Search

This article discusses a study on social grading by manual workers. This paper reports a small research project in East London in England wherein the sample consisted mainly of manual workers. Personal interviews were used rather than written questionnaires. After they had graded occupations, people were asked the reasons for their decisions. The small research project described here was an attempt to find out whether manual workers chosen at random from electoral registers. This East London inquiry finds a considerable measure of dissensus amongst the manual workers in its sample. The respondents are divided into two groups. The deviants grade occupations according to their social contribution. Manual workers are on the whole ranked above non-manual. The deviants are influenced by their political attitudes. In conclusion, it was on a very small scale, and a much larger sample is plainly required. It was made in East London, and the residents in it may not be at all representative of manual workers in general. The validity of the findings can only be tested by a full-scale inquiry. A full-scale inquiry into the views of a cross-section of the population using verbal interviews could reveal the measure of dissensus consensus on the status of occupations, and beyond that, lay the foundations for a study of an important aspect of political ideology in contemporary Britain.

The article focuses on the research paper "Industry and Science: A Study of Their Relationship Based on a Survey of Firms in the Greater Manchester Area Carried out by the Manchester Joint Research Council 1950-1953." The survey covered 225 carefully selected and representative firms in the Manchester area in England and was conducted by means of interviews by a small team of investigators. The report discusses the internal research and development activities within the firms, the contacts between industry and the universities.

The article presents the transcript of the short paper "The Worthwhileness of the Interview," by Alec Rodger, which was read at a meeting of the University College Psychological Society in London, England on February 13, 1952. The author inferred that the reliability and validity of interview judgments tend to be low. He also averred that clinical practice can be represented by an interview and by various projective tests while personnel selection practice can be done through intelligence tests. Other relative information pertaining to the interview is also discussed.