The object of sampling surveys is to evaluate variables characterizing an aggregate (the “whole”) through the observation of only a fraction of that whole, the “sample.” Though these surveys do focus on sociological or economic variables, it is because of opinion polls – often referred to as Gallup polls, from the name of the American businessman who first applied them to election forecasts and market surveys – that the investigative techniques involved in sampling surveys gained their claim to fame. The identification with this particular type of survey has become so strong that the French word for sampling survey, sondage, which, for statisticians, designates that survey method which substitutes the “part” for the “whole” (sampling) has become, for the general public, synonymous with the term enquête d’opinion (poll), to such an extent that any controversy on sondages now focuses on the scientific validity of the concept of “opinion” rather than on the legitimacy of extrapolating “from the part to the whole.” This technique, however, now perfectly well codified thanks to probabilistic techniques and the computation of “confidence intervals” has a complex history, which predates the Gallup method of the 1930s. The probabilistic justification of the method’s legitimacy stems from a number of developments in different survey techniques, focusing on “typical cases,” “examples,” and, subsequently, on “purposive” sampling techniques, as opposed to “random” sampling. This legitimization, relying on probabilities, has not, however, gained general acceptance, since even nowadays, the so-called “quota” method does not follow the canons of random selection and of confidence intervals.

Argument

Norwegian statisticians were pioneers in the development of sampling techniques for social and economic investigations in the late nineteenth century. After a few years of extensive use of sampling surveys in large-scale social and economic investigations, the method fell out of use in the early 1900s. This article supports Alain Desrosières’ argument that the emergence of sampling procedures in social investigations must be seen in relation to a modern “individualistic” view of society. But the importance of the institutional setting is also stressed: The way statistical research was connected to the power and resources of the State within the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) was a central element in the development and implementation of the new technique. A separate argument is presented to explain why the method suddenly lost ground in Norway and the general director of the CBS stopped promoting his method in the meetings of the International Statistical Institute. The explanation is probably to be found in a large and politically important survey in the 1890s that was attacked by a group of actuaries from private insurance firms. The heated and long-lasting debate turned into a question about trust in the new method and the reputation of the head of CBS as a statistical expert. The necessary trust and confidence was lost when the CBS in 1906 had to admit that important estimates from this survey obviously were erroneous.

Argument

While we know that Russian mathematicians contributed to the application of probability in the theory of statistics, Western literature on the history of statistics generally overlooks the role played by statisticians working in zemstva statistics departments. This paper argues that the quantity and the diversity of statistical data needed by zemstva administrators stimulated methodological innovations in the field and influenced the rise and development of sampling surveys in Russia between 1875 and 1930. The first surveys on parts of the whole were done by statisticians who were seeking solutions to practical administrative problems, and their sampling techniques evolved as Russian administrators put these statistical surveys to use. Finally, the paper argues that Kovalevskiy’s mathematical treatment of the theory of stratified sampling, published in 1924, ten years before Jerzy Neyman’s, is in fact a synthesis of the zemstva statisticians’ sampling practice and the Russian university statisticians’ theoretical works before 1917.

Argument

How did statistical representativeness first appear in the United States? To answer this question we turn to the archives of the Department of Agriculture. Since the 1860s, agricultural statisticians have been working to come up with representative groups of farmers able to answer questions about crop production. The archives describe the methods and tools used to devise representative samples. But the explicit justifications of why a given sample is particularly representative are nearly always missing. Where can we find explanations for why one sampling method is representative and not another? Where can we find the why when we have only the how? This paper argues that we can turn to the theorists of democracy for answers, because selecting a sample and selecting a group of representatives have a lot in common.

Argument

In this paper, I examine the treatment of mathematics in the definitive 1599 Ratio Studiorum of the Jesuit Order and in the preliminary drafts of the Ratio that were done in 1586 and 1591. Drawing on some additional writings of the Jesuit mathematician Christopher Clavius and his view of the importance of mathematics in a university curriculum, I suggest that the inclusion of mathematics as a standard part of the curriculum in Jesuit schools at the beginning of the “scientific revolution” was of significant importance in a climate that often demeaned the work of mathematicians. Jesuit schools were being founded around the time of Galileo and other key figures who influenced the scientific revolution. The introduction of mathematical sciences into universities and the textbooks of Clavius laid the groundwork for generations of students to become better acquainted with mathematics and the sciences that were being developed during that period of history.

Preliminary Note on Terminology: In Jesuit-related documents, the Latin term Nostri [“Ours”] is used to refer to Jesuits, to avoid unnecessarily using a word derived from the name of Jesus. The translations that follow retain the use of “Ours” in English following the Latin. The reader should remember that this term refers to members of the Society of Jesus. Also in the documents of Clavius (Historical Documents, Part II), the term scholastics is used, which refers to young Jesuit seminarians who have pronounced their initial vows as Jesuits but have not yet completed their studies and have not yet been ordained as Catholic priests. Similarly, the term philosophers refers to Jesuit seminarians who have finished studying humanities, are currently studying philosophy, and have not yet started their study of theology.