OK, this is as much a heads up as anything. On page 182, Williams cites "Groff" (and the name is listed this way in the end notes, too) and his work to help validate his use of these census figures. I have to admit, I was initially a little perturbed that Williams got the name wrong. Harvey Graff is a major (MAJOR) figure in literacy studies. His book The Literacy Myth has become a current (well, 1979) foundational text in my other field of study. But ultimately, what bothers me more, is that Williams, after discussing Wisconsin Census Data, uses Graff to validate this work, stating only that Graff worked on a different period and a different area. The fact of the matter is that Graff's census data was not U.S. census data. Graff's work used Canadian census data.
So my question is, methodologically, is this a fair comparison? Can Williams validate his use of U. S. Census data for this study based on the validation of Canadian census data? How does/can this knowledge affect how we view Williams' study? Or doesn't it?