With half the world living on less than $2.50 per day and with 46.2 million people in the United States living below the poverty line, poverty is a growing concern.

The United States is known all over the world to be a very powerful and rich country. It is not just American people who believe in the American Dream, but also many people from other countries have been dreaming of coming to the US to live in better conditions. Although the US is thought to be a rich country, we still see hungry and homeless people, especially women and children in the streets. Women, who are either married or unmarried, whether supported by their husbands or single mothers with no support, struggle to earn money for food, clothes, safe shelter, and other intangible needs such as love and happiness. When observed closely, it is easy to understand the reasons why this is so. It is because of the wage gap between men and women, the decreased amount of opportunities in having high income jobs, and the fact that more women are the head of their household compared to men, means that the ratio of poor women is rising, and the increased need for governmental help makes “welfare” necessary.

Understanding the definition of poverty becomes very important because it categorizes people into groups which are poor and wealthy. Richard Ropers states that poverty can be understood and described in numerous ways, and that people will not understand the meaning of poverty if they do not recognize the situation of the poor. To be poor means to not have any sustenance, shelter, or any support from family. However nowadays, living alone, or being pushed out of society, being under depression of unchanging destitution also describes poverty. Being fired from a job, losing self-esteem, having no power, or being away from cultural values are also other parameters to describe poverty (Ropers, 25). Ropers also describes “widespread poverty” as a disloyalty to the democratic values’ failure to gain optimism. Successful leaders must aim to provide economical comfort for their citizens. If the majority of the people are not happy because of poverty, it means the government is not as strong to deal with the problems.

The official poverty line is inadmissible as an accurate system to determine the number of poor people. “The US government identifies the poverty line by multiplying the cost of a minimally nutritious diet by three,” then the number of people who live in the same house is calculated (Popers 35). According to the Census data for 2011, 46.2 million people in the United States lived below the poverty line. According to Peter Edelman, a law professor in Georgetown University, even though there are so many hard working people, they are still living in poverty or just barely above the poverty line (Bilitteri, 723). These people are not given the necessary governmental support. There is also a huge gap between the poor and the wealthy people in the US (Cooper, 337). The highest income is $102,000 for households, just 1% of the population, and the lowest earning is $250 for people, who make up 90% of the population, explains Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez (Bilitteri, 723).

One given image portrayed in the media is that “the poor have only themselves to blame” (Mantsios, 638). The problem of poverty is not just one individual’s problem. There is a strong connection between the poor and society. How can a defenseless child be responsible for being poor, not having shelter, and for not earning any money? How can a single or divorced mother with a little baby, without any family help, be expected to work full time without feeding the little one for hours. The term “poor are eyesores” (Mantsios, 637) is not a responsible and thoughtful depiction, rather, it is a way of not being able to see the problems of the people outside and breaking away from the realities of the poor.

More and more women, especially single mothers, are experiencing poverty at a higher rate than the rest of society. Ropers notes that 58% of women are facing poverty, and in this category 48% of the women are the head of their household. According to Albelda and Tilly, 50% of single women are below the poverty line with no support of a husband. In 1993, while 16% of families struggled against poverty, simultaneously, 52% of single mothers, bereft of husband or family support, experiences real difficulty to provide for their basic needs. Most women work at least two jobs at the same time. On the one hand they work at home without earning any money, and on the other hand work outside to earn money (Albelle & Tilly 307). In 1947, about 38% of women were working mostly in paid labor jobs; however, in 1954, the number of working women who were African American, doubled to 54%. Then in 1996 the ratio of working women rose up to 88%, as reported by Albella and Tilly. Even though the number of hard working women is increasing year by year, they are still, except for a small percentage, earning low income and their situation still remains below the poverty line. According to Albelda and Tilly, “women’s earnings are considerably lower than men’s, approximately 70 cents to the man’s dollar.” This difference makes women’s lives miserable as they try to work outside and head the household all at the same time.

For so many years, women have been endeavoring to have the same rights, opportunities, and benefits as men have in their working lives. Although women’s working situations are not as bad as some years ago, women still face graceless and unpleasant discrimination when they look for jobs. Even though women are more educated nowadays and have more opportunities to get a job, there are distinctive wage gaps between men and women. Being the head of the family (Bernstein, 370), giving birth to a child, being under differentiation of occupation, and being sexually abused by employers are some of the common reasons as to why women are behind men when it comes to the benefits of the jobs (Wage Project, 373).

Family responsibilities are one of the most common reasons why women work in a part time job instead of having a full time job (Bernstein, 371). There are so many married or single women who do most of the household responsibilities while trying to work in a job. It is hard to deal with the chores and manage the expectations at work at the same time. For this reason, women in these kinds of situations prefer to work in part time jobs. According to Bernstein, only 25% of women are able to work full day, for the rest of the women cannot dedicate their whole day for work. This being the case, women cannot get the equal remuneration like other women who work in full time jobs. Interestingly, there is also a huge payment gap between women who work full time and men who work full time. Bernstein explains that “on average women work a lot less than men: 1,498 hours a year, vs. 2,219 worked by the typical man.” According to The Wage Project, part time women employees make only 38% of men’s full time yearly salary. Bernstein also mentions the Hartmann and Rose’s data which shows that women employees can have the same benefits if they leave all the family responsibilities behind and come to work behaving like a “traditional man.” The continuation of such unfair treatment is sure to wear down woman, a situation that’s already strained them enough.

Another reason for the wage gap between men and women is the choice a women makes to have a child (Wage Project, 378). Bernstein says after quoting Bergland that after delivering a child, women have to work part time or stay away from work for a while because they do not receive the necessary help from the society.

Nowadays, the position of women employees is assumed to not be as powerful as men’s by most bosses (Wage Project, 377). Even if men and women have the same educational level (Bernstein, 372) and women show more talent, the suggestions made by women are mostly not considered important until, of course, there is no other choice but to accept (Wage project, 375). Bernstein states that women’s yearly salary is much less than men’s, even when they are at the same educational level.

Sexual harassment is another important factor for women to leave their jobs (Wage Project, 377). Sometimes in situations like these, women are unfortunately seen as sexual means by their bosses. If the women, even if they are educated, do not accept the advances of their bosses, they have no choice but to leave or drop out of their jobs, benefits, emotional solidity, and sometimes even their lives (Wage Project, 377). Women encounter such discriminatory situations at the same time while they are dealing with difficulties which they have in their personal lives.

Some people think that people are getting welfare because they are too lazy and they don’t want to work. This theory can be true for just a few people. Making this kind of generalization for all people who are in poverty is derogatory against them. Albelda and Tilly say that the reasons for the poverty experience by single mothers and their families is not because of their laziness or lack of ambition. They are in poverty because they don’t have parent support, they face job discrimination, they earn less than men, and they have the added responsibility of taking care of their children. Blaming the poor is so easy, but being aware of their situation and helping them out of it would be the best thing for all.

Making reforms on the welfare program will make it work well. Some malicious people display themselves as poor to get support from welfare. Under the welfare program, the situation of the applicant must be clarified through an attentive investigation. Determining the really needy persons, eliminating their needs, and opening free high qualified career courses will make welfare a more beneficial program for the poor and will reduce the complaints made against the program.

Being in poverty is mostly not a personal choice. People in poverty don’t just lack food or safe shelter, but they have also lost their hope and happiness. Women, especially single mothers with no support, encounter the most difficult situations of all. Having an income less than men, taking care of their children without any support, facing job discrimination, and heading the family are the most common adversities faced by women today. Receiving no government support will not help reduce their problems; on the contrary, having access to effective government support will let people in poverty know that there are people with helping hands, people who care about them and who think about them. Poor people need helping hands, at least to not let them give up their hopes and dreams.

References

• Albelda, Randy.,& Tilly, Chris. 2001. “‘Women, Income, and Poverty’: There’s a Family connection.” Race, Class, and Gender in The United States. Ed. Paula S. Rothenberg. New Jersey: Worth,. 305-314.
• Billitteri, Thomas J. “Gender Pay Gap.” CQ Researcher 18.11 (2008): 241-264. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Elisabeth Sturn Library, Reno, NV. “Domestic Poverty.” CQ Researcher 17.31 (2007): 721-744. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Elisabeth Sturn Library, Reno, NV. Cooper, Mary H. “The Working Poor.” CQ Researcher 5.41 (1995): 969-992. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Elisabeth Sturn Library, Reno, NV. 5 Nov. 2008 “Income Inequality.” CQ Researcher 8.15 (1998): 337-360. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Elisabeth Sturn Library, Reno, NV. 5 Nov. 2008
• Glazer, Sarah. “Welfare Reform.” CQ Researcher 11.27 (2001):601-632. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Elisabeth Sturn Library, Reno, NV. 5 Nov. 2008 Berstein, Aoron. 2007. “‘Women’s Pay: Why the Gap Remains A Chasm.” Race, Class, And Gender in The United States. Ed. Paula S. Rothenberg. NJ: Worth. 370-372. Mantsios, Gregory. 2007. “‘Media Magic: Making Class Invisible.’” Race, Class, And Gender in The United States. Paula S.Rothenberg. New Jersey: Worth. 636-643. Ropers, H. Richard. 1991. Persistent Poverty, New York: Plenum. Rothenberg, Paula S. (Ed.). 2007. The Wage Gap And Its Costs. Race, Class, And Gender in The United States. NJ: Worth. 373-378.

It is usually easy to associate with people from one’s own culture. Why step out of your comfort zone to extend a friendly hand to someone from a different culture? Perhaps, if my experience is typical, to enjoy one of the most rewarding experiences of your life. This opportunity is readily available to Americans who wish to make the effort. To interact successfully with Turkish students and professionals in America, for example, the American host must navigate differing perceptions of family, society, and ultimate duty. By practicing role reversal, a person of goodwill can overcome the barriers of language, religion, and nationality. Allow the person getting help to become a helper, and the student to become a teacher. Take into consideration the enthusiasm many cultures have for personal relationships. You might find your own life changed for the better.

Turning the tables to build intercultural friendships

Americans in university cities can build lifelong friendships with sojourners from around the world. Year after year, bright and ambitious young people leave other countries to acquire an American degree, make American friends, and soak up a culture and language very different from their own. They have traveled halfway around the world to meet us. Traveling a few miles across the city is a small step by comparison, but the rewards are great.

My adventure in trans-cultural friendship combined a personal interest in the Turkish language and culture with a graduate-school class. I analyzed interactions with Turkish sojourners in several different settings, wrote a scholarly paper, and completed the class. My family also made lifelong friendships with fascinating people. Much that we learned can be applied in other contexts.

Edward T. Hall describes Turkey as a “high context” culture, and America as ““low context.” In Turkey, much more time is devoted to developing the relationships behind transactions than to the transactions themselves (Friedman, 1979, pp. 45–54). Relationships, connections, and group harmony are the important values. The validity of the group is more important than individual rectitude.

Given these insights, it would appear that an American wishing to establish rapport with Turkish sojourners should understand the basic elements of Turkish culture. Beyond this, the technique of “turning the tables” has value. Create a situation in which the guest can function as a host, the student as a teacher, the outsider as the portal to an alternate inside.

First adventure

In August 2004, I went to a local university to meet a “language partner.” Picture a casually dressed, fifty-something man walking through the parking lot with an elegant young woman. The director of the language partners program introduces them, gives them a list of suggested activities, and leaves it to them to make further arrangements.

“Dawn” is an engineer who wants help with her colloquial English. The fifty-something man wants to learn Turkish. Each wants to see the world through the eyes of the other culture.

The two arranged a first meeting in a wide-open public place-the university’s student union. They brought notebooks. He brought a Turkish elementary-school primer. They sat on adjacent chairs and practiced reading aloud.

On the second meeting, in the same place, Dawn introduced her husband “Freedom.” The researcher and Freedom chatted for a few minutes, discussing common interests in history and politics. The researcher apparently passed the test, since the couple extended an invitation to continue the lessons at their apartment.

When you are invited into a Turkish home, the researcher had learned, expect to be served food and drink, and be sure to bring a small gift. With this in mind, he purchased a book at a used bookstore. He knocked on the door, greeted the couple, and stepped in. Freedom reminded him to leave his shoes at the door. The three chatted for a few minutes about history and politics, Dawn served tea and cookies, and they began doing language work.

This established the pattern the visits followed over the next eighteen months. The American would speak to Freedom first, discussing Freedom’s academic progress. He would present them with a small gift, usually an inexpensive but thoughtfully chosen book. Dawn would serve tea and a snack of some kind-baklava, spinach cake, yaprak dolmasi (stuffed grape leaves), and so on. The language partners would work together on their parallel projects while the husband was in the apartment. Week by week, I made progress in my Turkish textbook.

Since I am a professional writer, I also proofread Freedom’s scholarly papers for colloquial correctness. Towards the end of the experience, I also helped Dawn translate three affidavits into clear English.

A few months into the adventure, the researcher invited his young friends over for a Thanksgiving dinner. The Turkish couple brought a bouquet of roses. Dawn brought a pair of fluffy slippers in a grocery bag to wear while visiting, which greatly fascinated the American six-year-old daughter. The families ate together, then sat in the living room and talked while the six- and eight-year-old girls frolicked. The guests enjoyed being around children.

Some time later, Freedom and Dawn invited the researcher’s family to their apartment for an iftar, the formal after-sunset feast held during Ramadan. That year, at the end of Ramadan, the researcher’s family had their friends over for a Bayram (Eid) dinner. Over the course of the project, the researcher had the Turkish couple over for dinner several times, and invited them to attend his daughter’s wedding as valued friends of the family.

Towards the end of Freedom’s master’s degree program, Dawn got a job translating for a Turkish family that had come to the USA seeking specialized medical care for their thirteen-year-old son. Dawn introduced the researcher to this family so that he could continue his informal self-study of Turkish. In May of 2006, Freedom completed his degree program, and the couple returned to Turkey.

I e-mailed them nearly twice as often as they e-mailed me (142 to 74). Fifty-one times, these exchanges involved the kind of practical help that a native speaker of English can offer someone whose native language lies completely outside of the Indo-European family.

These numbers are not asymmetric when weighed against the fact that I was a guest in their apartment approximately sixty times, and received from them the coaching I needed to acquire a rudimentary knowledge of Turkish.

Another goal of the encounters, to foster mutual understanding, was also apparently reached. In an e-mail from Turkey several months after their return Dawn wrote:

“Turkish people are religious people (of course not all of them but the majority). I saw the same thing in the USA. From the cinema and TV shows we watch through TV, American people seem like they don’t care about religion and they are very free about what they do in their lives. I think in real life it is not like that. As I see in your family, you care about your family very much and you try to teach your children about what is important in life for you. I think it is the same in Turkey.” (Gençer, 2006)

Second adventure

A second adventure in acculturation involved a Turkish family sojourning in the USA to seek medical care for a seriously ill son. The project began when Dawn introduced everyone at the clinic lounge. Later social encounters included picnics, and a series of language exercises at the hospital cafeteria.

The “Smith” family consisted of “Henry,” the father. “Margaret,” the mother. “Janet,” a seventeen-year-old daughter, and “Eric,” a son who had his thirteenth birthday while in a sterile ward of the hospital, undergoing bone marrow transplant therapy.

I met the family through Dawn, who had found work as a translator for the Smiths, helping them in their dealings with medical personnel. At one highly stressful point in their sojourn, the daughter’s student visa was revoked. Janet had curtailed her exchange student activities to find the university-connected health center, whose services offered the last hope of saving her brother’s life. As she was the only member of the family comfortable with the English language, Janet was needed at the hospital. Furthermore, Eric had only consented to the painful course of treatment because that ordeal gave him the opportunity to spend time with his beloved sister.

While Janet’s visa situation was being negotiated, she, Henry, and Margaret composed affidavits to plead their case. Dawn translated these into English, to the best of her ability, and asked for my help with a final edit.

At the initial meeting, following Dawn’s directions, I found the fourth-floor children’s lounge. Dawn took me in through the airlock, and explained how to put on the disposable overshoes. We went to Eric’s room. He was seated in his bed wearing pajamas and playing a video game. Janet, the big sister, was also present. Dawn and the parents, Henry and Margaret, escorted me to a visitor’s lounge.

We sat around a table, they offered me some donuts, and we conversed. Henry and Janet had an apartment near the hospital, but Margaret spent every night with her son in the hospital room. Dawn explained that American hospital personnel do not understand the intensity of the family bond in Turkish families. Apparently, it would be unthinkable for a Turkish mother to leave a dangerously ill child in the care of strangers overnight. She slept in an overstuffed chair in the room.

Janet’s visa problems were resolved, and I had banked some good will for my earlier efforts on their behalf. They were glad to hear that our church was praying for their son’s healing. After all, Margaret explained through Dawn, Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

I brought a few small presents, including a book of handy English phrases, listed with their Turkish equivalents, and the English repeated phonetically in the Turkish alphabet.

The Turkish tutorial sessions began in June 2006, and lasted almost six months. For our first tutorial session, Henry greeted me with a smile, and led me to the first-floor cafeteria. He was cleanly dressed, but looked as though he had missed shaving that day. I used an unobtrusive digital voice recorder to record the lessons. A continuous buzz of background conversation can be heard on the recording. Henry brought out several sheets of neatly hand-written Turkish sentences, and a brief essay describing his situation. The bulk of the conversation consisted of discussing the prepared lesson. I heard myself on tape frequently interrupting, and interjecting encouraging words (Yes! Yes!) and attempts at Turkish repartee. Henry spoke carefully, slowly, with frequent backtracking and repetition.

After we had talked for a bit over an hour, Henry asked, “Is that OK for today?”

“I’ve learned a little sentence in Turkish that goes like this: Affedersiniz. Kaybolduk. Bana yardým eder misiniz?” I answered. (Excuse me. I’m lost. Can you help me?) He laughed, I turned off the recorder, and we made arrangements to meet the next week.

Time after time, when we settled down to talk, Henry’s careful preparations guided the remainder of the conversation. He was in charge, genial, and seemed to take pleasure in imparting information, in helping.

We exchanged frequent e-mails to set up or cancel our meetings. Henry spent at least five times as long coaching my Turkish as I did his English. In part, this was because his English is much better than my Turkish.

Twice, Henry accepted an invitation to attend a picnic-one on the Fourth of July, sponsored by my church, the other a few weeks later sponsored by the Divan Cultural Center, a Cary, NC organization dedicated to fostering Turkish–American friendship. Both times, he and Margaret seemed to enjoy themselves, and delight in the opportunity to interact with other adults.

Even under conditions of weariness and extreme personal stress, this Turkish professional, a government-employed engineer, was unfailingly polite, and seemed to genuinely enjoy interacting with a sympathetic American. The format of becoming a tutor, a mentor, apparently provided a space of mastery during a time of uncertainty and anxiety.

Henry maintained control of the conversations, staying on the sure ground of a topic he knew well, the Turkish language. Although I was able to buy him a beverage once, he was careful to not let that happen again. When he attended a Fourth of July picnic sponsored by our church, he brought us a gift bag of imported delicacies. When he came to the Divan Cultural Center picnic, he timed his arrival to be after the food had already been mostly consumed. He was apparently wary of incurring asymmetrical obligations.

Conclusions

My family has “adopted” another young Turkish couple. This ongoing project involves several issues. How can an American establish rapport with people from a different nation, linguistic family, and religion? What can he learn once the rapport is established?

The technique of “turning the tables” helped insights and perspectives to cross the boundaries. By becoming a student of the Turkish language, I allowed people who were immersed in an alien linguistic environment to feel at home, and to talk about a topic they knew very well. By demonstrating a sincere interest in, and respect for, their home culture, I helped them to feel at home in my culture. By fulfilling the Turkish expectations of guests, I helped guests in my country to fulfill the satisfying role of hosts.

The first project demonstrates the progress of a mutually satisfying and symmetrical relationship with a Turkish family over the course of nearly two years.

The second project demonstrates how important control can be to a Turkish sojourner whose life has been shaped by traumatic events beyond his control. Although Henry often looked tired, he was always punctual and fully engaged in our conversations. The heart of each encounter consisted of animated conversation in simplified English and Turkish, a great deal of laughter, and a sense of delight in being able to make ourselves clear to one another in the other’s language.

What insights were conveyed over the bridges thus built? To some extent, Turkish sojourners and immigrants do indeed bring with them “differing perceptions of family, society, and ultimate duty.” For example, to avoid offending Turkish sensibilities, the wise westerner avoids extended contact with someone of the opposite sex unless the other party’s spouse is also present.

The longing all respondents expressed was for Americans to think beyond their own culture, and to take an interest in the different lives of people in other parts of the world. Given the Turkish enthusiasm for personal relationships, a small effort by a citizen of the United States can dramatically aid cultural understanding in both directions.

Thomas C. Smedley, MS, is a student at Regent University pursuing a doctorate in Communication Research. He is a technical writer with a special interest in building bridges between disparate communities – programmers and end users, Americans and Turks.

References

• Berry, J., Kim, U., Minde, T. and Mok, D. (1987, Autumn). Comparative Studies of Acculturative Stress. International Migration Review. 21-3, 491-511
• Gençer, N. (2005). Personal conversation.
• Gudykunst, W. & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Teske, R. and Nelson, B. (1974, May). Acculturation and Assimilation: A Clarification. American Ethnologist. 1-2, 351-367.
• Weinstock, S. (1963, June). Role Elements: A Link between Acculturation and Occupational Status. The British Journal of Sociology. 14-2, 144-149.

As mentioned above, a survey seeks to make inferences about a population based on information obtained from the sample. This objective is related to cost and time constraints, because, as in our example of American teenagers, it would be very costly to measure all of their IQs. Instead, a representative subset (a “random sample”) of teenagers is taken, and then their IQs are measured. In some situations, the entire population might be surveyed, as in a census or when dealing with small populations. Even if the population is small, the test to obtain particular information from an element might require that element’s destruction. For example, to determine one’s blood cholesterol level, a blood sample consisting of a few milliliters of blood, not all of it, should be taken. If we want to determine the average lifespan of light bulbs manufactured on an assembly line, we should take a reasonably sized sample, such as a few hundred, and test them to see how long they last. Otherwise the company would go bankrupt.

The basic problem of a survey is the validity and reliability of its results. The solution lies in the three segments of conducting a survey: planning, data collection, and analysis and reporting. Usually the public sees the reporting segment. However, since the public does not know how the survey was conducted, it is prone to be misled by the reported results. To determine a survey’s reliability, one must know the sources of bias affecting its outcome. These biases can be traced to the interviewer or the researcher, the format of the questionnaire or the experiment, the availability of information, and other causes.

From a researcher’s point of view, these source biases must be kept as small as possible. The most serious bias problems arise from the questionnaire type and the sampling methods used. For example, if the questionnaire refers to a socially desirable situation, respondents tend to answer in accordance with the social desirability. Say people are asked whether they read the front page or the sports page of the newspaper first. Many will answer that they read the front page first, even if they really read the sports page first, because reading the front page first makes one look more sophisticated. Hence it is a socially desirable attribute.

A more interesting example is provided by a survey done by the American Society of Microbiology. Its researchers wanted to determine the percentage of people who wash their hands after using public restrooms. When they surveyed a randomly selected sample in the Washington, DC, area over the phone, 94 percent said that they washed their hands afterwards. However, researchers who observed 6,333 people using public restrooms in five major American cities found that only 68 percent did so. Here, the socially desirable situation is, of course, washing one’s hands after using public restrooms.

A researcher also has to be very careful when interpreting the results of a question seeking potentially incriminating or embarrassing (i.e., socially undesirable) information. Suppose we distribute to the people of a particular town a questionnaire asking whether they have used marihuana during the past 12 months. The responses will give a very low estimate of the exact percentage of marihuana users, because drug usage is a serious crime in this country. Fortunately there is an interesting solution to this problem: Randomized Response Technique (RRT).

This is how it works. Suppose that the interviewer presents a 6-sided die to the respondents and gives them a paper that contains the following instructions: Roll the die first, but do not show the outcome to the interviewer. Then:

i) If it shows 1 or 2, answer YES regardless;

ii) If it shows 3 or 4, answer NO regardless;

iii) If it shows 5 or 6, answer truthfully.

Give your answer in the following boxes:

[]Yes []No

By using this clever method, one can estimate the exact percentage more accurately, because there is no way to match the answers to the respondents. Here’s how it can be done: Say we surveyed 1,500 people and received 700 “yes” answers. First, the probability of the die showing 1 or 2 is 2/6 (or 1/3). The odds for the die showing 3 or 4, as well as 5 or 6, are the same. Hence we expect that the die will show 1 or 2 in 500 respondents, 3 or 4 in 500 respondents, and 5 or 6 in 500 respondents. According to the directions, we expect 500 respondents to answer “yes” and another 500 respondents to answer “no” regardless of the truth. If the total “yes” responses is 700, then the number of “truthful yes” responses is 700-500=200. Now, we see that 200 out of 500 answered “yes” when the questionnaire asked for a truthful answer. This result gives 40 percent (=200*100/500) as the estimated percentage of actual marihuana users.

Another source of serious bias stems from the sampling plans and methods employed. In practice, various time, space, and cost constraints prevent us from dealing with actually random samples (samples that are representative of the population). Given this, let’s analyze the most common sampling methods.

Haphazard Sampling: Many biological studies use this method to select specimens to be examined from a cage or a tank. This technique involves catching the animals by hand or by a net “at random” in that particular cage or tank. However, those animals that are caught in such a manner are usually the ones that are more friendly, weaker, or less agile. This problem can be solved with more effort and money. Therefore, when the results of a biological research study are presented, one should check the randomness of the sample and then reach his or her own conclusion, because if the results are the based on haphazard sampling they will be quite biased.

Judgment Sampling: In this method, “a couple of experts” determine the “typical units” that represent the population. This method is also extremely poor, because “experts” tend to disagree on which items are typical. Yates (1981) presents a good example. He had 12 experts collect a total of 1,200 stones, and then asked them to select three distinct samples of 20 stones as typical of the population according to their weight. Surprisingly, 30 out of 36 samples selected overestimated the true average weight.

Volunteer Sampling: If respondents are chosen from volunteers (generally human beings), then the results have considerable bias. This method is widespread in medical studies, because usually it is the only way to get relevant results. Since the medical profession’s ethical code does not allow one to obtain random samples in medical experiments, various animals, such as guinea pigs, are used in labs. However, because drugs that are effective on animals are usually not all that effective on human beings, their relevance is not so clear. For example, we often hear that a particular “study shows that such and such an ingredient is harmful to your health, or cures such and such a disease.” These are very poor statements, and hence not so reliable. However, they were the only results we could obtain. This bias is somewhat removed by continual progress in medicine.

Restrictive Sampling: This method is particularly important, because it yields very strange results when applied to social science research. Here, one takes a sample that is easy to obtain for a couple of different reasons. For instance, in archeology and history, the possessions of a king or an aristocrat are more likely to survive than those of a serf or a vassal, for the belongings of the rich and powerful are more durable and of a much higher quality and therefore survive for a longer time. In the United States, for example, a great deal of furniture and many houses of slave owners have survived; only very little of their slaves’ possessions have survived. In Egypt, the artifacts discovered by archeologists belong mainly to the upper class (pharaohs, the noblility, etc). As a result, historians and archeologists produce very biased results, for their conclusions are based mainly on evidence belonging to members of the rich and/or aristocratic classes.

Is there a solution? Obviously, researchers only accept tangible items as evidence. Even though these artifacts are “hard” evidence, they cause the poor, and those who led modest and humble lives, to be under-represented in history. For example, many Prophets left virtually no personal items behind, except for ones like Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses (peace be upon them all), who were considerably recent.

Such an absence of personal items might be due to the fact that they led modest lives and shunned luxury. Hence, historians and archeologists should reconsider their position on this issue. In order to correct the bias engendered by restricting their conclusions only to tangible evidence, they should add the Holy Books and written religious texts to their category of “acceptable” evidence.

Another example is the media, whose usage of restrictive sampling produces very bigoted and biased results. The image of Islam presented in the Western media is a good example of this, for its depiction of Islam contains many misconceptions. First, Islam is presented as an exclusively Arab religion, despite the fact that Arabs account for only 15 to 20 percent of all Muslims. So either obtaining a representative sample of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims seems very hard to journalists, or else they deliberately restrict their samples to Arabs.

The most serious and severe misconception, however, is the media’s equating Islam and terrorism, although the word “Islam” literally means “peace.” On the other hand, the Western media somehow manages to mention Muslims and terrorism together many times. This is also quite odd, for only 1 percent or less of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims favor so-called “militant” groups. When news about such people is broadcast, this little percentage is strangely magnified, and the stereotype is generalized to include all Muslims.

It is also incorrect to label these militant groups as “Islamic.” This is definitely a sampling problem, which seems to be done either on purpose or in a cursory way. Are there no good Muslims among 1.2 billion Muslims of the world? Rationally, if we suppose the impossible (that all Muslims really are terrorists), they would have destroyed the entire world already. Similarly, but to a lesser extent, there are stereotypes for Jews and Christians (mostly Catholics).

There is an urgent need for collaboration and cooperation between different religious groups to get rid off such damaging misconceptions and stereotypes. Muslims, having the worst stereotype, should be in the forefront of this undertaking. According to my experience and knowledge, many religious beliefs and teachings, and their followers, bear no resemblance to these misconceptions.

Such restricted sampling results in many seriously flawed conclusions in social science disciplines. Consider the case of Sigmund Freud, who still has many advocates and fans, as well as opponents, of psychology. From a sampling perspective, his analysis of the ego (psychoanalysis) cannot be considered reliable, for he based his hypothesis on just two persons: himself (at 1897) and an 18-year old female hysteric (Dora). Even from the statistical point of view, two people (the first one probably obsessed with sexuality, and the second an obviously abnormal person) can in no way be considered representative of the 2 billion people living at that particular point in time. Here, of course, I consider the severe time and cost restraints, but still, the existence of such difficulties does not justify the validity of Freud’s conclusions.

CONCLUSION

In this article, we approached different issues in the social and physical sciences from a sampling (statistical) point of view. Surprisingly, this approach gave very interesting results in various sciences. The validity of any survey or research does not depend on its publicity (whether it is published, broadcast, or widely accepted); what is essential is that the whole picture be covered. Newly emerging interdisciplinary areas can help keep track of the whole picture. Also, the validity and reliability of results obtained through research, surveys, hypotheses, and theories depend upon the researcher’s morals and honesty and ability to see “the big picture.” Scientists and journalists should be very careful and responsible in their research, for most people are inclined to accept, without further exploration, whatever they hear or read.

REFERENCES

• Bill, James A. “Islam: Misunderstood throughout the World.”
• http://www.muslim.net/isla /intro8.html.
• Freud, Sigmund. “Chronology.” http://freud.t0.or.at/ freud/index-e.htm.
• “Misconceptions about Islam.”
• http://www.muslim.net! islam/miscons.html.
• Warde, William D. Sampling Methods. Oklahoma State University, 1990.