Pub Date : 2011-01-01DOI: 10.1080/01615440.2011.563228
Petra Noble, David VAN Riper, Steven Ruggles, Jonathan Schroeder, Monty Hindman
In this article, the authors describe a new data infrastructure project being developed at the Minnesota Population Center. The Integrated Spatio-Temporal Aggregate Data Series (ISTADS) will make it easier for researchers to use publicly available aggregate data for the United States over a time span that covers virtually the entire life of the nation: 1790-2012. In addition to facilitating access and ease of use, ISTADS will facilitate the use of these various data sets in mapping and spatial analysis.
{"title":"Harmonizing Disparate Data across Time and Place: The Integrated Spatio-Temporal Aggregate Data Series.","authors":"Petra Noble, David VAN Riper, Steven Ruggles, Jonathan Schroeder, Monty Hindman","doi":"10.1080/01615440.2011.563228","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440.2011.563228","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, the authors describe a new data infrastructure project being developed at the Minnesota Population Center. The Integrated Spatio-Temporal Aggregate Data Series (ISTADS) will make it easier for researchers to use publicly available aggregate data for the United States over a time span that covers virtually the entire life of the nation: 1790-2012. In addition to facilitating access and ease of use, ISTADS will facilitate the use of these various data sets in mapping and spatial analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":45535,"journal":{"name":"Historical Methods","volume":"44 2","pages":"79-85"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01615440.2011.563228","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"31218682","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-01-01DOI: 10.1080/01615440.2010.517152
Ron Goeken, Lap Huynh, Thomas Lenius, Rebecca Vick
The Minnesota Population Center (MPC) has released linked datasets through its NAPP and IPUMS projects, making them readily accessible to researchers. Prior to the availability of complete count census microdata from the MPC, researchers applied various forms of record-linking software. This essay describes the techniques used in the MPC's linking program and briefly compares this technique with those used by other researchers. The key feature of the MPC linking method is the construction of cumulative name similarity scores, based on approximately 2.5 billion record comparisons; we also use support vector mechanics to classify potential links. This article explains modifications made for the final linked datasets and includes a discussion of the role of weighting variables when using linked data.
{"title":"New Methods of Census Record Linking.","authors":"Ron Goeken, Lap Huynh, Thomas Lenius, Rebecca Vick","doi":"10.1080/01615440.2010.517152","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440.2010.517152","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Minnesota Population Center (MPC) has released linked datasets through its NAPP and IPUMS projects, making them readily accessible to researchers. Prior to the availability of complete count census microdata from the MPC, researchers applied various forms of record-linking software. This essay describes the techniques used in the MPC's linking program and briefly compares this technique with those used by other researchers. The key feature of the MPC linking method is the construction of cumulative name similarity scores, based on approximately 2.5 billion record comparisons; we also use support vector mechanics to classify potential links. This article explains modifications made for the final linked datasets and includes a discussion of the role of weighting variables when using linked data.</p>","PeriodicalId":45535,"journal":{"name":"Historical Methods","volume":"44 1","pages":"7-14"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01615440.2010.517152","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"29878703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-01-01DOI: 10.1080/01615440.2010.515377
Steven Ruggles, Evan Roberts, Sula Sarkar, Matthew Sobek
The North Atlantic Population Project (NAPP) is a massive database of historical census microdata from European and North American countries. The backbone of the project is the unique collection of completely digitized censuses providing information on the entire enumerated populations of each country. In addition, for some countries, the NAPP includes sample data from surrounding census years. In this article, the authors provide a brief history of the project, describe their progress to data and plans for the future, and discuss some potential implications of this unique data resource for social and economic research.
{"title":"The North Atlantic Population Project: Progress and Prospects.","authors":"Steven Ruggles, Evan Roberts, Sula Sarkar, Matthew Sobek","doi":"10.1080/01615440.2010.515377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440.2010.515377","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The North Atlantic Population Project (NAPP) is a massive database of historical census microdata from European and North American countries. The backbone of the project is the unique collection of completely digitized censuses providing information on the entire enumerated populations of each country. In addition, for some countries, the NAPP includes sample data from surrounding census years. In this article, the authors provide a brief history of the project, describe their progress to data and plans for the future, and discuss some potential implications of this unique data resource for social and economic research.</p>","PeriodicalId":45535,"journal":{"name":"Historical Methods","volume":"44 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01615440.2010.515377","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"30349828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2010-04-01DOI: 10.1080/01615441003720449
J David Hacker
This article constructs new life tables for the white population of the United States in each decade between 1790 and 1900. Drawing from several recent studies, it suggests best estimates of life expectancy at age 20 for each decade. These estimates are fitted to new standards derived from the 1900-02 rural and 1900-02 overall DRA life tables using a two-parameter logit model with fixed slope. The resulting decennial life tables more accurately represent sex-and age-specific mortality rates while capturing known mortality trends.
{"title":"Decennial Life Tables for the White Population of the United States, 1790-1900.","authors":"J David Hacker","doi":"10.1080/01615441003720449","DOIUrl":"10.1080/01615441003720449","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article constructs new life tables for the white population of the United States in each decade between 1790 and 1900. Drawing from several recent studies, it suggests best estimates of life expectancy at age 20 for each decade. These estimates are fitted to new standards derived from the 1900-02 rural and 1900-02 overall DRA life tables using a two-parameter logit model with fixed slope. The resulting decennial life tables more accurately represent sex-and age-specific mortality rates while capturing known mortality trends.</p>","PeriodicalId":45535,"journal":{"name":"Historical Methods","volume":"43 2","pages":"45-79"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2010-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2885717/pdf/nihms205286.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"29067622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-01-01DOI: 10.1080/01615440209604133
John Komlos, Sergey Nefedov
Abstract A compact macromodel of pre-industrial population growth between the Middle Ages and the demographic revolution is proposed. The authors attempt to capture two salient features of the demographic history of this epoch—that is, that population growth was on average slow and cyclical, but that there were phases during which growth was relatively fast. Their model synthesizes Malthusian notions with endogenous technical progress. The latter continually shifts the constraints on population growth. The simulation based on the model is able to reproduce well the estimated size of the European population in this half of the millennium.
{"title":"A compact macromodel of pre-industrial population growth.","authors":"John Komlos, Sergey Nefedov","doi":"10.1080/01615440209604133","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440209604133","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A compact macromodel of pre-industrial population growth between the Middle Ages and the demographic revolution is proposed. The authors attempt to capture two salient features of the demographic history of this epoch—that is, that population growth was on average slow and cyclical, but that there were phases during which growth was relatively fast. Their model synthesizes Malthusian notions with endogenous technical progress. The latter continually shifts the constraints on population growth. The simulation based on the model is able to reproduce well the estimated size of the European population in this half of the millennium.","PeriodicalId":45535,"journal":{"name":"Historical Methods","volume":"35 2","pages":"92-4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01615440209604133","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26620249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1080/01615440009598962
G Darroch
In this article, I first consider some interpretive issues regarding the central place of the notion of “family” in the construction of the 1901 Canadian census. I then discuss the meanings of the key variable “relationship to head of family or household” and some implications of the conceptualization and classification of dwellings, families, and households in the Canadian Families Project (CFP). Following international census practices from the middle of the nineteenth century, the Canadian population was nominatively recorded in the context of family dwellings or normal places of abode. Before 1901, the central organizing notion of the census was the “census family,” considered to be any person living alone or any number of persons living together under one roof and having their food provided together. “Census families” were first defined in the first national census of 187 1 and carried over to 189 1, although the general idea was more or less taken for granted in the nominative colonial censuses of 1851 and 1861. In 1901, however, rather different and more specific definitions were introduced. Presumably, the seemingly obvious and “natural” allocations of individuals to dwellings and families in the earlier censuses had been deemed inappropriate or problematic. No clear rationale for the changes exists, either in the instructions to enumerators or in surviving archival evidence. Clearly, however, the new definitions in 1901 aimed to make explicit the classification of the Canadian population in three ways-by dwelling units, by households, and by families. Dwelling houses were numbered in “order of visitation” in the first columns of Schedule 1 of the enumeration.’ The instructions to enumerators went on to distinguish families from households, referring to the former in a quite restricted sense, as consisting of parents and sons and daughters “. . . united in a living and housekeeping community. . . .” But the instructions allowed that families could include relatives and servants. Households, in contrast, included “. . . all persons in a housekeeping community, whether related by ties of blood or not, but usually with one of their number occupying the position of head.” Thus, the 1901 census definitions corresponded more or less to the distinctions often made in family history between forms of “extension” and “augmentation,” with the exception that servants were to be included among extended family members. Finally, the new census definitions classified single persons living alone and carrying on their own housekeeping as “households,” whereas they had been included as a type of “census family” in prior censuses.2 Beyond these distinctions, a key variable was included, the putative relationship of each member of a family or household to its head. In the CFP’s 5 percent national sample, there are a total of 332 different recorded entries of such relationships, including single entries for missing and illegible ones.3 Many of these entries ar
{"title":"Constructing census families and classifying households: \"relationship to head of family or household\" in the 1901 census of Canada.","authors":"G Darroch","doi":"10.1080/01615440009598962","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440009598962","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I first consider some interpretive issues regarding the central place of the notion of “family” in the construction of the 1901 Canadian census. I then discuss the meanings of the key variable “relationship to head of family or household” and some implications of the conceptualization and classification of dwellings, families, and households in the Canadian Families Project (CFP). Following international census practices from the middle of the nineteenth century, the Canadian population was nominatively recorded in the context of family dwellings or normal places of abode. Before 1901, the central organizing notion of the census was the “census family,” considered to be any person living alone or any number of persons living together under one roof and having their food provided together. “Census families” were first defined in the first national census of 187 1 and carried over to 189 1, although the general idea was more or less taken for granted in the nominative colonial censuses of 1851 and 1861. In 1901, however, rather different and more specific definitions were introduced. Presumably, the seemingly obvious and “natural” allocations of individuals to dwellings and families in the earlier censuses had been deemed inappropriate or problematic. No clear rationale for the changes exists, either in the instructions to enumerators or in surviving archival evidence. Clearly, however, the new definitions in 1901 aimed to make explicit the classification of the Canadian population in three ways-by dwelling units, by households, and by families. Dwelling houses were numbered in “order of visitation” in the first columns of Schedule 1 of the enumeration.’ The instructions to enumerators went on to distinguish families from households, referring to the former in a quite restricted sense, as consisting of parents and sons and daughters “. . . united in a living and housekeeping community. . . .” But the instructions allowed that families could include relatives and servants. Households, in contrast, included “. . . all persons in a housekeeping community, whether related by ties of blood or not, but usually with one of their number occupying the position of head.” Thus, the 1901 census definitions corresponded more or less to the distinctions often made in family history between forms of “extension” and “augmentation,” with the exception that servants were to be included among extended family members. Finally, the new census definitions classified single persons living alone and carrying on their own housekeeping as “households,” whereas they had been included as a type of “census family” in prior censuses.2 Beyond these distinctions, a key variable was included, the putative relationship of each member of a family or household to its head. In the CFP’s 5 percent national sample, there are a total of 332 different recorded entries of such relationships, including single entries for missing and illegible ones.3 Many of these entries ar","PeriodicalId":45535,"journal":{"name":"Historical Methods","volume":"33 4","pages":"206-10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01615440009598962","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26483902","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1080/01615440009598943
S I Hautaniemi, D L Anderton, A Swedlund
ongitudinal panel studies and computerized record linkage are both now common in historical research. L Panel study research designs are found in nearly every quantitative historical work and underlie even such simple comparisons across time as those of decennial census data within given geographic areas such as regions, states, counties, or towns. In addition, the construction of multiple-source databases through record-linkage techniques is central to historical studies ranging from European family reconstitutions to cross-census studies of American occupational mobility. Despite their widespread use, even simple panel studies confront methodological concerns that are profound yet seldom addressed. The lesscommon combined use of linked records within panel studies (Bideau and Brunet 1993) also presents several unique problems and concerns. Our objective is to discuss methods used by the Connecticut Valley Historical Demography Project (CVHDP) and to evaluate the validity and reliability of the longitudinal database the project constructed. We will consider methods and general issues of primary data quality, research design, geographic sampling, and computerized record linkage. The objectives of the CVHDP are to examine various aspects of urban and industrial change significant to the continuing high levels of mortality in select rapidly growing Massachusetts towns-Northampton and Holyoke-of the late nineteenth century.' Initial findings of this project have, for example, suggested the importance of rapid population growth and aging population composition in maintaining high levels of New England mortality (Hautaniemi, Swedlund, and Anderton 1999). The database required for our individuallevel mortality analysis was constructed through a computerized record linkage of census records and corresponding death records from years immediately following the census. Our longitudinal research design thus links census and death records to analyze mortality variation across periods, or panels, defined by the timing of decennial censuses.
{"title":"Methods and validity of a panel study using record linkage: matching death records to a geographic census sample in two Massachusetts towns, 1850-1912.","authors":"S I Hautaniemi, D L Anderton, A Swedlund","doi":"10.1080/01615440009598943","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440009598943","url":null,"abstract":"ongitudinal panel studies and computerized record linkage are both now common in historical research. L Panel study research designs are found in nearly every quantitative historical work and underlie even such simple comparisons across time as those of decennial census data within given geographic areas such as regions, states, counties, or towns. In addition, the construction of multiple-source databases through record-linkage techniques is central to historical studies ranging from European family reconstitutions to cross-census studies of American occupational mobility. Despite their widespread use, even simple panel studies confront methodological concerns that are profound yet seldom addressed. The lesscommon combined use of linked records within panel studies (Bideau and Brunet 1993) also presents several unique problems and concerns. Our objective is to discuss methods used by the Connecticut Valley Historical Demography Project (CVHDP) and to evaluate the validity and reliability of the longitudinal database the project constructed. We will consider methods and general issues of primary data quality, research design, geographic sampling, and computerized record linkage. The objectives of the CVHDP are to examine various aspects of urban and industrial change significant to the continuing high levels of mortality in select rapidly growing Massachusetts towns-Northampton and Holyoke-of the late nineteenth century.' Initial findings of this project have, for example, suggested the importance of rapid population growth and aging population composition in maintaining high levels of New England mortality (Hautaniemi, Swedlund, and Anderton 1999). The database required for our individuallevel mortality analysis was constructed through a computerized record linkage of census records and corresponding death records from years immediately following the census. Our longitudinal research design thus links census and death records to analyze mortality variation across periods, or panels, defined by the timing of decennial censuses.","PeriodicalId":45535,"journal":{"name":"Historical Methods","volume":"33 1","pages":"16-29"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01615440009598943","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40988079","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1080/01615440009598958
E W Sager
he Canadian Families Project (CFP) is a five-year research project funded by the Social Sciences and T Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC) and by five participating universities. The research team includes fourteen scholars, three of whom are postdoctoral fellows, as well as several graduate students and two computer programmers.’ Disciplines represented include anthropology, demography, geography, history, and sociology. These simple facts are essential for those who wish to know something about the CFP’s national sample of the 1901 census of Canada. In its conception and its content, the database bears the imprint of its Canadian provenance in the 1990s. When the project was conceived in the early 1990s, SSHRCC did not fund the creation of databases or research tools; it did (and still does) fund major collaborative and interdisciplinary research projects under its Major Collaborative Research Initiative (MCRI) program. Our national sample of the 1901 census was created, therefore, as part of an interdisciplinary research project on family in Canada. To this extent our national sample of the 1901 cencus differs in its origins from most public use microdata samples (PUMS) created from historical censuses in the United States, and from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) created by the Minnesota Historical Census Project (Ruggles and Menard 1995; Sobek and Ruggles 1999). The articles in this issue are, therefore, explorations by scholars from several disciplines, each of whom has a specific research agenda connected to the study of family in Canada. Canada has seen a number of large projects in which historians have worked with scholars from other disciplines. In the field of family history, however, major collaborative projects have not appeared outside the Province of Quebec, where there is a long tradition of team research in the study of population and family.* The CFP is the first collaborative research project that focuses on the history of families in Canada as a whole. We propose to revisit family not as a singular or unchanging social unit but as a dynamic set of associations varying with time, region, class, gender, and other historical conditions of Canadian experience. We hope to set our findings in the context of the wider international literature, and it follows that we are interested in the relationship between family and the sweeping changes associated with industrialization and urbanization. Given our sensitivity to the plurality of family and household, and given the heterogeneity of the Canadian cultural mosaic, it is unlikely that we shall find a specifically Canadian type of family or household at any time in our past. For historians as much as for the makers of constitutions, the Canadian geopolitical entity remains a problematic and fragile analytical unit. We wish nevertheless to move beyond the microhistorical and regional focus of Canadian family history, to seek commonalities and patterns of fa
{"title":"The Canadian families project and the 1901 census.","authors":"E W Sager","doi":"10.1080/01615440009598958","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440009598958","url":null,"abstract":"he Canadian Families Project (CFP) is a five-year research project funded by the Social Sciences and T Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC) and by five participating universities. The research team includes fourteen scholars, three of whom are postdoctoral fellows, as well as several graduate students and two computer programmers.’ Disciplines represented include anthropology, demography, geography, history, and sociology. These simple facts are essential for those who wish to know something about the CFP’s national sample of the 1901 census of Canada. In its conception and its content, the database bears the imprint of its Canadian provenance in the 1990s. When the project was conceived in the early 1990s, SSHRCC did not fund the creation of databases or research tools; it did (and still does) fund major collaborative and interdisciplinary research projects under its Major Collaborative Research Initiative (MCRI) program. Our national sample of the 1901 census was created, therefore, as part of an interdisciplinary research project on family in Canada. To this extent our national sample of the 1901 cencus differs in its origins from most public use microdata samples (PUMS) created from historical censuses in the United States, and from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) created by the Minnesota Historical Census Project (Ruggles and Menard 1995; Sobek and Ruggles 1999). The articles in this issue are, therefore, explorations by scholars from several disciplines, each of whom has a specific research agenda connected to the study of family in Canada. Canada has seen a number of large projects in which historians have worked with scholars from other disciplines. In the field of family history, however, major collaborative projects have not appeared outside the Province of Quebec, where there is a long tradition of team research in the study of population and family.* The CFP is the first collaborative research project that focuses on the history of families in Canada as a whole. We propose to revisit family not as a singular or unchanging social unit but as a dynamic set of associations varying with time, region, class, gender, and other historical conditions of Canadian experience. We hope to set our findings in the context of the wider international literature, and it follows that we are interested in the relationship between family and the sweeping changes associated with industrialization and urbanization. Given our sensitivity to the plurality of family and household, and given the heterogeneity of the Canadian cultural mosaic, it is unlikely that we shall find a specifically Canadian type of family or household at any time in our past. For historians as much as for the makers of constitutions, the Canadian geopolitical entity remains a problematic and fragile analytical unit. We wish nevertheless to move beyond the microhistorical and regional focus of Canadian family history, to seek commonalities and patterns of fa","PeriodicalId":45535,"journal":{"name":"Historical Methods","volume":"33 4","pages":"179-84"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01615440009598958","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26483906","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1080/01615440009598954
A B Kasakoff, J W Adams
D emographic indices are typically constructed out of aggregated statistical data derived from different subpopulations, and that is true not only on the national level, but also on the local level. Such indices are therefore potentially misleading means, because they obscure differences between component subpopulations. Moreover, even when attempts are made to disaggregate national statistics, the units used have many of the same faults. First, they mask much internal variation, and, second, it is often assumed that the units themselves are self-contained. Frequently, the units are administrative subdivisions of the larger nation and are conceived of as places, but migration in and out of these so-called places is rarely considered a factor influencing mortality within them. The challenge of demography, then, depends on knowing the changing composition and different vital rates of subgroups within mobile populations and on uncovering the various strands of the population and weighing their differences and interdependencies. But given the general lack of detailed data for even small subpopulations, such a task is often very difficult. Some might argue that the smaller the group and the smaller the variation within it, the more meaningful is the mean. But even micro populations are not fixed and uniform; within single families, there may be considerable variation (Adams and Kasakoff 1999). Others might argue that on the level of the large nation-state, small differences become inconsequential, especially as modern communications and standards of public health may tend to create a uniform population. But such homogeneity does not exist at at any level of analysis that we have examined. The underlying social reality is so complex that the usual demographic rates have to be taken as no more than summaries of dubious convenience. In this article, we use individual-level data to present three examples of the ways in which migration affected adult life expectancy in the American North from 1740 to 1880. We found that to understand mortality changes, particularly among adults, we had to consider the accumulated lifetime experiences of the population, experiences that for many, if not the majority, took place in more than one locality and occupation. People moving spatially and socially brought their demographic histories with them. Depending on the particular disease environment and the source of the migrants, new arrivals might have either raised or lowered mean life expectancy in their new location. Such mixtures are not only difficult to sort out statistically, but they also raise questions about the demographic stability of places. There is, therefore, a fundamental tension between looking at the lives of individuals who are parts of migration streams linking spatial and occupational units and the units themselves. Are the rates in a particular spatial unit the result of the migrants who entered into it or the people born there? (We will address this
{"title":"The effects of migration, place, and occupation on adult mortality in the American north, 1740-1880.","authors":"A B Kasakoff, J W Adams","doi":"10.1080/01615440009598954","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440009598954","url":null,"abstract":"D emographic indices are typically constructed out of aggregated statistical data derived from different subpopulations, and that is true not only on the national level, but also on the local level. Such indices are therefore potentially misleading means, because they obscure differences between component subpopulations. Moreover, even when attempts are made to disaggregate national statistics, the units used have many of the same faults. First, they mask much internal variation, and, second, it is often assumed that the units themselves are self-contained. Frequently, the units are administrative subdivisions of the larger nation and are conceived of as places, but migration in and out of these so-called places is rarely considered a factor influencing mortality within them. The challenge of demography, then, depends on knowing the changing composition and different vital rates of subgroups within mobile populations and on uncovering the various strands of the population and weighing their differences and interdependencies. But given the general lack of detailed data for even small subpopulations, such a task is often very difficult. Some might argue that the smaller the group and the smaller the variation within it, the more meaningful is the mean. But even micro populations are not fixed and uniform; within single families, there may be considerable variation (Adams and Kasakoff 1999). Others might argue that on the level of the large nation-state, small differences become inconsequential, especially as modern communications and standards of public health may tend to create a uniform population. But such homogeneity does not exist at at any level of analysis that we have examined. The underlying social reality is so complex that the usual demographic rates have to be taken as no more than summaries of dubious convenience. In this article, we use individual-level data to present three examples of the ways in which migration affected adult life expectancy in the American North from 1740 to 1880. We found that to understand mortality changes, particularly among adults, we had to consider the accumulated lifetime experiences of the population, experiences that for many, if not the majority, took place in more than one locality and occupation. People moving spatially and socially brought their demographic histories with them. Depending on the particular disease environment and the source of the migrants, new arrivals might have either raised or lowered mean life expectancy in their new location. Such mixtures are not only difficult to sort out statistically, but they also raise questions about the demographic stability of places. There is, therefore, a fundamental tension between looking at the lives of individuals who are parts of migration streams linking spatial and occupational units and the units themselves. Are the rates in a particular spatial unit the result of the migrants who entered into it or the people born there? (We will address this","PeriodicalId":45535,"journal":{"name":"Historical Methods","volume":"33 2","pages":"115-30"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01615440009598954","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26810874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1080/01615440009598950
S R Johansson
n country after country, human life expectancy has doubled in the twentieth century. Although an enorI mous amount of information has accumulated about the decline of mortality, controversy continues about how to interpret the data (Schofield 1991). Some social scientists regard decreasing mortality as a side effect of economic growth, rising incomes, and better nutrition (Komlos 1998); others stress the importance of public health (Szreter 1988; Johansson 1994). Both explanations are concerned with those changes that mattered most to most people’s lives. At the macro level, the focus is on the average person and mean values (Hill 1997,224). At the micro level, the focus is on ordinary people who lived in specific contexts. Ordinary people live their lives as males and females, passing through different age groups, living in different places, earning a living in different ways while belonging to different religions and ethnic groups. Such differences expose people to different diseases or other hazards that must be avoided, resisted, or recovered from if individuals are to continue living until old age (Johansson and Mosk 1987). To prolong their lives, people must have access to a wide range of material resources, including food, of course, but they also require knowledge about how to convert their resources into better health and the resultant longevity. The conversion of knowledge and resources into health and longevity can never be observed directly. Trained observers can see only how specific groups of people tackled their specific health/disease-related problems in diverse material and cultural circumstances (Johansson 1990). But mainstream social scientists are not trained to do highly contextualized research grounded in specific details. As Stephen Kunitz (1996, 187) observed, conventional social scientists value truth only “to the extent that it transcends time and place.” This training automatically gives them a macro-level orientation to explaining change, including mortality change, and that perspective marginalizes the value of research on small-scale populations living in specific and often distinctive contexts. Such research may even be regarded as unscientific (Kertzer and Fricke 1997), because it is bogged down in “irrelevant” details that interfere with the search for sweeping generalizations about human beings in any context. In macro history, the average person is the only person who counts. But this statistical construct is not a real person who had specific nutritional or public health problems that led to his or her premature death. The average person is not even a conscious being who frames specific problems and tries to solve them in cooperation with others. Macro-level research makes room for “relevant” details about the average person by isolating separate components, such as age, sex, family size, household type, place of residence, class, occupation, income, religion, race, and ethnicity. Subsequently, these components
{"title":"Macro and micro perspectives on mortality history.","authors":"S R Johansson","doi":"10.1080/01615440009598950","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440009598950","url":null,"abstract":"n country after country, human life expectancy has doubled in the twentieth century. Although an enorI mous amount of information has accumulated about the decline of mortality, controversy continues about how to interpret the data (Schofield 1991). Some social scientists regard decreasing mortality as a side effect of economic growth, rising incomes, and better nutrition (Komlos 1998); others stress the importance of public health (Szreter 1988; Johansson 1994). Both explanations are concerned with those changes that mattered most to most people’s lives. At the macro level, the focus is on the average person and mean values (Hill 1997,224). At the micro level, the focus is on ordinary people who lived in specific contexts. Ordinary people live their lives as males and females, passing through different age groups, living in different places, earning a living in different ways while belonging to different religions and ethnic groups. Such differences expose people to different diseases or other hazards that must be avoided, resisted, or recovered from if individuals are to continue living until old age (Johansson and Mosk 1987). To prolong their lives, people must have access to a wide range of material resources, including food, of course, but they also require knowledge about how to convert their resources into better health and the resultant longevity. The conversion of knowledge and resources into health and longevity can never be observed directly. Trained observers can see only how specific groups of people tackled their specific health/disease-related problems in diverse material and cultural circumstances (Johansson 1990). But mainstream social scientists are not trained to do highly contextualized research grounded in specific details. As Stephen Kunitz (1996, 187) observed, conventional social scientists value truth only “to the extent that it transcends time and place.” This training automatically gives them a macro-level orientation to explaining change, including mortality change, and that perspective marginalizes the value of research on small-scale populations living in specific and often distinctive contexts. Such research may even be regarded as unscientific (Kertzer and Fricke 1997), because it is bogged down in “irrelevant” details that interfere with the search for sweeping generalizations about human beings in any context. In macro history, the average person is the only person who counts. But this statistical construct is not a real person who had specific nutritional or public health problems that led to his or her premature death. The average person is not even a conscious being who frames specific problems and tries to solve them in cooperation with others. Macro-level research makes room for “relevant” details about the average person by isolating separate components, such as age, sex, family size, household type, place of residence, class, occupation, income, religion, race, and ethnicity. Subsequently, these components","PeriodicalId":45535,"journal":{"name":"Historical Methods","volume":"33 2","pages":"59-72"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01615440009598950","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"27346170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号