the missionary work of all, and not only to the other missions of its
own society.

4. Seeing that all survey is scientifically governed by the object for
which it is made, it is essential that in a survey such as we propose
the end for which it is made should be stated in each case as clearly
and definitely as possible. This involves often such a definition of
the end as implies a certain missionary policy. Realising this, we have
not hesitated to set forth the policy implied in the terms which we use
and the questions which we ask.[1] We are well aware that this lays us
open to attack from men who may question the policy and dispute the
value of the survey. It would be far more easy to set down simply the
facts which we think any true survey should contain, leaving them
unrelated to one another, so that no one could tell exactly what we were
driving at. This is the common plan. Men say they want to know the facts
of the missionary situation, any facts, all facts, indiscriminately, and
they draw up a list of all the facts that they can think of and issue a
_questionnaire_ which leaves the compiler of the answers in complete
ignorance concerning the purpose of the questions. Such heaps of
information might be used anyhow if they were really complete; but in
fact since they have not been designed for any definite use they are
generally deficient for any definite use, and remain mere masses of
information on which no true judgments can be based. So far from
revealing the missionary situation they obscure it. We have, therefore,
taken the risk of explaining why we want each piece of information, how
we think it might be used, and have drawn our tables in such a form that
it is actually seen at work. By so doing we open the door at once, both
for intelligent co-operation and intelligent opposition. We frankly make
criticism easy; we invite it; for we believe that frank criticism on the
basis of agreed facts is extremely fruitful.