1. Comparing network and association models in the analysis of historical patterns of occupational interactions and stratification Paul Lambert 1, David Griffiths 1, Richard Zijdeman 2, Ineke Maas 2, Marco van Leeuwen 2 Paper presented to the European Social Science History Conference, 11-14 April 2012, University of Glasgow, UK 1)University of Stirling, UK, contact email: paul.lambert@stirling.ac.uk 2)University of Utrecht, Netherlands 1

2. Motivation Studying social interactions and social connections can help us to understand social trends and transformations Social mobility; homogamy; industrialisation; etc Taking full advantage of historical occupational codes, new data, and new analytical opportunities HISCO/NAPPHISCO/Microclass standardised codes… …capture fine-grained details, but potentially aggregate some occupations by sector rather than level – GB 1831 census..occupational returns as crude, undigested, and essentially unscientific, a document whose insufficiency is a national disgrace to us, for there the trading and working classes are all jumbled together in the most perplexing confusion, and the occupations classified in a manner that would shame the merest tyro [Thompson 1963: 25, citing Mayhew 1862] 2

3. Whats new? 1) Data resources Census returns with household sharers occupations as proxy for social distance 2) Occupational coding Originally in NAPP/PUMS codes (NAPPHISCO, or national unit) (Approximate) recode into HISCO R Zijdeman; www.geode.stir.ac.ukwww.geode.stir.ac.uk (Approximate) recode into Microclass D Griffiths; www.geode.stir.ac.ukwww.geode.stir.ac.uk Microclass (Weeden and Grusky 2005; Jonsson et al. 2009) – socially defined fine-grained occupational clusters 3

4. Data sources CountryYearsN cases (k)SourceOccupationsDerived Occs Canada1871, 1881, 1891, 1901 8; 1276; 156; 92 NAPPNAPPHISCOHISCO; Microclass Iceland1801, 19019; 34NAPPNAPPHISCOHISCO; Microclass Sweden19001573NAPPNAPPHISCOHISCO; Microclass Britain1851; 1881s; 1881ew 214; 2096; 13500; NAPPOCCGBMicroclass USA1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1900 53; 83; 121; 170, 282 PUMSUS1880HISCO; Microclass Norway1801, 1865, 1875,1900 228; 633; 286; 1037 NAPPNAPPHISCOHISCO; Microclass N refers to number of adults in dataset with valid occupational records. The number of unique within household connections between these adults is usually between 1 and 2 times the number of adults. 4

5. Preliminary versions – contemporary microclasses a convenient way to measure and analysis fine- grained historical detail? 5

6. SampleModelCAM/USCMicroclassHISCONAPPHISCO (OCCGB) CA 1871R2 in predicting0.1550.2470.2700.303 CA 1881alters HISCAM0.1940.2790.3090.310 CA 18910.2990.4040.4330.437 CA 19010.1430.2520.2800.283 IC 1801R2 in predicting0.0600.1370.1660.167 IC 1901alters HISCAM0.0090.0320.043 SE 1900` 0.0000.1670.192 GB 1851R2 in predicting0.3000.319n/a0.344 GB 1881 (EW)alters CAMSIS0.2360.258n/a0.282 GB 1881 (S)0.1890.228n/a0.245 US 1850R2 in predicting0.0270.0530.0570.058 US 1860alters literacy0.0260.0590.0650.066 US 1870(plus fathers hiscam0.0670.1450.151 US 1880If literacy missing)0.0400.0990.1030.104 US 19000.0320.0690.0750.076 NO 1801R2 in predicting0.0670.1150.1560.157 NO 1865alters HISCAM0.0280.0640.081 NO 18750.0570.0990.1160.117 NO 19000.0840.1620.1800.181 6

7. Whats new? 3) Methods for analysing {within-household} social connections on large-scale and fine-grained data …Focus on the individual outcome.. Model with occupation-based indicators (plus random or fixed effects) …Focus on the social connection.. Association models HISCAM (Lambert et al. 2012) Chan (2010) on status scales Network analysis SONOCS (Griffiths & Lambert 2011) Cf. Wellman & Berkowitz (1988) Characterise dimensions to the occupational interaction structure Identify particular routes of occupational connects 7

8. Microclasses 8

9. 9

10. 10

11. Microclasses 11

12. HISCO units 12

13. What can we do with such data? a)Statistical models of occupation-based outcomes b)Statistical models of the association process c)Network depictions of prevalence of connections Intergenerational HISCAM (all m-m) R Canada1871=0.57; 1881=0.47; 1891=0.46; 1901=0.43 Iceland1801=0.41, 1901=0.07 Sweden1900=0.37 Britain1851=0.21; 1881ew=0.36; 1881s=0.30 USA1850=0.30; 1860=0.33; 1870=0.33; 1880=0.31; 1900=0.33 Norway1801=0.23; 1865=0.23; 1875=0.29; 1900=0.27 13

14. (a) Model individual outcomes: Linear/random/fixed effects (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) OLS(1)+fath HISCAM (2) + f.e. HISCO (2) + f.e. microclass (2) + r.e. HISCO (2) + r.e. microclass Age (linear)29.532.135.734.635.734.5 Female-120.9-127.2-128.6-130.1-128.8-130.1 Jewish7.97.57.17.07.17.0 Sami1.61.82.22.12.22.1 Finnish-2.0-1.7 -1.9-1.7-1.9 Urban36.632.318.719.619.019.8 Cohabits-19.6-18.5-16.5-17.0-16.5-17.0 Fathers HISCAM 37.55.43.66.5 Rho0.1970.0380.0860.026 r20.1090.119 Data: Sweden 1900, N=124238, Child HISCAM predicted by fathers HISCAM. T-statistics. 14

15. (b) Association models Cambridge Social Interaction and Stratification Scales See www.camsis.stir.ac.uk/hiscam & Lambert et al. (2012) for historical data e.g.s www.camsis.stir.ac.uk/hiscam Social Interaction Distance (SID) analysis RC(II) model / Correspondence analysis First dimension of association can usually be labelled as stratification 15

16. How to use SID analysis effectively..? Carefully prepared specific analysis…..or semi-automated comparisons? Fine- vs coarse- grained analysis? Scales scores can indicate change in occupations through context Model fit statistics allow study of trends/structures Fully automated, m-f homogamy, %inertia in dims 1+2 Fully automated, father- son, correlation to contemporary CAMSIS Canada1871=0.90; 1881=0.63; 1891=0.51; 1901=0.47 1871=0.38; 1881=0.44; 1891=0.56; 1901=0.64 Iceland1801=0.94, 1901=0.731801=0.76, 1901=0.22 Sweden1900=0.561900=0.11 Britain1851=0.48; 1881ew=0.56; 1881s=0.53 1851=0.66; 1881ew=0.66; 1881s=0.10 USA1850=. ; 1860=0.55; 1870=0.67; 1880=0.53; 1900=0.50 1850=0.01; 1860=0.16; 1870=0.03; 1880=0.12; 1900=0.62 Norway1801=0.87; 1865=0.78; 1875=0.58; 1900=0.64 1801=0.68; 1865=0.49; 1875=0.65; 1900=0.20 16

17. Main contribution of association models are to tell us about average social positions of the incumbents of occupations (and change over societies) 17

18. CanadaNorwayScotlandUSA Cases123,74954,067261,18722,349 Links101136111208 Microclasses (older cohort)45504145 Microclasses (younger cohort)35383941 Strongest bond (* times expectation)2391461955 Network: Degree centrality.10.14.12.18 Network: Closeness centrality.23.27.26 Network: Components2121 Network: Distance101275 Network: average distance3.83.73.22.6 Note, for Canada and Scotland closeness centrality refers to largest component only. c) Network analysis Still looking at number of connections {within household} but change in emphasis on features of connections

19. Canada 1881 USA 1880 Scotlan d 1881 Norway 1876 Microclasses with ties *2 expected + non-sparse; male- male links if >16yrs age gap

20. Scotland 1881 Librarians (1305) and creative artists (1306) with links to printers (4104) and craftsmen Housekeepers (4310) Farming community (5201, 5202), forestry workers (4210) and gardeners (4312) Managers (1202) and ships officers (1307) link to their subordinates (4306) Clerks (3203) and agents (3102) interact with various professionals Lawyers (1101), medics (1102), teachers (1304) and the clergy (1310) form a clique at centre of the network

21. Canada 1881 Ties not as obvious; sparse connections within mesoclasses, but stratification effects most observable Farmers (5201) and farm labourers (5202) do not have mutual ties to forestry workers Teachers (1304), clergy (1310), lawyers (1101) and medics (1102) have sparse ties Clerical and sales workers (3***) strongly interact, but few ties to professionals (1***) Librarians (1305) and creative artists (1306) dont form any strong ties and arent represented Food service workers (4304) are the sons of many other routine workers Housekeepers (4310)

22. Canada 1881 (left) with microclasses split by religion (red=catholic; white=non-catholic). Clear division on religious grounds in 1881. Canada 1891 (right) with microclasses split by religion (red=catholic; white=non-catholic). Religious divide continues, but much more common for cross-religion and microclass households.

23. Canada (by religion)18811891 Cases92,04822,084 % Roman Catholic33.1%28.6% % Catholics with Catholic alter84.1%60.6% % non-Catholics with Catholic alter8.2%17.4% Mean HISCAM (All cases) (Standard deviation) 58.0 (10.9) 57.7 (11.4) Mean difference in HISCAM (all cases) (Standard deviation) 9.2 (11.5) 10.1 (11.6) % HISCAM difference< 1/2 s.d. …. (Catholic – Catholic)52.0%51.7% … (non-Catholic to non-Catholic)51.5%49.3% … (Catholic to non-Catholic)45.5%44.4% % HISCAM difference>2 s.d. … (Catholic to Catholic)11.4%16.6% … (non-Catholic to non-Catholic)12.8%11.9% … (Catholic to non-Catholic)12.4%11.8%

24. Summary: Social connections between occupations Connections are central to social organisation of the stratification system [e.g. Bottero 2005] Problems of data preparation and scale Occupational coding – NAPP; HISCO; Microclass Identify social connections (within hhld NAPP) Select/discard some types of connections (e.g. farming) Analytical approaches Model with proxy indicators, random or fixed effects …Focus on the social connection.. Association models Network analysis 24

25. References cited Bottero, W. (2005). Stratification: Social Division and Inequality. London: Routledge. Griffiths, D., & Lambert, P. S. (2011). Dimensions and Boundaries: Comparative analysis of occupational structures using social network and social interaction distance analysis Paper presented at the ISA RC28 Spring meeting, University of Essex, 13-16 April 2011. Jonsson, J. O., Grusky, D. B., Di Carlo, M., Pollak, R., & Brinton, M. C. (2009). Microclass Mobility: Social Reproduction in Four Countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 977-1036. Lambert, P. S., Zijdeman, R. L., Maas, I., van Leeuwen, M. H. D., & Prandy, K. (2012). The construction of HISCAM: A stratification scale based on social interactions for historical research. Historical Methods, forthcoming. Mayhew, H. (1862) London Labour and the London Poor. Thompson, E. P. (1980[1963]). The Making of25 the English Working Class. London: Penguin. Weeden, K. A., & Grusky, D. B. (2005). The Case for a New Class Map. American Journal of Sociology, 111(1), 141-212. Data from: Minnesota Population Center. (2011). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, International: Version 6.1 [Machine readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, and https://international.ipums.org/ (accessed 1 July 2011). North Atlantic Population Project and Minnesota Population Center. (2008). NAPP: Complete Count Microdata. NAPP Version 2.0 [computer files]. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center [distributor] [http://www.nappdata.org] 25