Computers and the Humanities

, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp 381–392 | Cite as

Integrating nineteenth-century Canadian and American census data sets

  • Lisa Y. Dillon


The comparative use of census data is a useful way to study social characteristics across national boundaries. However, truly comparative demographic history is not possible without fully integrating separate census data, uniting multiple data files with a common set of comparably coded variables. This paper describes the integration of the 1871 Canadian census public use sample with similar samples of the 1850 and 1880 American censuses to form the Integrated Canadian-American Public Use Microdata Series (ICAPUMS). These data sets lent themselves well to integration because of their strong similarities in sampling design, data collection and data organization. Consistency in the availability and treatment of variables also eased integration of the samples, although the harmonization of occupation variables presented significant challenges. The ICAPUMS features a general household relationship variable which allows us to examine household structure across the two countries and three years. The paper concludes by proposing some general principles of census data set integration. This integrated data set is now available to researchers on the website of the University of Minnesota Historical Census Projects (

Key words

comparative demographic history census data set integration ICAPUMS IPUMS coding schemes Canada United States 



Public Use Microdata Sample


Integrated Canadian-American Public Use Microdata Series


Integrated Public Use Microdata Series


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Berger, Carl. The Writing of Canadian History: Aspects of English-Canadian Historical Writing Since 1900. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. Bouchard, Gérard. “Family Structures and Geographic Mobility at Laterrière, 1851–1935.” Journal of Family History, 2 (1977), 351–369.Google Scholar
  3. Bouchard, Gérard. ldFamily Reproduction in New Rural Areas: Outline of a North American Model.” Canadian Historical Review, 75 (1994), 475–510.Google Scholar
  4. Bradbury, Bettina. “Pigs, Cows and Boarders: Non-Wage Forms of Survival Among Montreal Families, 1861–91.” Labour/Le Travail, 14 (1984), 32–45.Google Scholar
  5. Bradbury, Bettina. Working Families: Age, Gender and Daily Survival in Industrializing Montreal. Toronto: McLelland & Stewart, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. Canada. Department of Agriculture. Manual containing the Census Act and the instructions to officers employed in the taking of the first Census of Canada. Ottawa: Census Branch, Department of Agriculture, 1871.Google Scholar
  7. Canada. Department of Agriculture. Census of Canada 1870–71, Volume II. Ottawa: Department of Agriculture, 1873.Google Scholar
  8. Darroch, A. Gordon and Michael D. Ornstein. “Error in Historical Data Files: A Research Note on the Automatic Detection of Error and on the Nature and Sources of Errors in Coding.” Historical Methods, 12 (1979), 157–167.Google Scholar
  9. Darroch, Gordon and Michael D. Ornstein. “Family Coresidence in Canada in 1871: Family Life-cycles, Occupations and Networks of Mutual Aid.” Canadian Historical Association: Historical Papers (1983), 30-55.Google Scholar
  10. Darroch, A. Gordon and Michael Ornstein. “Family and Household in Nineteenth-century Canada: Regional Patterns and Regional Economies.” Journal of Family History (1984), 158–177.Google Scholar
  11. Darroch, Gordon and Michael Ornstein. “Overview: Canadian Historical Mobility Project and Class, Household and Mobility Project.” Toronto: Department of Sociology, York University, 1986 (unpublished paper).Google Scholar
  12. Darroch, Gordon and Michael D. Ornstein. “Coding and data Processing for the Feasibility Study: Canadian Historical Mobility Project.” Toronto: York University, 1994 (unpublished paper).Google Scholar
  13. Doucet, Michael and John Weaver. Housing the North American City. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. Drummond, Ian. Progress Without Planning: The Economic History of Ontario from Confederation to the Second World War. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  15. Gaffield, Chad. “Theory and Method in Canadian Historical Demography.” Archivaria, 14 (1982), 123–136.Google Scholar
  16. Gagan, David. Hopeful Travelers: Families, Land and Social Change in mid-Victorian Peel County, Canada West. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  17. Gossage, Peter. Family and Population in a Manufacturing Town: Saint-Hyacinthe, 1854–1914. Ph.D. diss. Montreal: Université du Québec a Montréal, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. Hareven, Tamara. “Family History at the Crossroads.” Family History at the Crossroads: A Journal of Family History Reader. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987, vii-xxi.Google Scholar
  19. Hareven, Tamara. “The History of the Family and the Complexity of Social Change.” The American Historical Review, 96 (1991), 95–124.Google Scholar
  20. Katz, Michael. The People of Hamilton West: Family and Class in a Mid-Nineteenth Century City. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  21. Lauzon, Gilles. “Cohabitation et déménagements en Milieu Ouvrier Montréalais: Essai de Rdinterprdtation à partir du cas du village Saint-Augustin (1871–1881).” Revue d'Histoire de l'Amérique Français, 46 (1992), 115–175.Google Scholar
  22. Modell, John and Tamara Hareven. “Urbanization and the Malleable Household: An Examination of Boarding and Lodging in American Families.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 35 (1973), 467–479.Google Scholar
  23. Ornstein, Michael. “The Design of the Sample from the 1871 Canadian Census.” Toronto: York University, n.d. (unpublished paper).Google Scholar
  24. Reidy, Joseph P. “Slavery, Emancipation, and the Capitalist Transformation of Southern Agriculture, 1850–1910.” In Agriculture and National Development: Views on the Nineteenth Century. Ed Lou Ferleger. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  25. Ruggles, S. “Comparability of the Public Use Files of the U.S. Census of Population, 1880–1980.” Social Science History 15 (1991), 123–158.Google Scholar
  26. Ruggles, S. “The Transformation of American Family Structure.” American Historical Review, 99 (1994), 103–28.Google Scholar
  27. Ruggles, S. “Sample Designs and Sampling Errors.” Historical Methods, 28 (1995), 40–42.Google Scholar
  28. Ruggles, S. et al. Public Use Microdata Sample of the 1880 United States Census of Population: User's Guide and Technical Documentation. Minneapolis: Social History Research Laboratory, University of Minnesota, 1994.Google Scholar
  29. Ruggles, S. and M. Sobek, with P. Kelly Hall and C. Ronnander. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Version 1.0, Volume 1: User's Guide. Minneapolis: Social History Research Laboratory, 1995.Google Scholar
  30. Ruggles, S. et al. Public Use Microdata Sample of the 1850 United States Census of Population: User's Guide and Technical Documentation. Minneapolis: Social History Research Laboratory, University of Minnesota, 1995a.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa Y. Dillon
    • 1
  1. 1.Ph.D. Program, Department of HistoryUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations