LOCAL SURVEYS: The Social Survey of Merseyside
| Published date | 01 October 1934 |
| Author | D. Jones |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1934.tb02398.x |
| Date | 01 October 1934 |
Reviews
LOCAL
SURVEYS
The
Social
Survey
of
Merseyside
Edited
by
D.
CARADOG
JONES.
(University
THIS
Survey is worthy to rank with that of
Booth
for London,
and contains distinctive features
of
its own.
An
outline
of
the
survey gives some idea of its scope, though little of its wealth of
detail-the history of the development of the area
(a
very interesting
and succinct first chapter), the contribution of different nationalities,
analysis
of
population (age, sex, marital condition), overcrowding,
poverty, municipal housing, working-class budgets, industry,
unem-
ployment,
surplus
of labour, investigation of several normal
groups
(infants, school children, adolescents, families without
a
male head,
pensioners) and of subnormal
types
(deaf and dumb, blind, mentally
deficient, physically defective, destitute), public administration, social
services, fertility among different classes. The survey was rendered
possible by
a
grant
from
the
Rockefeller Foundation and the money
has
borne
good
fruit. Tribute is paid to central and local officials
for
help rendered
in
the survey.
How to review
a
monumental work
of
this kind is
a
question.
To
give some
of
the outstanding facts and tentative conclusions elicited
by
the survey is very tempting, but it would be difficult to know
where to stop.
Those
who are interested in surveys in general or
in
particular questions
with
which these volumes deal should consult
them, because quotations could not
do
justice to the riches of infoxma-
tion and the ingenuity of investigation and tabulation. Now that a
comprehensive survey of
a
large provincial city has been produced,
it
is
not beyond hope that others
will
follow, and it may be more
advantageous to consider some general questions arising
out
of
investigations of this kind, prefacing them with a warm tribute to
those
who
have been responsible
for
this exhaustive
survey.
The
three volumes are
a
quarry. They are not likely to be
read
with care by many except students and those specially interested,
professionally or otherwise, in particular subjects. For the most part
they
do
not make easy reading, facts and figures pile up in the mind
3
vols.,
328,
413
and
560
pp.
Press
of
Liverpool;
Hodder
and Stoughton, Ltd.)
45s.
398
Reoiews
to
weariness and even confusion with the least flagging. This is
more or
less
inherent in the subject and method, but we need to
consider whether the way
of
presentation of matters of
this
description
cannot be improved, the better
“
to get across
”
the results, whether
to
student, public servant, social worker or general public.
If
I
am
a general reader, wishing to inform myself of prevailing conditions,
what
I
want
is
a
statement
of
results, concise and at the same time
interesting, without too much burden of detail, much less of multi-
tudinous statistics, though
with
occasional telling instances to give
the narrative life (there are several
in
these
volumes).
If
I
am
a
student, what
I
require are the data
,
put statistically where possible
,
with sufficient information
to
judge
of
their value and with their
significance set forth as concisely and as baldly as possible. Attempts
to
combine the
two
are apt to fall between
two
stools.
Some time ago an elaborate survey was camed out at great cost
of
the Greater New York Region, primarily for the purposes
of
planning, and the results published in several volumes. Later a
popular volume of moderate size was issued for the general public,
bringing out some of the salient features. The Liverpool volunie,
like those
of
New York,
will
for many years prove a rich quarry for
students and publicists (and many
will
no doubt extract material
to
support preconceptions and prejudices), but it
is
also necessary to
appeal to the general public, or rather
the
more thoughtful section
of
it. Liverpool might well consider whether to follow the New York
example.
The place of the survey in social research
is
another question
which comes to mind
in
reading these volumes.
Its
primary purpose
is
to set out the facts about place and inhabitants,
of
which otherwise
even the best informed has only glimpses or sectional views.
‘‘
The
function of a survey,” to quote from the volumes,
“is
the more
modest one
of
describing what can be seen on the surface and ana-
lysing
the effects of the immediately controlling forces.” But the
survey throws up many problems, such as those of the inheritance
of
certain physical
or
mental defects (the survey gives some striking
cases), the relation
of
these to destitution, the very interesting
questions
raised
in the last chapter on differential fertility. The
facts
of
any one city, perhaps even the largest, can but suggest;
for any but very tentative conclusions research must extend over
a
much wider field. There are few more urgent needs at the present
time than the increase of the exiguous amount
of
genuine social
research
which
is
now being undertaken.
The value
of
surveys of
this
kind
is
very great. History
is
the best
schoolmaster
of
statesmanship. The difficulty
is
to
know
the facts
of
history and their significance. Great would
have
been the service
of
399
Public
Administration
similar surveys
if
they had been made in past years, even at long
intervals,
for
our understanding
of
social conditions and develop-
ments!
This
is
illustrated by the second
“
Booth
”
survey
of
London.
A
better
sense
of perspective and a sounder tradition
would
have developed.
The provision
of
so
rich
a
store
for
general use
is
ample justifica-
tion for the survey. But
the
question also arises whether,
in
addition
to
casual
use
of
material, some systematic measures could not, and
should
not,
be adopted
for
applying the information
to
present
problems. The survey has been carried out under the auspices
of
the
University, which has deserved well
of
the local community, and
of
the country, for undertaking
it.
The University rnay be able to carry
their service
still
further by spreading
a
knowledge
of
the
information
gained and
its
significance
for
current problems-not an easy
task
because
of
the danger of becoming entangled in
Party
politics, but
a
task
well worth doing, indeed badly needing to be done, because now
more than ever does Governmental and other social policy need
to
be based
on
sound impartial knowledge.
These are but a few
of
the thoughts raised
by
this
admirable
survey,
a
survey for which warm gratitude
is
due to those
through
whose generosity it has been undertaken and to those who have
carried
it
out.
I.
G.
G.
Work and
Wealth
in a Modern Port
:
An Economic Survey
of
Southamp
ton
By
P.
FORD,
Ph.D.,
University
College,
Southampton.
(Men
&
Unwin.)
TO
most of
us
the. very name Southampton is invested with a
sort
of
glamour. It inspires us with visions
of
great steamers
rolling
down
to
€30,
of tired trains mingling
with
the street traffic on their way
to
the
sea,
of Britishers from the
far
ends of the earth seeing
“
home
”
for
the
first
time.
Mr.
Ford’s book does nothing
to
add to the glamour;
it
was not
of
course intended to, but possibly the author
goes
too
far
in
regarding Southampton not
so
much as a living entity as
a
quarry
from which economic and sociological facts may
be
dug. He
goes
some way in fact to
strip
Southampton
of
its
glamour; he writes
of
the hard facts of industry, housing and crime, and much
of
the survey
was done in
1931,
during the depths of the depression. It
is
no cnti-
cism of the author to say that the book might aptly
be
called:
“
Unemployment and Poverty
in
a Modern Port.’’
He finds that
in
1931
about
21
per cent.
of
the families
in
South-
ampton were below the poverty datum-line, and that no less than
400
10s.
Od.
net.
To continue reading
Request your trial