the country is a good
place to raise children. In an earlier interview Jerry put
it this way.

I think a lot of kids start gettin' into
trouble when they don't have things to

do . . . he's got the motorcycle and Mary's
got a horse . . . that takes a lot of their
time and we're trying to get them 4-H now.
As long as there are leaders around to help
these kids that's in the county . . . that's
going to help an awful lot. I really feel
sorry for kids that's in the city.
(Interview, Family 15, 10-10-82, p. 21)

The Calvins participated in few formal community
organizations other than their church. They had a strong
informal friendship network however. On every occasion when
I was in their home, neighbors would come over to the house
and the phone would ring several times during the interviews.
These activities were strongly encouraged by both adults in
the household. For MO these visits "take up for family not
being there" (Interview, Family 15, 5-1-84, p. 5). For
Jerry the best thing about where he lives was his "lifetime
friends" (Interview, Family 15, 5-1-84, p. 31). When we
were discussing what was important in a home, Mo spoke of

comfort for family and company being equally important.

Family 20 - The Figer Family

 

The Figers had a strong value for their surrounding
property. The property maintained a cushion of space
around them and separated them from their neighbors. The
Figers had a value for community support and interaction.
This was demonstrated through their interest in township

organizations and activities. It also provided resources

67

for themselves and their children who are both grown. Both
children indicated the desire to stay and build a new home
or live in existing buildings on the property.

Dissatisfaction in the present home related to the
floor plan. Goals in the future included building a new
home back in the woods on their land and maintaining the
land the way it is.

Bill and Margaret Figer appeared to be in their
forties; both were township natives. They met during high
school and later married. Both Bill and Margaret were
employed in a nearby town at the time of the interview.
Bill was a journeyman machinist and Margaret worked for a
doctor. They had two adult children. Their son Rob was
23 and lived at home. Their daughter Fran was 24 and lived
with her husband and child in a house on the Figer's
property.

They moved into their present home in 1960, about a
year after their marriage. One acre of land was purchased
from Bill's father and was part of the original family
homestead. Later they acquired an additional 24 acres of
family land from Bill's mother.

Bill reported that he built most of this house with
the exception Of the foundation. The original house
contained two bedrooms but after their son and daughter
were born, Mr. Figer added a bedroom and bath to one end of
the house. When talking about the house and any problems

with the space Bill indicated that they just fix it.

68

"I think nothing Of moving a wall." (Interview, Family 20,
5-4-84, p. 21) For example, both Margaret and Bill talked
about how small the kitchen was. In an attempt to add more
space Bill built a recessed cubicle for the refrigerator.
Unfortunately when he Opened up the wall he found all the
household wiring. Bill stated he just "rewired half the
house" in order to accommodate the refrigerator (Interview,
Family 20, 5-4-84, p. 22).

According to the Figers, the most used room in the
house is the living room. This room also produced the most
frustration for them. As Bill indicated, "All the traffic
goes through the living room" (Interview, Family 20, 5-4-84,
p. 21). Bill indicated that when the room was used for
entertaining it was disruptive to have peOple walking
through. This problem was mentioned several times in the
interview and Bill stated that any attempt to adjust it
"would be a major, major change" (Interview, Family 20, 5-4-
84, p. 21).

The Figers were planning to build another home in
the future for their retirement. They stated that it would
be about the same size as their present home but the floor
plan would be different and the house would sit further in
on their property. Mr. and Mrs. Figer differed in their
ideas and preferences for the new home. Margaret described
how flexible an open floor plan is while Bill stated he

wanted the house in “zones" for sleeping and other activities.

69

separate, closed-off bedroom due to the
fact I work nights. During the day if
people are here I've got to be someplace
else where I can sleep. (Interview,
Family 20, 5-4-84, p. 20)

Both Mr. and Mrs. Figer discussed the need to plan
their next home carefully. They talked about how "naive"
they were when planning their present home, and how they had
to add to the house very shortly after it was built
(Interview, Family 20, 5-4-84, p. 1). They said it is
important to plan for the future with any home. When
interviewed they were considering their future health status
and the implications this could have for their future
housing. They also discussed how inadequate their present
home would be in the event of a disability.

This house would be absolutely impossible
to live in if one of us ended up in a
wheelchair. The doorways are so narrow.
(Interview, Family 20, 5-4-84, p. 21)

The surrounding property was the main topic Of
conversation in the original interviews. Seventeen acres
Of the land was in woods. Bill was very emphatic about
keeping the land as is with no changes. When asked about
this possibility he responded.

No way! I like the woods too much . . .
I love animals, period . . . I like
nothing better than to look out in the
yard and see squirrels playing and the
rabbits running around and the deer
playing . . . (Interview, Family 20,
5-7-83, p. 15)

There were several indications of the importance of

woods and trees to Bill. In the original interview he told

70

of leasing a right-Of-way through his property to an Oil
company. At one point in time crews came in and widened
the right-of-way beyond the agreed upon width.

Originally it was a forty foot right-Of-way
through the woods . . . while we was gone,
they had permission to come in and clean
the right-of-way, which means remove the
brush on the forty foot strip. When I got
home and sit down here and had my coffee, I
could hear chain saws. I went over there
and looked, and flew in a rage and I've got
a lawsuit against them right now. They cut
106 trees they had no business to cut. It
looks like a giant freeway through there
now. (Interview, Family 20, 5-7-83, p. 13)

After the incident Bill made an attempt to replace
the trees that had been removed. He expressed an interest
in learning how to better manage his woods in the future.

The other seven acres were used for the house and
entertainment purposes. Bill stated that he keeps it
mowed. It was shared with members of the neighborhood and

friends.

We use it mainly, the kids play out there,
the neighbor kids have ball games . . .
every now and then friends get together,
bring their rigs in, have a campfire out
there some nights . . . just for private
entertainment. (Interview, Family 20,
5-7-83, p. 2)

As important as nature and the ability to entertain
were to the Figers, their chief reason for keeping the
property was related to the preference to surround
themselves with space. Mrs. Figer explained it this way.

I guess my feeling is, if you don't want
people that close then you're going to

have to do what we did, just buy land to
surround you. . . . Nowadays you're just

71

going to have to buy land to give yourself

the space because the town is coming to us

. . . is how we feel and that's exactly why

we bought the land . . it wasn't the sentiment
or anything like that . . . the houses were
getting so close that we wanted a little

space around us. (Interview, Family 20,
5-7-83, p. 20-21)

The Figers have always been very involved with the
community. According to Bill, when their children were
growing up they participated in 4-H, scouts, the little
league and other organizations. In both interviews they
mentioned supporting the volunteer fire department and the
schools. In 1984 they were still involved in community
organizations, but without formal affiliation. In the

following passage Bill discussed the Grange and his

unofficial involvement.

Our lives have gone a different way then
that so we dropped out . . . It's a good
organization, we do participate in a lot
of things that they do yet; dinners,
sporting things . . . after we drOpped
out, when they were getting ready to build
[a new grange hall] I went and worked with
the crew several days and I wasn't even a
member then . . . it was done by community
effort. (Interview, Family 20, 5-4—84,

p. 15)

Margaret agreed with the importance of involvement
in the community and talked Of the "community feeling"
generated by church and township involvement by rural
residents (Interview, Family 20, 5-4-84, p. 15).

The Figers stated that they are surprised that their
children have stayed so close to home. They indicated that

they did not try to influence their children to stay. In

72

fact, they speak of the need for privacy and noninterference.
As Bill stated, "We have our lives and they have theirs."
(Interview, Family 20, 5-4-84, p. 11) Their son, Rob, was
present at one of the interviews and he indicated that his
reasons for staying are related to the friendships he had
made in the township and the attachment he had for the
property.

The family interacted frequently; much of the
interaction was based on work. The other house on the
prOperty was currently being remodeled. The daughter and
her husband were living there at the time of the interview.
The Figers' son stated he would like to live there in the
future. All the remodeling decisions were made as a
family according to Bill. This house came up in
conversation in both the early and the later interview.
Bill grew up in the house and his mother lived in it till
her death. Later his daughter and her husband moved in and
they will stay until they build a house on the property.
Finally Rob wanted to settle permanently in the house and
raise a family there.

Family 21 - The Ghost Family

 

Even though Mrs. Ghost was a widow who lived alone,
she and the residence she lived in represent a family in the
historic sense. Much of the discussion we had together was
based on events of the past. Family involvement was still
very important to Mrs. Ghost and the small farm she lived

on had links to the past when she and her husband farmed;

73

and links to the future, when she hoped to have her son buy
the farm. The possibility of her son buying the farm was
more remote at the time of our interviews and Mrs. Ghost

had tried to make a decision to sell the farm and move to a
nearby city to be closer to her children. The decision of
whether to move or not was based on her concern over keeping
up the farm. She was aware of her limitations.

Mrs. Ghost appeared to be a woman in her early
seventies and she had lived in her present home for 47 years.
Mrs. Ghost originally moved into the house after her husband
bought the 110 acre farm from his mother. Mrs. Ghost stated
that in the beginning the family Operation was very
diversified but it gradually evolved into production of cash
crops and dairy products. This continued until her
husband's death in 1970.

When she moved into the house it "wasn't much"
(Interview, Family 21, 4-28-84, p. 1). Gradually they
improved it by adding electricity in the late 303, a new
Oil furnace and finally plumbing; a bathroom and kitchen in
1951.

Mrs. Ghost discussed how the house was used when her
family was growing up. The dining and kitchen area were
used the most by the family; children could do homework and
play games at the table. Sunday nights the family would
gather and listen to the radio. Most of the time during the
interviews Mrs. Ghost was reticent in her responses.

However, when we discussed the dining room and how it was

74

used in the past, Mrs. Ghost gave elaborate details
including descriptions of the pantry, shelves, table and
stove. It seemed as if this room was the heart of the house,
both literally and figuratively. One of the most important
items in the room was her wood-burning cook stove. Mrs.
Ghost described how things would simmer during the day,
bread would be kept warm on a back shelf. In fact she
stated that she was sorry she had sold the stove when they
remodeled the house and she reported that she missed it.
She stated that her "sister still had one and I'd give
anything to have one again" (Interview, Family 21, 4-28-84,
p. 2).

Mrs. Ghost stated that the house had changed little
since 1951. The first floor had a living room, dining room,
kitchen, bath and bedroom. This was the main living space
for Mrs. Ghost. There were also two bedrooms upstairs that
were used for storage purposes. She reported that the place
she spent the most time was her chair in the living room.

Mrs. Ghost indicated that she had lived in the same
community her entire life. She stated that she and her
husband were actively involved with the larger township and
the surrounding neighborhood. Her husband was on the
township board, and she was involved with 4-H and the Ladies
Aid Society. She was still a member of the local Methodist
church.

Neighbors served as the most important source of

social experience. In the past this interaction was an

75

economic necessity as well as a social preference. Mrs.
Ghost stated that six to eight families used to exchange
work for threshing and filling silos. During this time two
women would get together to cook and feed the men. Mrs.
Ghost felt that this was a "lot of fun" (Interview,

Family 21, 4-28-84, p. 15).

Mrs. Ghost indicated that a great deal Of informal
visiting took place also, especially during the winter
months. Families would visit back and forth two or three
times a week. In addition neighborhood card parties were
frequently held on weekends. Mrs. Ghost is still friendly
with nearby neighbors; they still visit back and forth and
share produce from their gardens. She had not noticed a
great deal of turnover in land ownership in her area,
development had not been a problem. If she were to move
Mrs. Ghost thinks she would "really miss her neighborhood"
(Interview, Family 21, 4-28-84, p. 10).

The most important feature of the land was a lake
that was contiguous with her property and a neighbor's
property. It was totally landlocked by their private
property and there was no public access. Just as the dining
room was an important indoor space for the family, the lake
represents an important outdoor interaction space. When her
husband was alive Mrs. Ghost recalls having three to four
large picnics a summer for family and friends. It was still
used by the family. Her daughter came and camped by the

lake on weekends. Her son used it for ice fishing during

76

the winter. Mrs. Ghost still used the lake also. "It's
about a half mile, seems about like that, I walk down there
a lot when I exercise" (Interview, 4-28—84, p. 4).-

At the time of the interview Mrs. Ghost was thinking
of selling the farm and moving to a nearby city, near her
son and daughter. Her attachment to the lake was holding
her back.

Well, I really would like to get me an
apartment or something in [a nearby
city]: that's really where I'd like to
go . . . but . . . I hate to sell the
farm. For one reason, we have a lake
on the farm and all my kids, grandkids
and all love that lake. I guess I'm
being selfish, I don't want to part
with that lake. (Interview, Family 21,
4-28-84, p. 3)

Part of her attachment to the lake was influenced by
her husband's love for it, " . . . cause my husband was, he
just thought the world of that lake, and he was really
proud of it" (Interview, Family 21, 4-28-84, p. 3).

At one point her son expressed a desire to buy the
farm and run it. He had recently married for the second
time and the move back to the farm was less of a
possibility. Mrs. Ghost also does not think the
grandchildren would be interested in buying the farm. A few
have grown to adulthood and moved to places out of state.
Mrs. Ghost was pragmatic about this but she became tearful

when she mentioned how important continuity is to the

family.

77

I think they have to go where the work is.
I think they prefer to live here . . .
they'll be back. I can't blame them . . .
gotta . . . go where the work is . . . I
think they miss family life . . . they make
friends but its not like family.
(Interview, Family 21, 4-28-84, p. 14)

Mrs. Ghost was considering a move to an apartment in
town. Her reasons for moving were based on her awareness of
her future limitations. She would like a ground floor
apartment near a shopping area "close enough to get to the
store when I can't drive" (Interview, 4-28—84, p. 10).

Still there were parts of her lifestyle that she would miss
very much including gardening and walking around the lake.

The days that she though about moving were usually
days when things went wrong.

. . . last three to four years, he's been
gone 14 years. I have days I wish I was
someplace else. . . When I need help to
start the lawnmower and there's no one
here. Last year a renter put corn too
close to the neighbor's fence where the
neighbor had cattle. They stuck their
heads thru the fence to get the corn and
ruined the fence. I'm waiting for him to
fix it, I haven't heard from him, it's
times like that I think I shouldn't be
here, life gets complicated nowadays.
(Interview, Family 21, 4-28-84, p. 13)

When Mrs. Ghost spoke about selling her land she had
definite preferences for what happens to the land; she would
like it to "stay just like it is" (Interview, 4-28-84, p.
12). She felt especially concerned about the lake; in the
past developers did try to build on it when the other farmer

sold his portion. She indicated that the lake was too small

78

for deve10pment. She would like to see the land remain in
farming and worried that a land use change might adversely
affect nearby farmers.

In conclusion Mrs. Ghost's appreciation of her place
was strongly tied to the pleasant memories she had in the
house and the lake. The lake also had positive meaning for
her because of its link with her late husband. Mrs. Ghost
had been thinking about selling the prOperty for some time,
she had always hoped that her son would buy it but that
seems an unlikely possibility. Mrs. Ghost also thought she
was less able to do the necessary tasks around the property
and would like to find a more manageable living situation
for her possible future limitations. At the time of the
interview she seemed to be influenced by her warm, affective
ties to the property and her perception that she would be
unable to perform jobs she felt were necessary to keep it

up.

CHAPTER IV

INTEGRATION OF THE FIVE FAMILY
CASE STUDIES WITH THE PHASE ONE INTERVIEWS

9.2412

It became evident that satisfactions and
dissatisfactions with residence fell into two types. There
were satisfactions and dissatisfactions that were readily
apparent and salient; respondents spoke about these with
ease. Often the dissatisfactions of this type were
temporarily or permanently uncorrectable from the view of
the household members. Correction took the form of simple
structural adjustments or in the most extreme case it could
mean moving to a new house or property. The other types of
satisfactions and dissatisfactions were largely ignored or
seldom thought of; these would only be revealed when
triggered by a random comment or when reporting behavior.
Sometimes during the interview the discussion would come
around to part of the house or property and a subtle
satisfaction or dissatisfaction would emerge.

Morris and Winter (1978) stated that satisfaction
with an attribute of the residence is tied to how important
the attribute is to the functioning of the family. If a

portion of the environment is important to the goals of the

79

80

family it has a greater chance of incurring satisfaction or
dissatisfaction. In the interviews it seemed people could
talk about what was or was not important to the family,
while satisfactions and dissatisfactions were secondary
formulations based on the importance of these items. It
seemed that the family or the individual had explicit or
tacit goals that were considered and then the Objective
residential characteristics were evaluated as conforming or
not to these goals.

Goals were as common and ordinary as needing a place
to do laundry or as significant as promoting family
cohesiveness. The families did not talk about goals being
related to satisfaction. This was suggested by the manner
in which dissatisfactions were discussed. It seemed the
underlying reason for dissatisfaction was related to some
salient purpose, goal, value or intention.

Values and goals have been discussed in family
systems literature. Melson (1980) described the "family as
a set of interrelated roles, changing with time and actively
pursuing goals" (p. 4). In this same work values are
defined as having "an 'ought' character that guides personal
actions, provides standards for reaching decisions and
resolving conflicts, justifies behavior, and maintains self-
esteem" (Melson, 1980, p. 100). It is suggested that goals
are formed, acted on, adjusted, discarded or renewed over
the lifetime of the family or individual. The goals are

formed by attitudes, values and meanings that family members

81

bring to the residential situation. In some cases one
member's goal takes precedence over others.

Values and goals are believed to be learned in the
family and influenced by experience. Morris and Winter
(1978) discuss the concept of 'norms' or values as
mediators of satisfaction.

In order to clarify the remainder of the discussion
two definitions will be added. Goals will be defined as the
endpoint of an effort toward fulfillment of some objective
or desire. Values are defined as cognitive and affective
formulations that guide family standards related to the
residence. The cognitive, affective and behavioral
dimensions that formed the basis for the study framework
remain important in the formation of questions and the
analysis of data.

In the following case studies the implicit goals and
values related to satisfaction will be highlighted as well
as any overt statements of dissatisfaction. A short
discussion of each of the five families follows. Emphasis
will be placed on goals or values mentioned by the families
as being important to their household and their place of

residence.

Goals from the Five Case Studies
During the analysis several family goals in relation
to the place of residence became apparent. While each

family had individual goals relating to their own unique

82

situations some of the goals could be categorized under a
broader conceptual goal. Three goals that appeared
repeatedly in several families will be discussed. rThe first
goal is for a sense of belonging, related to a feeling of
mutual attachment between a group, family, community or
environment. This goal emerged from earlier statements that
were coded under family topics and meanings, attitudes,
values. The goal of belonging emerged from statements that
could be coded under several categories. The second goal
relates to environmental competency in behaviors or
cognition related to rural living. Competency was
discovered in the statements about self-sufficiency and
energy usage. It was also a theme that emerged from the
Ghost interview when we discussed Mrs. Ghost's desire to
move. The third goal relates to control over aspects of the
residential place. Control statements were easily found in
the interview transcripts, several respondents made a
connection between their residential choice and control over
some aspect of the environment. The next section of the
analysis will mention examples from the five family case
studies and then present supporting information from the
larger phase one collection of interviews.

Belopging

 

The goal of belonging was reminiscent of the
affective portion of the satisfaction model presented on
page 16. In some ways this concept relates to Seamon's

(1979) concept of 'At Homeness' or Hayward's (1974)

83

mention of home as a 'locus in space.‘ Belonging refers to
an emotional bond to a family, a social group, a community
or other environment. This bond is reinforced by ~
interactions with the environment of attachment. In the
Bester family belonging is reinforced by the family working
together to build a home in a new area. The Calvin family
also had a strong work pattern to their belonging. Mrs.
Calvin reported the main family interaction place is the
dairy barn when all family members are working together.

Continuity

 

There seemed to be a value for continuity in four
out of the five families interviewed in the second phase of
this study. The Calvins promoted future belonging by
letting their children know that there was a place for them
on the farm when they reach adulthood. The Besters had
planned their home so they could close off sections when
their children leave home and open them up again when they
return. The Figers spent considerable time with their
children fixing up the house Bill grew up in. This house
would then be passed from their daughter to their son. Mrs.
Ghost had difficulty making a decision to sell the farm
because she had always expected her son to buy it. She
hated to let go of the lake and other places with strong
family memories.

The value for continuity was voiced in the original
interviews also. One man mentioned that he "bought the

farm to settle the estate . . . kind of keep it in the

84

family: (Interview, Family 5, 8—4-82, p. 8). Another woman
spoke of their intentions for the farm.

If something happens to both of us . . .
the farm is not to be sold, its to be
preserved but it can only be sold as a
last ditch effort, financially . . .

if the kids can't keep it up. (Interview,
Family 1, 6-30-82, p. 32)

Identification

 

The concept of identification is viewed as a
component of belonging. By identification the person
perceives himself or herself as similar or sharing
characteristics in common with the group or environment of
attachment. A concept of belonging also includes positive
associations such as those described by Seamon (1979). This
warm identification suggests a temporal component. A person
belongs to the environment now and in the future; belonging
is not accomplished spontaneously but is developed over
time as this quote from one of the original case studies
suggests.

I don't know that I can blame the other
people any more than maybe ourselves. As
newcomers, you don't go out as much, and
maybe the other ones don't come in as much
to you. But very strangely, I think it was
probably like a year and a half, two years
before we truly became acquainted with the
neighborhood. And in the community as a
whole. I think even now [9 years] we're
realizing how little we know. There's a
lot about this community that is very much
of . . . peOple that have lived here all
their lives and their families lived here
and their families lived here, and I know
we go to the . . . Methodist church up here
which is our home away from home, believe
me . . . but we're kind of almost an

85

outsider in that we're not a relative of
anybody, pretty near everybody else is
relatives. (Interview, Family 19, 4-30-83,

p. 7)

Group Identity

 

This cognition of belonging sometimes limited the
perception of the respondents and revealed inaccuracies.
For example, both rural residents that were farmers and
residents that were not farmers spoke about how everybody
did the same thing or believed the same way. When Mrs.
Calvin was asked what she liked best about the community
she responded, "I don't know, because it's farming,
everyone's in the same business" (Interview, Family 15,
5-1-84, p. 6). Another person from a nonfarming family
talked about their attitudes being similar to those of their
neighbors.

They didn't like another house being
built and we don't like the same thing
that they didn't like. You don't like
to see it turn into a suburb. But the
nice part about it, really, the kind of
people that move out here are kind of
the same type. They want privacy, so
nobody bothers you, and yet everybody
would be right there if you needed
anything. (Interview, Family 18,
4-30-83, p. 4)

Definitions of belonging differ from person to
person. In the above quote, non-belonging seems to be the
accepted form of belonging unless help is needed. Others
use more stringent definitions for which people belong

including family, lifelong friends or others in the same

employment situation. The following segment of an interview

86

took place with a couple from a southern state who had lived
in the township for 18 years.

Interviewer (I): Was it easy for you to
come back here? Has it been well accepted
or are you still newcomers?

Husband (H): Oh well, we don't feel like
newcomers now because we know everybody
just around, mostly farmers.

Wife (W): There has been new houses built,
but we don't know who lives there, but we
know car when it goes up and down the road.
But I feel that everybody else tends to
their business and I will mine.

I: So you don't try to get to know the
newcomers?

W: Not real good. I'll speak to them and
talk to them. I met a girl two weeks ago
that lives around the corner here and I
knew who she was but to meet her I didn't
know her. We met her at a reception, at a
wedding. I said "I understand you're my
neighbor." and she said "yeah, we just
live around the corner from each other."
They've been there what, probably eight or
ten years and I never saw her before.

I: Quite a difference from where you grew
up, isn't it?

W: Yes, because where we grew up everybody
knew everybody, you know, because we were
born and raised there. (Interview, Family 10,
10-9-82, p. 8)

Non-Belonging

 

For some there was no cognition of belonging to this
place or township, other affiliations were formed instead.
One woman discussed her experience after living in the
township for nine years.

The one thing was tough . . . I come from

the city and for me . . . and still we
are friendly with our neighbors but we

87

do not see one another unless you happen

to run into one another. The people across
the road I know I could call on them for
anything, but I do not consider it real
warm. There was no effort when we came,-
not one neighbor came to the door and said
”Hi, welcome" . . . when we first moved
here I was six months pregnant, I had two
little, tiny kids, I did not have a car.

We only had one vehicle and you know there
was a lot of loneliness then. That's when
I wanted my neighbors, you know. But not
anymore, I think we like our isolation . . .
We still consider ourselves part of

[nearby medium sized city], whether it's
for instance the merger situation or whether
it's a balloon championship or the ethnic
festival or whatever I would say we include
ourselves in that. Now we are not active in
the township government or any of the
township activities . . . (Interview,

Family 13, 10-9-82, p. 15)

Environmental Belonging

 

People can also have a sense of belonging in an
environment. This relates closely with Proshansky's concept
of Place Identity (1978) or Tuan's goal of TOpophilia (1974).
It is also the case that a person can feel discomfort in
environments where he or she felt they did not belong.

Jerry Calvin was uncomfortable in a city environment and his
distaste extended even to the taste of the water available
in the city. Mr. Figer stated "six weeks in the city cures
anybody" (Interview, Family 16, 5-7-83, p. 8).

Often in the interviews strong feelings would be
expressed about the attachment to the land and why the
person thought he or she belonged.

I grew up in the city of [medium size] 18
years. I spent time with my grandparents

over by [another city] on 16 mile road
when I was growing up. And I lived with

88

my uncle for about nine months to a year
and I helped him farm but I love the
country, I love outdoors, I'm an outdoors
person. I like to hunt, and I like to
fish. I like to see things grow. I like
livestock. (Interview, Family 1, 6-30-82,
p. 6)

Many of the individuals discussed a sense of
belonging to the near environment including the house or
the prOperty, trees and lakes, or the community as in the
cases of the Calvin, Figer and Ghost families. For two of
the other families the belonging was more specific to the
structure. In fact the Halls delayed moving from a poor
farming location to a better site because of their
attachment to the house. For the Besters many of the small
details of the house brought intense satisfaction especially
to the husband who designed the house. This is evident in
the original case studies also. One man who had done
extensive remodeling in his home described the construction
of the original structure and included details of which he
had no actual knowledge, not unlike Mo Calvin‘s thoughts
about the rolltop desk. His thoughts about the structure
were a combination of things he actually visualized such as
pins in the wall, work he did on the house, feelings of
pleasure, and events that he imagined taking place when the
house was first built.

This was all pinned, wooden pins. The
major structure is all wooden pins.
Hardly any nails. It's . . . very
gratifying to tear a place like this
apart and see where there used to be

doors and windows and . . . I think
probably one time there was a loft over

89

here. . . I think there's a fireplace
there, yeah an open fireplace . . . I'm
quite sure this part is a hundred years
old at least . . . It's all logs
underneath here . . . but you go beyond~
this wall then you're into milled lumber.
You know where they'd drug it to a
sawmill and cut the wood out . . . a
hundred percent of the framework in the
house is probably right off the land.
(Interview, Family 1, 6-30-84, p. 13)

Tuan (1974) talked about the unselfconsciousness of
interactions in the home environments. In the case of
these interviews feelings of belonging were often difficult
for longer term or native residents to articulate. After
all, if a resident had lived in the same area all his or
her life there is nothing to compare with the experience of
belonging. Sometimes statements about belonging or
attachment would emerge with difficulty or surprise from
the respondent. In the Figer family an offhand remark by
Bill was greeted with much laughter when his wife (both
natives) pointed out the inconsistency of his remark with
his behavior. The question immediately preceding this
exchange asked if the family would like to instill meaning
or attachment in the next house they build (on the same
land the respondent has lived on his entire life).

Bill: That can be helpful or a hindrance,
me, I've never been one to get that
attached to material value for the simple
reason anything can happen. Look at my
backyard. My backyard looks like a bomb
hit it. (A storm had blown down a large
tree.) It's nice to get attached, I

always been one, if you want to move on,
move on . . .

90

Margaret: So we stay right here,

(laughter) your actions or your thoughts?

(Interview, Family 20, 5-4-84, p. 10)
Environmental Behaviors Promoting Belonging

Up to this point the examples have indicated
emotional or affective, or cognitive bonds to the places
people have lived. There is evidence of behaviors engaged
in by individuals that reinforced belonging. Mr. Figer
discussed the importance of belonging to an organization
or at least supporting community organizations with time
and resources.

The Besters believed it was important for families
to perform physical labor together as well as work together
in a more abstract sense. They felt that this imparted to
children that they were important to the family as a whole.
The Calvins also wished to suggest to their children that
there was a place for them on the farm. In one of the
original interviews one woman believed that working
together and rural life go hand in hand.

But you know, I do really feel very
strongly, that unless you're a family
that you would like to do things
together, you would not be happy. We
do everything together. When we clean
house, we clean house. When we mow
yard, we mow yard. When we work in the
garden, we work in the garden. Every
once in a while there are some things

I do and then he does. But I guess
what I'm saying, rural life is a family
life. And if your family isn't

structured that . . . family life is not
what you're going to be happy with, I

91

would also say you probably would not be
happy with rural life. (Interview,
Family 19, 4-30-84, p. 30)

Another family discussed the decision to give away
food rather than sell it to reciprocate and reinforce
belonging among neighbors.

We gave lots of raspberries away this
spring to neighbors. We probably could
sell some of that stuff but this is
probably the nicest neighborhood I have
ever lived in. Everybody is just real
nice. If you need a hand, they will just
be right there to help you. So if we have
something extra we usually give it away.
(Interview, Family 11, 8-3-82, p. 4-5)

In all these cases the environment supports the
goal of belonging. There is an opportunity for the
families to interact with each other and with the

environment.

Competengy

 

Competency is another goal that may be a little
more difficult to discover because people did not readily
discuss it. Competency refers to "the property or means of
subsistence sufficient to furnish the necessaries and
conveniences of life, without superfluity" (Webster's New
Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, 1976).
Many peOple interviewed reported carrying out behaviors that
provide food, fuel or shelter for their families. These
behaviors were mentioned matter-of-factly and were not
dwelt upon by the respondents themselves. These were often

called self-sufficient behaviors, the term competency is

92

used in its place for two reasons. First, competency covers
a wide assortment of behaviors from gardening for family
food supply to building a home that the family will live in.
On the one end of the continuum would be behaviors with a
small investment of human or economic capital such as
gardening. On the other end are behaviors that are
extremely labor intensive and represent a significant outlay
of capital, like building a home. In the case of building,
some risk of capital loss is possible if a person is not
qualified to do the work. So competency refers not only
to the behavior performed, but also the self-confidence of
the individual or family performing the behavior. This
self-confidence extends to areas of family safety as well as
family economics. Several of the families reported building
wood stoves themselves. This indicated a certain amount of
confidence that the final product is safe and effective.
Even though families did not say that they are
satisfied that they had the competencies they needed to
live in a rural area, there are some respondents that
implied that being incompetent in the environment was cause
for an adjustment in residence. One of the main reasons
for Mrs. Ghost's desire to move off her farm was her
perception that she was becoming less competent to handle
it. The Figers are planning their possible future
infirmities into their next home by designing a one story

structure for when they could no longer climb stairs.

93

Without Superfluity

The phrase "without superfluity" in the Webster's
(1976) definition has some meaning in the context of this
study. In one case a respondent decided to keep a wood
stove he had built out in the open; he had planned to move
it out Of sight, but had never quite gotten around to moving
it.

A guy I worked with just talked me into
building it so I built it and I was just,
it looked pretty ugly, but I just set it
here as a novelty. I thought I would set
it near the furnace in the basement,
probably and build a jacket on it and
everything. Then it heated so well right
here and somehow circulates so we just kept
using that. (Interview, Family 11, 8-3-82,
p. 12)

Several Of the families interviewed built their
homes themselves; in addition most of the families had
performed major alterations or had participated to a major
extent in the building or remodeling. In some cases this
was an unself-conscious behavior. In one of the interviews
the husband was somewhat confused when asked about his
source of information when working on the house.

I: It's very interesting where people get
information as to farming or remodeling
houses and so forth. Where did you get
your information?

H: Information?

I: How to do, what to do, what choices to
make . . . ?

H: You don't do anything unless you just
do it . . .

I: Trial and error would you say?

94

H: Yeah, I fly by the seat of my pants
quite a bit. (Interview, Family 1,
6-30-84, p. 13-14)

The Bester family represented the other end of the
spectrum, they put a tremendous amount of time and effort
into the planning of their home, which was completely
designed with all the finishes before the building began.
This willingness to talk about the effort was the exception
rather than the rule. In the Bester case it was to be
expected since the family had just moved into their home.
There were respondents that tossed off their efforts with
a disclaimer as to the effort that had gone into the
process.

This door didn't exist when we came
(nine years ago). We have added two
bedrooms and a bath upstairs. We
haven't done a lot. This room was just
a laundry room on the cement floor and
we've made it into a family room. We
have done some things but not a lot.
(Interview, Family 13, 10-9-82, p. 10)

While most respondents did not discuss competency
in themselves, they did discuss the importance of passing
this trait down to their children. The Besters felt their
daughters were very self-sufficient due to their working
with them. One small scale farmer perceived that the
environment teaches important lessons.

The main reason I guess that we are doing
this is so the boys would grow up with a
farm atmosphere . . . I thought they would
learn good values and learn how to work

and learn how to care for animals and learn

responsibility. (Interview, Family 11,
8-3-82, p. 4-5)

95

One woman responded in a similar way. She links
this learning to a sense of satisfaction when an adult.

You weren't born here [to her son] but

you were raised here and it's been in my
family over 100 years and there's a lot

of work . . . there's just something about
it, that they don't realize it as they're
growing up but they learn an awful lot on
a farm that they don't learn any other way.
We can see that with our little grandsons
. . . sure it's hard work but there's some
day they will see the satisfaction of it.
(Interview, Family 5, 8—4-82, p. 20)

Farming

An exception to the general trend Of not discussing
competency occurred with some of the farmers. Several of
the farmers discussed skills related to farming that others
in the same business could visually appreciate.

I always like to have a beautiful crop
for decent recognition. Your plowing

is the main thing. (Interview, Family 6,
8-4-82, p. 26)

Another farmer talked about his reaction to
criticism from other farmers.

It's one of the most difficult things to
live in a community, come into a community
and live here and do the things we've done
and have people make fun Of us for doing
things like bulldozing the hills off or
changing the old dairy barn so it held 40
cows instead of six and all the things that
go along with it and the field work, if they
seem dumb and I do something different in
the field, they make fun of me, you know,
and that will get back to me and they don't
know how that hurts. (Interview, Family 5,
8-4-82, p. 21)

One farmer defended himself when he was being

teased by one Of the interviewers.

96

I: How Old are your children?

H: Neil is 14 and Jerry was 10 or 11
. . . 11 in June.

I: Oh, that's terrible . . . (laughter)
. . . you have to ask your wife how old
they are.

H: She can't tell me how many gelts are
going to come in tomorrow and next week,
that end of it. (Interview, Family 6,
8-4-82, p. 5)

Other farmers became upset with nonfarming
residents who thought that farming was simple and easy.
Mr. Hall related a story about selling calves to a nonfarmer,
and then indicated his opinion of this behavior.

Oh, right. You run into them. I mean that
is not the first ones I've sold, people just
do not know what's what and they don't know
anything about taking care of them. They
think just cause they got ten acres, they
say, well, how many cattle can I get on this
ten acres, you know. And you run into all
kinds of situations where people had known
nothing and just because they have moved out
in the country and they got ten acres and a
little, bitty barn, you know they think
they're going to start farming. (Interview,

Competency involved two dimensions: the stated
behaviors that people performed indicating competency and
the value people placed on being competent in their

environment.

Control
The third goal to be discussed as it relates to
residential satisfaction is control. This goal was alluded
to in all components of rural life and may be one of the

more important influences on residential satisfaction.

97

Control refers to the ability of an individual to
maintain or alter a situation to personal desire. Some of
the areas in which rural residents assert their satisfaction
or dissatisfaction are housing, land use, privacy,
territoriality and community offerings. Desire to have
control is apparent in many of the statements made.

In the Hall family two of the spaces had been
changed several times in order to control how the rest of
the house was used. In both cases the rooms represented
jobs performed by adult members of the household. One room
was the laundry-sewing room. It was determined to be too
messy to locate these activities in a room by the most used
entrance because clothes were always spilling out onto the
entry floor. Mr. Hall's Office was moved several times
also. In one instance it was moved from the second floor
to the first floor to prevent people from walking through
the family's living space.

Traffic flow caused by a poor floor plan was the
most important source of dissatisfaction for the Figer
family also. The main interaction space was always being
intruded upon or interrupted by family members traveling
through it to get to other rooms.

In the Bester family, Patsy wanted to control the
type of interaction the family enjoyed at meals, especially
dinner. In order to control visually against the sight of
dirty dishes or the television, both dining spaces were

enclosed and private.

98

In order to control the amount of money that was
spent for energy purposes many families had made changes to
their homes in the form of insulation and heating equipment.
Virtually every family questioned replied that they had
added insulation or that they were aware of how much
insulation had been added. More striking are the number of
families that had converted to wood-burning equipment; 13
of the 20 families were burning wood.

Control of Land Resources

 

Land resources were often connected to statements
about control. Ownership and land rights were major topics
of conversation for both farmers and nonfarmers, and in
some cases the polarity of opinion was very obvious. Two
themes seemed to emerge. First, there seemed to be
satisfaction related to how the respondent viewed personal
resources and how he or she used them. Secondly, the
activities of others with regards to land use were sources
of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The perception of
control was evident in these discussions.

In the interviews it was apparent that apprOpriate
land use rested in the eye of the beholder. The Besters
were concerned about who might buy land bordering on their
property if it were to be sold and talked of buying it
themselves to prevent dissatisfaction later. Mrs. Ghost
told of her effort to keep the lake on her property

undeveloped.

99

The basic question of whether agricultural land
should be developed into residential uses generated much
discussion in the interviews.

Now there's some debate about that and I

can remember back when we put that in, what
we called the Custis farm down by [the] park.
That was before [the] park was there. We
thought that was going into a subdivision,

so my idea was that that's fine if we have a
subdivision. You have poor ground, that was
really poor ground. That would be all right
if they did make the subdivision but they
didn't make it and that opened it up so that
houses were built all over in a random
fashion and there's a lot of land been lost
because of that. That should not have
happened. (Interview, Family 5, 8-4-82, p. 49)

The farmers were very vocal about how changing
land use had affected them; land cost inflation, loss of
prime agricultural land to development and difficulties in
locating and utilizing land and economic resources were
mentioned. Mr. Hall was especially concerned about this;
he had difficulty obtaining money for farm improvements
from loan agencies because of the proximity of his land to
a subdivision. He was also hindered from buying land due

to the increase in price.

There's been, Oh say, 160, 240, probably 300
acres right up in here that's been developed
out of good farm land. Just within the last
seven or eight years . . . I'd like to buy
this farm right across the road some day.
But this guy's already sold off six or seven
plots and that's all he's got in line for
the rest of it. So you can't compete with
that kind of prices. I tried it. I bought
some land down here by the high school and

I paid a terrific price for that and what
there was, there was 160 acres in there that
I was farming and it was all just as flat as

100

can be, you know, it grows good crops and
I'd irrigate it right out of the creek and
everything and you know, 40 of it came up
for sale, I couldn't buy that so another
farmer down in the southern township here
bought that and then so the the other day
he sold off, ten of his 40, you know he
got $4,500 an acre and you know he called
up and wanted to know if I wanted to buy
his 40 and I said, well, how much?" and he
said $4,500 an acre, I says, "I guess I'll
pass it up today. SO I lost that . . .
but what can you do? How do you stop that?
(Interview, Family 7, 10-10-82, p. 14)

Some residents believed that the house and land of
others should conform to a certain appearance. For example,
the Besters chose to live in this township because of the
strict zoning requirements prohibiting "junk cars and stuff
like that," (Interview, Family 4, 8-7-84, p. 1).

This concern about how the neighborhood looked was
expressed by others in the original interviews too.

We bought the house across the road. Now I
could kick myself because we owned that
house over there. Well, I was broke and

I felt that I had to sell it and I sold it
to a young couple and pretty soon they got
divorced. She's on welfare and that's
where all the junk is thrown in the yard
and everything else. So I did have control
over it and I could have kicked myself but
I should have burned it down. It's too
late now. (Interview, Family 9, 10-11-82,
p. 8)

On a community level the recent school millage
caused a great deal of discussion; almost universally
residents saw a need for the increase but were unhappy about
the new tax rate. Several men who were interviewed

indicated that this was due to mismanagement by the previous

school administration. One of the respondents went over to

101

the school to review the budget. Another felt that he had
tried to intervene earlier to help with future planning.
There was a basic belief that if the school had been run in
a more business-like manner there wouldn't have been a need
for the large increase in taxes to support the school.
Respondents made expressive statements about their
property that revealed the diversity of thoughts on
personal land use. Several of the comments relate to
satisfaction with the privacy or freedom to carry out
private actions without interference. A few describe
behaviors that they could engage in that may be viewed as
unusual or unacceptable by others.
Freedom
Mr. Figer spoke of the freedom to discipline his
children out of earshot of the neighbors. Another resident
shared this view.
I think one thing from living out here, you
can express yourself in a manner that maybe
you wouldn't in the suburbs. Like if you're
out it the yard and you feel like hollering
at somebody, you can do that naturally and
maybe it carries less weight or something.
I don't know which, but you feel freer in
that respect. You express yourself more
honestly then you would in the suburbs where
you would be on guard, you know, of who's
going to hear you or see you. (Interview,
Another respondent enjoyed the freedom to perform
biological functions outside. As one said, ”DO you want me

to tell you . . . or what? I can go outdoors and take a

leak. You can't do that in town." (Interview, Family 9,

102

10-11-82, p. 8). Another husband and wife (Family 19)
described mowing their nine acres of land for recreation.
It takes them several hours a week and they had two tractors
that they used to mow. The wife described themselves as
"crazy" to do this but she indicated what it is about this
activity that she liked, "I can go out on my tractor and
forget the rest of the world" (Interview, Family 19, 4-30-
84, p. 34).
Children

The goal of control was not limited to housing and
land resources. Some of the nonfarming families discussed
the need to provide a good environment for their children
to grow up in. The definition of a good environment
included a place that allows for supervision and control
over activities engaged in by their children.

I think in the country you have . . . and
don't take it wrong . . . a little more
control over where your kids are and who
they associate with . . . and the rural
country living, you know pretty much what's
going on in schools . . . (Interview,
Family 20, 5-7-84, p. 36)

But the other thing is, you always know
where your kids are at because, unless
you are going to be so permissive that
they can just take Off on a bike in any
direction, there's not that many places
for them to go where you don't know where
they're at. Usually you take them in a
car, and then you go get them . . . and
the school bus stops out here at a given
time. You know when they're coming home
from school. There's no stops in route.
There's less chance for them to get into
trouble, because just their daily life

is more structured. (Interview, Family 18,
4-30-83, p. 8)

103

The concepts presented here overlapped in many of
the discussions. This was evident in some of the quotes
used previously, some represent more than one dimension.
The woman who mentioned that she did not like the same thing
her neighbors did not like is also making a statement
related to control. She would like to control how the
land around her is used. Belonging was reinforced by
teaching behaviors to make children competent in a rural
setting. Competency was also related to having a sense of
personal control over how resources were managed. Control
and belonging were often merged also. Parents wanted more
control over the environment in which they were raising
their children. The same families that spoke about
raising their children in a rural area to learn
responsibility and how to work together also spoke about
the control they had over the comings and goings of their

children.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

The stated purpose of this research involved an
attempt to discover individual and environmental
characteristics that related to residential satisfaction.
The goals included elaborating on prior satisfaction
literature and developing or expanding a theory of
satisfaction. Individual characteristics were grouped
into three domains for the purpose of focusing the research
questions and analysis. These domains included: cognitive
elements, affective elements and reported behavioral
elements related to residence. Environmental
characteristics included Objective and functional
attributes of the environment. Rural households were
picked as the study population because of the diversity
of residential situations. In addition, the researcher
was interested in studying a population with which she

could be an objective observer.

Research Summary

 

The study consisted of two phases. The first phase
consisted of the analysis of 20 field interviews conducted

in a rural township in southwest Michigan. This analysis

104

105

revealed several concepts related to rural residence
including familism, self-sufficiency and community
interaction. These concepts as well as the integrated
model presented earlier were used to guide the work of the
second phase.

The next phase consisted of reinterviews with five
of the original 20 families. These families were chosen
because they represented differing characteristics of rural
households such as length of residency and agricultural
experience.

Ethnographic interviewing techniques were used in
gathering information from the families. Sample questions
were formulated after the first family had been
interviewed. These were not rigidly adhered to however;
they only served as guidelines so that topics would be
covered adequately.

All interviews were tape recorded. In addition,
respondents were asked to draw floor plans of their homes;
these were used minimally. Observations of the environment
and the interview were noted for all interactions with
respondents.

The first two family tapes were transcribed
verbatim, the next three interviews were reviewed and notes
were made on each questions and response combination.
Quotes relevant to the research problem were transcribed
in entirety. A color coding system was developed to

bracket passages relating to self-sufficiency, community

106

interaction, housing, family topics, attitudes and
statements of control. Important concepts and quotations
were then transferred to 3 x 5 cards with colors
corresponding to the conceptual ideas represented in color
coding.

Following the analysis of the five family case
studies the other original interviews were reviewed for
evidence relating to the emerging domains. Based on the
information obtained in the interviews a new model was
developed. In the new model satisfaction is viewed as a
secondary formulation based on other family information.
Residential satisfaction is viewed as the result of a
complex evaluation procedure based on individual and
family goals and values. It is suggested that when
individuals are asked to indicate satisfaction with the
environment they first evaluate the environment in terms
of the capability of fulfilling or supporting a goal or a

number of goals.

Revised Integrated Model

 

Family members have both individual and group goals
which guide the way residential resources are used. These
goals are appropriate to the life cycle position, the
cognitive and affective characteristics of the individual,
the behaviors engaged in by the individual as well as
other domains that interface with residential decisions.

These goals are not static but change over time. For

107

example, early in the life cycle of their family the Figers
added more bedroom space for their growing children. At
the time of the interviews their children were adults, the
family was expanding through marriage and the Figers needed
more space for entertaining them. Many of the statements
made by respondents in this study indicated that some

thoughts overlapped between cognitive and affective states.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDIVIDUAL GOALS, VALUES FAMILY GOALS, VALUES
COGNITIVE/AFFECTIVE,

BEHAVIORAL/FUNCTIONAL
ATTRIBUTES OF ENVIRONMENT

/ £ \

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENT SUPPORTS ENVIRONMENT DOES NOT
SUPPORT
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
SATISFACTION DISSATISFACTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Revised Integrated Model of Residential
Satisfaction

108

The way in which the residential environment
supports goals can be influenced by cognitive, affective
and behavioral dimensions. The cognitive dimension of how
an environment supports or fulfills a goal seems to affect
satisfaction. Mr. Calvin's perception that city water
tasted "nasty" (Interview, Family 15, 5-1-84, p. 23) was
based on sensory information from drinking the water and a
cognition of what water should taste like.

The cognitive-affective dimensions of goal
attainment were difficult to discern during the interviews.
It is suggested that there are peOple who can more easily
reveal affective responses to the residential place and
others who are more reticent in this arena. However, it
was apparent that many individuals do have emotional
responses to how the environment supports a goal. Mrs.
Calvin preferred to buy furniture from auctions because she
had an appreciation for used items, she stated she liked
things with "character" (Interview, Family 15, 5-1-84,

p. 17). Mr. Figer wanted to surround himself with space
but he preferred that the land he wooded rather than open.
Respondents from family 19 preferred Open land and mowed
seven acres of field every week.

More than one dimension of influence may be taken
into account in the support of a behavior. When Mrs. Hall
spoke of the children's rooms she implied that it was not
enough that a room was provided for the support of

behavioral activities but indicated that it should also

109

look "nice," e.g., bedspread and curtains "coordinate"
(Interview, Family 7, 5-17-84, p. 17) which related to a
cognition of what "nice" means.

It is thought that these dimensions are then
weighted by the individual making the evaluation and it is
then determined what is satisfactory and what is not. In a
family decision about residential place this weighting can
be very important. Even though two or more individuals in
a family have the same goal, differing perspectives or
evaluations based on cognitive, affective or behavioral
dimensions can cause one to rate an environment as
unsatisfactory and another to rate it as satisfactory.

This is one of the problems with prior residential
satisfaction studies; usually only one member provided a
satisfaction rating for the environment all lived in.

A discussion of this model would not be complete
without a discussion of the goals themselves. The family
formulates all sorts of goals in relation to its residence.
The goals may be minor and non-support of these goals may
be little more than an annoyance to family members. In the
Hall family, Julie stated that Alan would like the piano
and organ out of the dining room but this was of little
consequence in the evaluation of the residence. Goals of
great importance to individuals or families have the
ability to create great dissatisfaction when not supported.
Mr. Hall indicated that he had a goal of expanding his

dairy operation but he could not get money to expand at his

110

present location. This goal had great importance to him and
his family and may force the family to move to another
location in the future.

Three family goals have been identified in the
present study. These goals were belonging, competency and
control. The manifestations of these goals differ from
family to family but characteristics of these goals are
apparent in many of the families interviewed. This list is
not considered complete by any means, further development
needs to be done to elaborate these goals or to find other
goal domains. For example, two areas that were not
analyzed in this study relate to the role of work as it
affects residential satisfaction, and the changing attitudes

of inmigrants over time as they live in the environment.

Integration With Past Satisfaction Research

The grounded theory emerging in this research is
compatible with and supports past research on residential
satisfaction. Each of the three major goals discerned in
this research will be discussed as it related to the
literature.

Belonging

 

A goal of belonging may be reflected by variables
measuring satisfaction with the social interaction or group
identity in a neighborhood. In both Weidemann, et a1.
(1982), and Galster and Hesser (1981), satisfaction was

correlated with the perception of homogeneity in the

111

neighborhood. Onibokun (1976) found that those with higher
educational attainment and perceived higher social class
were less satisfied with their residence in a public
housing development. These variables may reflect a
measurement of group identification in those particular
environments. If so, those who felt that others were not
in the same social class group could experience
dissatisfaction. Rent and Rent (1978) and Gruber et al.
(1983), reported those with friends in the neighborhood
expressed more satisfaction with the environment.
Weidemann et a1. (1982), found that those satisfied with
the social interaction available in their public housing
development were more satisfied with their residence.
Control

The goal of control may be related to many aspects
of satisfaction literature. The finding that adult single
parents were less satisfied with their environment has been
mentioned by Galster and Hesser (1981) and Onibokun (1976).
Most single parent families are headed by women and these
families also tend to be in the lowest income groups. The
lack Of control over housing and neighborhood decisions as
well as other economically based decisions could explain
some of this dissatisfaction. Safety aspects of the
environment were related to satisfaction in studies by
Ahlbrandt and Brophy (1976) and Weidemann et a1. (1982).
It may be that people who perceive of themselves as less

safe may also feel less control over the environmental

112

situation and thus experience less residential satisfaction.
Ownership of residence has been positively correlated with
satisfaction in studies by Lane and Kinsey (1980) and
Morris, Crull and Winter (1976). People who own their homes
have more control to make adjustments to their residence.

Compe te ncl

 

The goal of competency is not easily discerned in
this literature. This may be a goal more related to rural
residents. Since most of the satisfaction studies have been
accomplished in an urban setting, this concept may not be

reflected in past literature.

Implications For Future Research

 

As with other research efforts this study generates
more questions than it answers. Possible research
directions include verification, elaboration and
application Of the final model of residential satisfaction.

verification

 

The goal of this research was to discover
hypotheses or theory related to residential satisfaction.
While the methodology used in this effort was appropriate
for this goal, the results Of this study can not be
generalized beyond the families presented here.
verification procedures would involve several types of
replication. One type involves a verification of the
proposed theoretical framework. Does this theory of goal

achievement complement other satisfaction formulations?

113

Specific hypotheses may be formulated to test the theory
as well as the domains of control, competency and
belonging. One problem with this research may be -
operationalization of variables especially in the domain of
belonging.

It is also suggested that results of this research
be verified using another methodology. Residential
satisfaction has traditionally been studied using survey
techniques. Langer and Rodin (1976) used an experimental
manipulation in their study of perceived control in
nursing home patients. Both types of methodology could
increase generalizability through more representative
sampling techniques and the ability to manipulate data
statistically.

Elaboration

 

The results presented here need to be elaborated.
First is the theoretical model complete or are there other
possible formulations? What other factors should be
considered? Secondly, are the domains of control,
competency and belonging unique to rural populations or are
they concepts that apply to urban or suburban residents as
well? Finally research is needed to determine other goals
of importance to the family in relation to their
residential place.

If the support of goals is an important
consideration in residential satisfaction then the study of

individual goals versus family goals is another area of

114

possible work in the future. When does an individual goal
take precedence over the family goal? These are only a few
of the possibilities for further exploration.

Application

 

If this theory of goal support in residential
satisfaction is correct, one of the implications is that
the physical environment alone does not necessarily generate
satisfaction. If an individual feels a lack of control in
his or her environment does this adversely affect other
areas of the residential or life experience? How much
control is enough control? This may be highly
individualized. The goal of control should be studied in
populations with little perceived control over their
environment. Institutionalized elderly p0pulations have
been studied by Langer and Rodin (1976) and Rodin and
Langer (1977). They performed an experimental manipulation
and tried to instill a sense of control in one group of
patients and a sense of being cared for in another. Results
indicated that the group with a sense Of control was more
active and happier than the cared for group.

Competency can be related to control in much the
same way. A person who is competent in the environment does
have mastery of a sort. This concept could also be
explored with special populations. How do the handicapped
view their competency in the environment? How are
environments perceived when they do not support an

individual's goal for independence?

115

Finally, how can the environments support the
shared warmth and communication for a group of individuals
whether they be friends or family? The families in this
study indicated that family interaction could be
accomplished in a number of ways: through work spaces,
outdoor places and community gatherings. By looking at
the residential environment as being composed of
intersecting parts we may learn new ways to promote this
most human of goals.

The outcome of this research suggests future
avenues for building a theory of satisfaction. Perhaps
people evaluate their environment based on goals and
values of the individual or family unit. The goals can be
based on behavioral needs: a place to sleep, a place to
work. The goals may be based on complex and abstract
values: a place of belonging, a place of contentment.
Many forms of information may be involved in this evaluation
including individual thoughts and attitudes as well as
characteristics of the physical environment. It is
unknown whether peOple evaluate environments based on
values any differently than an environment based on
behavioral needs. Furthermore, how would this theory
pertain to new or novel environments for the individual?
How do peOple make decisions about future residential
environments as meeting their goals and values? These
areas need to be explored to delineate a theory of

satisfaction more completely.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

METHODOLOGICAL CONCERNS

There are some drawbacks to the use of the
techniques for data collection and analysis presented here
that should be briefly mentioned. One of the biggest
concerns to the researcher was the use of mechanical
recording equipment. Both phases of this study had
difficulties of one kind or another with this equipment.
These difficulties consisted of poor quality of the
recording, equipment failure and intrusiveness or
reactivity of the measures. A field researcher has no
control over the environment in which recording is done.
Tapes can be made unintelligible by repetitious, extraneous
noise from small children, animals or mechanical appliances.
Portions of the tape can be lost in this manner. Another
problem happens due to equipment failure, some of it under
the control of the researcher, some not preventable. In
this study there were problems of both types in both phases
of the study. These problems inCluded dead batteries in
the recorder, lack of outlets to plug adaptors into, errors
in the operation of the recorded such as failure to push
the record button, failure to release the pause button or

failure to turn on the recorder, and failure to flip the

116

117

tape at the end of a side. There can be problems with the
tapes also. Defective tapes may fail to work well or jam
in the recorder, tapes will demagnetize on contact with
some electrical appliances and failure to break the
nonrecord tabs on recorded tape can cause erasures.

While the mechanical aspects of taping can be
frustrating, of more concern is the effect that taping has
on the respondent. It has been said that respondents forget
that the tape is going and just respond naturally and
honestly to questions. This researcher disagrees with this
position. This researcher believes it is true that some
respondents 'forget' that the tape recorder is on; it may
also be the case that these people really don't care if
their answers are recorded or not. This researcher
believes there are other respondents who will be aware of
the tape and perhaps somewhat guarded because of it. In one
interview when the husband may a very graphic remark about
a behavior he could engage in outside, his wife quickly
reminded him that he was on tape and had better watch
himself. On two occasions in the series of reinterviews
the researcher noticed that the families visually relaxed
after the tape recorder was shut off. Both families seemed
to want to continue talking once the tape was off. In both
cases the interview lasted an additional 10 to 15 minutes.
This raises questions of reliability. One way to test this
might be to record at alternating interviews and verify

important information on and off tape.

118

A comment should be raised about the researcher as
a reactive measure. Occasionally when talking to a family,
a respondent would make a comment similar to "Don't you
agree?" or "Watch it, she's analyzing you." The researcher
has to think about his or her role with the respondents and
how it affects the way they respond. The informant that
sees the researcher as a housing specialist may respond
differently to her than an informant who sees her as an
interested stranger.

The presence of others at the interview or contacts
with more than one interviewer should be considered
carefully. Another researcher was present on one of the
phase two interviews; she had participated on an earlier
interview with this family. This was not fully considered
until afterwards. The effect of having another person on
the interview is unknown, but any effect could be minimized
by planning ahead. It would have been possible to schedule
another noninterview meeting with the family in order to

bring the other researcher.

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

NUMBER CODES FOR THE ORIGINAL 20 INTERVIEWS

mthNH
s s s

koooqm
o s

10.

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

Demographics

Household Farm Experience
Occupations

Parent's Current Influence
Children

Land Tenure and Use

Farm Operation
Enterprises

Disposition of Production
Bookkeeping

Share, Trade, Barter
Household Production

Income
Housing
Government Farm Programs

Sources and Needs for Information
Hearsay

Goals and Aspirations

Values and Attitudes

Knowledge of Kellogg Biological Station

Neighborhood and Community Involvement
Pleasures and Satisfactions

Problems, Frustrations, and Solutions
Vacations and Recreations

Perceptions of the Future

119

APPENDI X C

APPENDIX C

LETTER TO FIVE FAMILIES

April 8, 1984

Dear Mr. & Mrs.

My name is Carol Barrett. I'm a student at Michigan
State University in the department of Human Environment and
Design. For the past year and a half I've participated in
a project at M.S.U. The main purpose of the project is the
development of a Rural Resource Center in southwest
Michigan. You may recall being interviewed for that project
about a year ago. At that time you were asked questions
about your life in the country. Your answers were very
helpful and I'm wondering if you would be willing to help
again.

I'm collecting information about housing
characteristics with rural families. I'm interested in the
kinds of homes people live in, the sorts of changes that
have been made to the houses, how different rooms are used
for family activities like eating, watching TV and
entertaining. I'm also interested in what people like and
don't like about their houses. Would you like to make some
changes in your house or would you like to move to a new
home?

More people are moving to rural areas today, have
you noticed this in your own community? Does this affect
the way you feel about your home? These are the kinds of
questions I'll be asking when I come to speak to you. Your
answers will be very important to me.

I will be contacting you by telephone in about a
week to set up a time convenient for you. I hOpe you'll
find the project is interesting and will agree to talk to
me. Le me emphasize that your participation is completely
voluntary and you can terminate the interview at any time.
Also the information you give me will be kept absolutely
confidential. I will never identify your answers as being
specifically yours.

120

121

If you have any questions feel free to call me
collect at 313-632-5446 or save them until I call you.
My advisor, Dr. Bonnie Morrison, will also be happy to
answer any questions you have about the project. You
can reach her at 517-353-3717. Thank you for your
consideration.

Sincerely,

Carol Barrett

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

TYPES OF QUESTIONS

How did you initially come to live in this house?

If purchased, what were you looking for when you bought this
house?

Ask family to draw floor plans.

What were houses like where family members grew up?

How does this house differ with that house (those houses)?
How is it similar? 9

Are there special spots in the house? What makes them
special?

If alone in the house where do family members spend time?
Where do family members spend time together?

What's important to have in a house?

What does a house absolutely need?

Where do family members eat in the house? sleep?
entertain? recreate?

Are there seasonal differences in how the house is used?

What things have changed in the house since the family has
lived here?

What other things would family like to change?
What is the community like?

How many close friends live in this neighborhood?
Community?

How many relatives live in this neighborhood? Community?

122

123

What makes a community a good place to live?
What makes this community a good place to live?
What's not good about this community?

What changes have occurred in the township over the last
several years?

Do these changes affect the way you feel about the
township?

What kinds of things do you or other family members do
outside?

Do you spend more time outside or inside? Why?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahlbrandt, R.S., & Brophy, P. (1976). Management: an
important element of the housing environment. Environment
& Behavior, §(4), 505-526.

 

 

Gans, H. (1967). The Levittowners. New York: Pantheon.

 

Gans, H. (1962). The Urban Villagers. New York: The Free
Press of Glencoe.

 

Galster, G., & Hesser, G. (1981). Residential satisfaction,
compositional and contextual correlates. Environment &
Behavior, l§(6), 735-758.

 

Golant, S. (1982). Individual differences underlying the
dwelling satisfaction of the elderly. Journal of Social
Issues, §§(3), 121-133.

 

Gruber, K., Shelton, G., & Godwin, D. (1983). Influencing
factors of housing satisfaction among residents of
conventional homes, mobile homes and apartments.
Proceedings of the American Housing Educators Association.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of
grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

 

 

Hayward, D.G. (1975). Home as an environmental and
psychological concept. Landscape, gg(l), 2-9.

 

Lane, 8., & Kinsey, J. (1980). Housing tenure status and
housing satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Affairs,
li(2), 341-365

Langer, E., & Rodin, J. (1976). The Effects of choice and
enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: a field
experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, §g(2), 191-198.

 

 

Melson, G. (1980). Family and environment: An ecosystem
perspective. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing.

 

 

Morris, E., Crull, S., & Winter, M., (1976). Housing norms,
housing satisfaction and the propensity to move. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, May, 309-319.

 

124

125

Morris, E., & Winter, M., (1978). Housing, family and
society. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

 

Onibokun, A. (1976). Social system correlates of
residential satisfaction. Environment & Behavior, §(3),
323-343.

 

Proshansky, H. (1978). The city and self-identity.
Environment & Behavior, lg(2), 147-169.

 

Proshansky, H., Fabian, A., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place
identity: Physical world socialization of the self.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83.

 

Rapaport, A. (1969). House form and culture. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

 

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion
Limited.

 

Rent, G., & Rent, C. (1978). Low-Income housing, factors
related to residential satisfaction. Environment &
Behavior, lg(4), 459-487.

 

Rodin, J., & Langer, E. (1977). Effects of a control-
relevant intervention with the institutionalized aged.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(12),
897-902.

 

Seamon, D. (1979). A Geography of the lifeworld. London:
Croom Helm.

 

Sofranko, A., & Williams, J. (1980). Motivations and
migration decisions. In A. Sofranko & J. Williams (Eds.),
Rebirth of rural America: Ruralimigration in the midwest
(pp. 45-66). Ames, Iowa: North Central Regional Center
for Rural Development.

 

Speare, A. (1974). Residential satisfaction as an
intervening variable in residential mobility.
Demography, ll(2), 173-188.

 

Spivak, M. (1973). Archetypal places. In E.F. Preiser
(Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Environmental Design
Research Association Conference. Stroudsburg:
Pennsy1vania.

 

 

Spradley, J. (1979). The Ethnographic interview. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

 

Tuan, Yi-Fu (1974). Topophilia. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice—Hall.

 

126

Webster's new twentieth century dictionary of the English
language71976). New York: Collins, World, Inc.

 

Weidemann, S., Anderson, J., Butterfield, D., & O'Donnell,
P. (1982). Resident's perceptions of satisfaction and
safety, a basis for change in multifamily housing.
Environment & Behavior, 13(6), 695-724.

 

Zajonc, R. & Markus, H., (1982). Affective and cognitive
factors in preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 9,
123-131. —

 

IV LIBRRRIES

Tlflflflflfl‘flmwn I'llllll‘IIWIHWI

 

000534