The standard method of historical demography consists in "family-reconstitution." Drawing largely on parish-records, researchers would reconstitute the inhabitants of the parish, their number, their mortality-rates and other relevant data.
Alice Kasakoff's work pertains to the United States and set out to recognize the effects of migration. While the standard method might be appropriate for study of fairly static European societies, other methods are needed to take effects of migration into account.
To complicate the issue: the standard method was tailored to those data that are readily available without asking how good these data are, what phenomena are rendered invisible by them, etc. The new method begins with the awareness that good data might have to be attained from bad records - it anticipates the need for (statistical?) correction.
Alice chose a method that consists in examining genealogies which reflect migration. She established, for example, that migrants had lower mortality rates than "stayers," a demographic finding that could not have been attained by the standard method.
This is where the story begins and this synopsis ends. What did it take to get the new data accepted? It required an apparent detour through statistical arguments designed to show that the new method was able to represent the findings of the standard method, to show that the restriction to genealogical records (not all families keep such records) did not introduce bias, etc. From the new method's point of view, these statistical arguments represent a loss of time and a distraction from substantive research - after all, the shortcomings of the standard method were apparent enough to the adherents of the new method. But what does this apparent detour look like from the point of view of "science" or "historical demography"? What contribution did it make?
Alfred Nordmann
| Membership Directory | General Information | Topics and Issues | Calendar |
This page last updated November 15th, 1999. It is maintained by the Philosophy Department. © 1997 by the Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina. Credits.