Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
192.168.6.56/handle/123456789/56174Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Brian P. Cooper | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-03-21T07:02:52Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2019-03-21T07:02:52Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2007 | - |
| dc.identifier.isbn | 0–203–44185–0 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://10.6.20.12:80/handle/123456789/56174 | - |
| dc.description | This chapter introduces the themes and methods that I use to investigate how Martineau and her contemporaries in Britain approached these questions. I pursue three main areas of inquiry. The first involves the efforts of Martineau and her contemporaries to define different kinds of families and family behavior in order to further social inquiry about the relationships between individuals, families, and populations. These are issues of classification, of how to aggregate and disaggregate, and how to relate the parts to the whole. Contemporaries used two principal methods, representative types and statistical aggregates, to “sum up.” We like to think of the methods as incompatible ways of generating knowledge: Hacking calls Frederick Le Play’s use of representative households in his budget studies “antistatistical” (Hacking 1990: 133–41). But, just as novelists used government blue books as inspiration for their heroes and villains, social statisticians such as the Belgian Adolphe Quetelet tried to endow statistical aggregates with the attributes of real, if idealized people (Cooper and Murphy 2000). | - |
| dc.language | en | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Routledge | en_US |
| dc.subject | Family Facts | en_US |
| dc.title | Family Fictions and Family Facts | en_US |
| dc.type | Book | en_US |
| Appears in Collections: | Population Studies | |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.