Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Farm structure and economic well-being: a look at three methodological sins
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Farm structure and economic well-being: a look at three methodological sins
Do you wish to request the book?
Farm structure and economic well-being: a look at three methodological sins
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Farm structure and economic well-being: a look at three methodological sins
1993
Overview
Sociologists have increasingly turned to secondary data sources to study social and economic change. As our experience in this area increases, so should our methodological rigor. Three common methodological sins-model mis-specification, inattention to regional influences, and fuzzy operationalizations-are illustrated through a critique of Barnes and Blevins' (1992) study of farm structure and economic well-being in nonmetropolitan areas. This paper argues, and demonstrates empirically, that many of Barnes and Blevins' conclusions are suspect because they did not include ethnic and regional variables in their regression studies
