The backgrounds, economic circumstances, association patterns, and other attributes of San Jose residents discussed in the text were all correlated with their positions in a status order whose principles were independently derived. Here I explain how I constructed the scale representing this status order. First I describe the status rating procedure; then I show how I combined the separate status ratings in a single composite status distribution along which I distinguished three analytical strata for sampling purposes.

The rating procedure

I obtained the raw data necessary to construct a scale of social inequality by asking a panel of nine status raters to make separate status placements for each family in San Jose. The only qualifications I imposed on rater selection were that the raters not be newcomers to the community and that they represent all socioeconomic circumstances. In addition, I chose persons that I knew fairly well and had found open and frank in previous interviews. I interviewed each rater separately but in the same manner. I first introduced the general idea of inequality using a standard, noncommittal introduction: Maski sadin ka magpakon, beke' parariho ang mga tao, maski digi sa San Jose, “Anywhere you go, people are not the same, even here in San Jose.” I then went on to say that one could usually visualize such differences in terms of groups, using hand movements to indicate that these groups might be arranged higher and lower.