This study has attempted to grapple with this problem in several ways. First on the
premise that local studies can provide insights to the inner workings of certain
social process better than studies on a more general level, this study has turned at
points to "thick description" and detailed analysis. Oral history has been
particularly important in this regard, not only in recovering lost specifics, but also in
establishing something of the role of human subjectivity. Secondly, in order to
enhance the comparative character of the study, and to get beyond description to
explanation, an effort has been made to bridge the gap between the "macro" and
the "micro" through the use of more general theoretical conceptualizations and
structural analysis. Thirdly, an attempt to locate this study in broad historical
context has been made.

My feeling is that many local social history studies do not pay enough
attention to historical context. The problem is not that context is ignored, but
rather that it is offered as a series of seemingly intuitive insights that give the
"flavor" of the larger picture. As a result, both the possibility of understanding the
particularity and generality of underlying historical forces, of comparing
phenomena that really are similar, and of contrasting those that really are different,
is weakened. Therefore, this study, especially in its first section, will be to build
historical context more systematically and structurally than is sometimes done.**