The yield of the imperfect: The 1970 national fertility study

Two years ago, on this sa.me occasion, my colleague Norman Ryder delivered an address entitled A Critique of the *National Fertility Study, in which he enumerated a lengthy array of shortcomings of the fertility surveys that have occupied such an increasingly important role in demographic research (Ryder, 1973a). Ryder elaborated many of the major compromises with methodological ideals and some of the analytical mistakes that have characterized these studies, all of which add up to an impressive list of problems if not a major indictment of the species itself. Today I would like to take a different tack and try to summarize the major findings that have emerged from this research-in particular the 1970 National Fertility Study -despite all the methodological inadequacies. To exaggerate the point: What have we learned in spite of the fact that our tools and procedures seem to preclude learning very much of anything? And by learn I mean to include findings of both a theoretical and policy significance; research findings should not be denigrated just because they happen to be useful.