HISCLASS

Marco H.D. van Leeuwen is Professor of Historical Sociology at the Department of Sociology/ICS, Utrecht University, and Honorary Research Fellow of the International Institute for Social History, Amsterdam. Ineke Maas is Associate Professor of Sociology at the Department of Sociology/ICS, Utrecht University.

Notwithstanding these observations, HISCLASS is an important tool that will make a significant contribution to historical stratification and mobility research in the fields of social and economic history, historical sociology, and historical demography. The book's documentation of HISCLASS' construction, which permits identification of the scheme's weaknesses and strengths, together with the actual experiences of HISCLASS users, may well lead to the improvement of this research tool in the future. Peter Tammes, The Netherlands, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XLIII:3 (Winter 2013)

• List of tables Preface 1. Occupations, Class and Rank in Past Societies1.1 Introduction1.2 Occupations and their classifi cation in HISCO1.3 Constructing the class scheme1.4 Dimensions of social class1.5 Conclusion2. Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT)2.1 Introduction2.2 The nature of DOT2.3 The content of DOT2.4 Conclusion3. From HISCO to DOT3.1 Introduction3.2 Linking HISCO to DOT3.3 Conclusion 4. From DOT to a Social Class Scheme for Past Populations4.1 Introduction4.2 Manual and non-manual4.3 Skill levels4.4 Supervision4.5 Economic sector4.6 From class dimensions to HISCLASS4.7 The use of the HISCO variables Status and Relation4.8 Conclusion5. Validation5.1 Introduction5.2 Expert judgement5.3 Results of the expert validation5.4 Consequences of the results of the validation for HISCLASS5.5 Conclusion6. ConclusionBibliography AppendicesAppendix 4.1: Exceptions to the general rules with respect to the manual /non-manual distinctionAppendix 4.2: Exceptions to the general rules with respect to skill levelsAppendix 4.3: Exceptions to the general rules with respect to supervisionAppendix 5.1: Instructions for validation by the expertsAppendix 5.2: The two test fi les for the expert validation (first 10 of 299 occupational groups)Appendix 5.3: Overview of experts' placement of occupational groups into classes, compared with the placement using DOTAppendix 5.4: Overview of experts' scoring of occupational groups on class dimensionsAppendix 5.5: Changes made based on the expert validationAppendix 5.6: Crosswalk HISCO - HISCLASSList of tablesTable 2.1: Values of the occupational characteristics Data, People and Things in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT)Table 2.2: Example of a DOT qualifi cation profileTable 3.1: An overview of links between HISCO and DOT by typeTable 3.2: An illustration of choosing the most common DOT code within the unit group in order to establish a HISCO-DOT link for a general HISCO groupTable 3.3: An illustration of choosing the most similar DOT code within the unit group in order to establish a HISCO-DOT link for a general HISCO groupTable 3.4: HISCO occupational groups that could not be linked to DOT, and their presence in ISCO68Table 4.1: Distinguishing between manual and non-manual work using DOTTable 4.2: HISCO occupational groups not covered by DOT, and their directly assigned class characteristicsTable 4.3: Distinguishing skill levels using DOTTable 4.4: Distinguishing supervision using DOTTable 4.5: A cross-classifi cation of the dimensions of classTable 4.6: The 12 HISCLASS classes and their characteristicsTable 4.7: Categories of the variable Status in HISCO and rules for assigning occupations to classesTable 4.8: Categories of the variable Relation in HISCO and rules for assigning occupations to classesTable 5.1: Results of the expert validation of supervisionTable 5.2: Results of the expert validation of manual / non-manualTable 5.3: Results of the expert validation of primary as opposed to other sectorsTable 5.4: Results of the expert validation of skillTable 5.5: Results of the expert validation of classTable 5.6: Cross-classifi cation of DOT-based class and alternatives proposed by a majority of experts