Definitions of Rural

The Basic Issue

In academic research, it is critical that people hold a common understanding of terms for the research to make sense. The issue is true in the laboratory sense, but also in the street-use sense if ordinary people are to be asked questions relating to a common term, like "rural". In the case of the term rural, differences occur not only because of changes in time and geographic location, but also because the blending of boundaries between rural and urban. This is complicated by the fact that in any given location (or chosen site for research) only some of the dimensions of rural or urban can move into the other sphere, leaving out the others.

This poses a great challenge to researchers, but also to ordinary citizens who may hold a mental image of "rurality" which could be termed "rural mystique", and bear no resemblance to actual current conditions in the rural areas. The discourse on the definition of the term is a delightful debate...for those into the ever-changing meanings of words.

Off-Line Resources

• Bealer,Robert C., Fern Willits and William P. Kuvlesky. "The Meaning of "Rurality" in American Society: Some Implications of Alternative Definitions". Rural Sociology......p255-266.
  This paper states that the term "Rural" is vague but contains three dimensions usually:
  1. Ecological
  2. Occupational
  3. Cultural

  The authors state that the linkages between the three dimensions of rural have broken down over the years, so that we can no longer assume the presence of all three. They reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of each dimension in terms of four possible uses for the term:

  • imperatives of logic
  • Scientific needs
  • consistancy with professional precedents
  • Demands for pragmatic operation by society

• Willits,Fern K. and Robert C Bealer. "An Evaluation of a Composite Definition of "Rurality". Rural Sociology Vol.32, No.2, June 1967. (p559-578).
  This study looks at the value (if any) of a composite definition of rurality today. It is a youth survey coming out of Pennsylvania. Ten dependant behaviors are checked (and found to be without relation to the research components). They suggest that a composite definition with weightings assigned to some aspect is virtually meaningless to people, so research relying on a common understanding of the term "rural" by respondents would be meaningless.

  The researchers looked at Physical area and Individuals in terms of ecological, occupational and cultural dimensions of the terms for:

  • power (found it low)
  • bredth (found it inconsistent)
  • consistancy
  • Meaningfullness of the term (found it confusing)

• Willits, Fern K. Robert c. Bealer and Vncent L. Timbers. Popular Images of "Rurality": Data from a Pennsylvania Survey" Rural Sociology, Vol.55,No.4,Winter,1990. (p.559-578).Reprinted in Ferrazzi, Gabe. Course Reader, Rural Community Development, Brandon University, 2001.
  This Pennsylvania study looked at the meanings that common people held about the concept of "rural". As advertisers well know, the concept of "rural Mystique" sells products, and the authors feel that rural towns might well learn from this that the same concept might sell their towns.

  The study looked at five factors:

  • Positive images of Rural Life
  • Negative images of Rural Life
  • Feeling of anti-urbanism
  • Agrairianism
  • Wilderness values

  Negative images of rural life were rejected and all other factors had widespread agreement, leading researchers to believe that people in general in he United States held a soft spot in their hearts for a rural life (which in fact might well be past now).

• Freshwater, David. "Delusions of Grandeur: The Search for a Vibrant Rural America". TVA Rural Studies Staff paper, April 2001, (p1-7) Reprinted in Ferrazzi, Gabe. Course Reader, Rural Community Development, Brandon University, 2001.
  

• Halfacree, K.H. "Locality and Social Representation: Space, Discourse and Alternative Definitions of the Rural" Reprinted in Ferrazzi, Gabe. Course Reader, Rural Community Development, Brandon University, 2001.
  This sub-section of a Ph.D. Dissertation should appeal to anyone into the "post-modern" outlook on life. He takes the concept off into the wild blue yonder by looking at it as a "social representation" of a reality that does not really have to represent anything that exist to still be of value. Such a mental construct, he claims, can run alongside as a parallel stream to "locality" understanding of rural. These two understandings can work together, that is, like two tracks on a railway, never meeting, but hanging out together. He goes one step further by noting that such mental images have a way of becoming reality like a self-fulfilling prophecy, and as such form a "map that precedes the territory". There is a whole body of post-modern literature into which this would fit quite nicely.

• Hoggart, Keith. "Lets Do Away with Rural"Journal of Rural Studies. Vol.6, NO 3. (p345-357), 1990.Reprinted in Ferrazzi, Gabe. Course Reader, Rural Community Development, Brandon University, 2001.
  This author goes after the problem of a definition of "rural" by looking at social contexts rather than Rural and Urban policy. This is an important article in regards to site selection for rural research. He notes that going into a site based on a location based definition of rural ignores the fact that so called rural and urban dynamics are present in both urban and rural locations. Results which are based on such mixed subject pools in any locality can lead one to thinking one is dealing with a phenomenon which is unique to a specific location, when it is not.

• Frouws, Jaap. "The Contested Redefinition of the Countryside. An analysis of Rural Discourses in the Netherlands". Reprinted in Ferrazzi, Gabe. Course Reader, Rural Community Development, Brandon University, 2001.
  This Dutch study comes out of a country where great population pressures on the rural countryside are generating a wide variety of suggestions for land use by a variety of parties. This author does a discourse analysis of three items in order to tease out the underlying vested interests and definitions of rural so as to model what needs to be done in this convoluted debate.

• Fuller, Tony. "Rural Institutions in the Arena Society" Chapter 3 of Changing Rural Institutions. Reprinted in Ferrazzi, Gabe. Course Reader, Rural Community Development, Brandon University, 2001.
  This is for me a totally impenetrable article, not because of the content, but rather because of its obscure (personal) image of an "arena". Set as it is as his unifying theme, he destroys his contribution to the definition of society at this stage in development by his obscurity. It is such a major piece in his work that it serves to obscure everything else.

  The author comes from a geography background and somehow his obsession with "space and time" is connected to this image of his. He is trying to gather together under one image the overlapping realities of short distance society, industrial society and open society (to use his terms). One interesting observation is that these eras in social development on the prairies are cumulative rather than discrete, and therefore the current interweaving of the leftovers makes for a confusing scene if one is not familiar with the layers which precede the present reality.

  The piece is not helped by it being a written account of a conference speech which was given to collogues who were aware with his imagery. There are better presentations of his content available elsewhere I believe, maybe even from the author.

• Ferrazzi, Gabe. Dissecting Rural Development . Rural Community Development Introductory Modules,(WebCT class notes). Brandon University, Fall, 2001.Module # 1 .
  This section of Gabe's article gives his take on rural and the questions he feels are relevant to the rural studies program...like so, why are you doing it? He adds in the Stats Canada has a variety of definitions as do other government depts. and much of their material is on their sites.

On-line Resources