建构普查家庭与家庭分类:1901年加拿大人口普查中的“与户主的关系”。

IF 1.6 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
G Darroch
{"title":"建构普查家庭与家庭分类:1901年加拿大人口普查中的“与户主的关系”。","authors":"G Darroch","doi":"10.1080/01615440009598962","DOIUrl":null,"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 are simple variations on others: for example, “head,” “chief,” “head widow,” “widow head,” and so on. Among those of substantive interest, the entries ranged from the obvious, common ones of heads and wives and sons and daughters of heads, through stepchildren and grandchildren and relatives, to a very diverse array of visitors, boarders and lodgers, domestic and “nondomestic” employees, and institutional inmates. A basic principle of the project has been to transcribe this full array to the file in alphanumeric form and to assign separate numeric codes to the individual mentions.“ Thus a researcher can, in principle, begin with the original enumeration and create a coding scheme tailored to any analytic purpose. I will comment further on this prospect and the implications for analysis of a common coding scheme for dwelling units based on the relationship to head that the project adopted. First, a more general consideration of the meaning of the construction of census families and households is in order. In her current research for the CFP, Annalee Golz (1998) reflects on the implications of the changes and specifica-","PeriodicalId":45535,"journal":{"name":"Historical Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01615440009598962","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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 are simple variations on others: for example, “head,” “chief,” “head widow,” “widow head,” and so on. Among those of substantive interest, the entries ranged from the obvious, common ones of heads and wives and sons and daughters of heads, through stepchildren and grandchildren and relatives, to a very diverse array of visitors, boarders and lodgers, domestic and “nondomestic” employees, and institutional inmates. A basic principle of the project has been to transcribe this full array to the file in alphanumeric form and to assign separate numeric codes to the individual mentions.“ Thus a researcher can, in principle, begin with the original enumeration and create a coding scheme tailored to any analytic purpose. I will comment further on this prospect and the implications for analysis of a common coding scheme for dwelling units based on the relationship to head that the project adopted. First, a more general consideration of the meaning of the construction of census families and households is in order. In her current research for the CFP, Annalee Golz (1998) reflects on the implications of the changes and specifica-\",\"PeriodicalId\":45535,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historical Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01615440009598962\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historical Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440009598962\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Methods","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440009598962","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Constructing census families and classifying households: "relationship to head of family or household" in the 1901 census of Canada.
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 are simple variations on others: for example, “head,” “chief,” “head widow,” “widow head,” and so on. Among those of substantive interest, the entries ranged from the obvious, common ones of heads and wives and sons and daughters of heads, through stepchildren and grandchildren and relatives, to a very diverse array of visitors, boarders and lodgers, domestic and “nondomestic” employees, and institutional inmates. A basic principle of the project has been to transcribe this full array to the file in alphanumeric form and to assign separate numeric codes to the individual mentions.“ Thus a researcher can, in principle, begin with the original enumeration and create a coding scheme tailored to any analytic purpose. I will comment further on this prospect and the implications for analysis of a common coding scheme for dwelling units based on the relationship to head that the project adopted. First, a more general consideration of the meaning of the construction of census families and households is in order. In her current research for the CFP, Annalee Golz (1998) reflects on the implications of the changes and specifica-
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Historical Methods
Historical Methods Multiple-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Historical Methodsreaches an international audience of social scientists concerned with historical problems. It explores interdisciplinary approaches to new data sources, new approaches to older questions and material, and practical discussions of computer and statistical methodology, data collection, and sampling procedures. The journal includes the following features: “Evidence Matters” emphasizes how to find, decipher, and analyze evidence whether or not that evidence is meant to be quantified. “Database Developments” announces major new public databases or large alterations in older ones, discusses innovative ways to organize them, and explains new ways of categorizing information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信