IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Field, Undercover, and Participant Observers in US Labor Economics: 1900-1930

Listed author(s):
  • Malcolm Rutherford

This essay examines the various field observational methods used in labor economics in the United States from the early 1900s to the 1930s. Labor relations, at that time, was an area of critical importance as well as an area in which existing economic theory provided little guidance. Labor economists had, of necessity, to become field observers. Three examples are examined. The first is the work of John Fitch, The Steel Workers (1910), done as a part of the Pittsburgh Survey. Fitch’s book on the steelworkers included his own observations of steel mills, interviews with steelworkers, and photographs and drawings by Lewis Hine and Joseph Stella. The second example is the work conducted under the supervision of Carleton Parker for the California Commission on Immigration and Housing. Parker employed F. C. Mills and Paul Brissenden to work undercover to investigate conditions in labor camps. The last example concerns the work of Stanley Mathewson, published as Restriction of Output among Unorganized Workers (1931). Mathewson’s study was an early example of the use of participant observation methods in industrial sociology and was widely influential. How this varied observational material was used, both in terms of policy advocacy and theoretical developments, is discussed, as are the strengths and weaknesses of the methods employed, and the changing place of field work in economics.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: link to full text
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Duke University Press in its journal History of Political Economy.

Volume (Year): 44 (2012)
Issue (Month): 5 (Supplement)
Pages: 185-205

in new window

Handle: RePEc:hop:hopeec:v:44:y:2012:i:5:p:185-205
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Duke University Press 905 W. Main Street, Suite 18B Durham, NC 27701

Phone: (919) 660-1800
Fax: (919) 684-8974
Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hop:hopeec:v:44:y:2012:i:5:p:185-205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Center for the History of Political Economy Webmaster)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.