~ Paupers of the Cleobury Mortimer Union ~
| What is a prosopography? | Map of the Union parishes | Record sources | Treatment of records | Query the database |
CORRESPONDENCE
Work has not yet started on this dataset
There are some fascinating items in here which should provide very rewarding outcomes. A considerable amount of administrative correspondence has been sifted out and only the more interesting items have been photographed. These contain, inter alia, many pauper letters and letters written on their behalf; detailed case responses to those interceding; a great number of letters regarding the provision of medical relief and claims of negligence; inquests; details of impropriety and dishonesty by the officers; disputes amongst the guardians.
There is little doubt, if any, of their authenticity. However, there are possible issues about credibility.
Given the subject matter and the authors, there is inbuilt bias – they all had an agenda. We need to be able to decide what inferences can be drawn from a document, other than the simple truth of any factual assertions.[1] [1] Jennifer Platt. ”Evidence and proof in documentary research: 1. Some specific problems of documentary research”, Sociological Review, 29, 1, 1981, pp.31-66 But, the veracity of accounts and statements needs to be considered. It is quite likely that in some cases important points could be omitted or embellished and any bias may be exacerbated by attempts to justify or rationalize actions, to discredit or support others or to misstate a problem: but, as McCulloch points out, an understanding of the biases involved can give the researcher significant clues to the issues being studied.[2] [2] Gary McCulloch. Documentary research in education, history and the social sciences, (London: Routledge Falmer, 2004) p36
In many cases, the meaning of the items will be quite clear, but we should take account of both the intended meaning and what would have been the received meaning at the time using the social context to facilitate understanding, whilst trying to avoid introducing any bias of one’s own. The use of secondary sources will be very important here.
In some cases, the internal meaning of an item will be important. By looking at the way in which words are used and their relationship to each other and, for example, what is not said as well as what is said along with the form and organization of the document, can help gain a greater understanding.[3] [3] Norman Fairclough. Critical Discourse Analysis, (London: Longman, 1995) p.20
There are two approaches that can be taken to the mass of letters and other items. The first borrows from the techniques of grounded theory (the full use of which is not considered wholly appropriate here). Each item is considered in turn, read carefully then coded to identify key points. The codes are then grouped to create concepts which can be built into categories. Whilst the coding is being done, memos are recorded to capture what is found and to interrogate the researcher’ own thoughts and feelings about the item. This allows for a highly reflective approach. Secondly, the source material is scoured to identify cases that can be studied in more detail by researching outwards from the material available. It is proposed to use both methods.
| SOURCE SET 6 | ||
 POOR
LAW UNION - CORRESPONDENCE |
||
| Type: Unstructured | Period: Poor Law Union | |
| Poor Law Union – Letter Books | 1836 – 1848 | 965 pp |
| Poor Law Union – Workhouse Master’s Records: Letters and miscellaneous papers | 1836 – 1854 | 381 pp |
| Poor Law Union – Clerk’s Records: Papers connected with the Guardians | 1836 | 82 items |
|
POOR
LAW COMMISSION - CORRESPONDENCE |
||
| Type: Unstructured | Period: Poor Law Union | |
| Poor Law Commission – Correspondence | 1836 – 1870 | 3038 pp |
| Poor Law Commission – Asst Cmm’r Day correspondence | 1835 – 1846 | 212 pp |
[1] Jennifer Platt. ”Evidence and proof in documentary research: 1. Some specific problems of documentary research”, Sociological Review, 29, 1, 1981, pp.31-66
[2] Gary McCulloch. Documentary research in education, history and the social sciences, (London: Routledge Falmer, 2004) p36
[3] Norman Fairclough. Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Longman, 1995, p.20