Arguably a very obvious example: C. R. Dobson, Masters and Journeymen: A
Prehistory of Industrial Relations, 1717–1800. London: Croom Helm,
1980.
Dobson's study centres around a statistical analysis of strikes based
on reports in the Times, and concludes they were concentrated in London,
not in the industrial north.
As he was writing about the 18th century, it is hard to know how a
better statistical analysis could be done, but the bias in the source is
horribly obvious. When we wrote the Atlas of Industrial Protest some
years later we wimped out and the systematic statistical part of our
treatment did not start until the mid-19th century, when there were
national unions gathering data.
Humphrey Southall
>>> Andrew John Hobbs <[log in to unmask]> 16/08/2010 14:22 >>>
Apologies for cross-posting.
I am working on a paper challenging the dominance of The Times as a
historical source, on the basis of its limited circulation (in terms of
sales and geographical extent) and peculiar content (advertising,
political and diplomatic news, with little news of the UK beyond the
South-East, and an unusual lack of non-news editorial content). I
suspect it has been better at self-promotion than other equally
significant papers, and its accessibility via Palmer's Index has made it
a first resort for many historians.
If all this conjecture is correct, there must be examples of
historiography that has come to partial or inaccurate conclusions
because of an over-dependence on The Times.
I'm looking for examples of particular books, articles, theories or
approaches which have been weakened by such over-dependence on The
Times.
Thanks in advance
Andrew Hobbs
University of Central Lancashire
UK
|