As already noted, this type of activity has been studied poorly. Firstly, the main social ones are not clear-problems. Accordingly, it is not clear what mainly requires study. Empirical data obtained as a result of sociological studies are very fragmented. They belong to different types of activities and relatively small objects – individual rural areas and farms, which does not allow you to do. any general conclusions. Secondly, the indicators used are not always reliable. In most cases, the authors analyze only the subjective assessment by the employees of their “involvement in the collective affairs, in solving production issues, which does not reveal pictures of real social activity. Thirdly, only the production aspect of public work is most often studied-participation in the management of the enterprise, without taking into account non-production forms of activity, such as, for example, participation in the work of voluntary societies, organizations at the place of residence, parent committees. Fourth, studies often give a picture of the individual’s membership in a particular organization, without complementing it with a picture of actual activity.
Information on the social activity of employees of the Novosibirsk region, which we collected in 1972., has almost all the named shortcomings. The data relate only to employees’ participation in the management of the enterprise and therefore do not give a complete idea of public work as a whole. We have data not about the actual social work, but only about the chosenness in certain governing bodies. Finally, we do not have data on the attitude of workers to this activity, which does not allow characterizing the needs that the rural population addresses public work and seeks to satisfy it through it. This “relates to most studies: needs related to public work have not yet been studied.
