Page 1 of 1
Occupations (standardising and grouping)
Posted: 01 Jul 2021 11:20
by Ruth_W
I am quite proud of myself for working out how to make my own query to find all the different occupations in my database. I appreciate the need to have a standardised form of entry - so agricultural labourer rather than ag. lab, AL, etc. But is there any way of keeping a person's specific occupation (e.g. throstle doffer, scutcher) and having a generic term to group them (e.g. cotton mill worker)? I suppose something similar in military occupations would also be useful.
I do quite like having the specific term noted - they can show subtle changes of occupation or of fortune.
I'm assuming the term 'occupation descriptor' is something to do with Gedcom? It did look like something that could be used, but I can't see that.
Re: Occupations (standardising and grouping)
Posted: 01 Jul 2021 12:07
by tatewise
The experience of creating a Query is undoubtedly worthwhile.
You may also be interested in the
Tools > Work with Data > Occupations... command that lists all Occupations.
When entering an
Occupation value, clicking on the
[...] button on the right of the box displays that list.
In Ancestral Sources there is a similar droplist option for occupations.
In the Plugin Store, there is
Occupations Per Census Year and Gender that lists all Occupations in various ways.
You could use the
Descriptor field, as FH does very little with it, although its GEDCOM purpose is slightly different.
It involves always editing that field via the
All tab. Its data ref is
%INDI.OCCU.TYPE%.
An alternative is a labelled
Note using the format
Occupation: throstle doffer
That can be accessed using
=GetLabelledText(%INDI.OCCU.NOTE2%,"Occupation:")
Those two options are discussed in
Narrative Report Fact Sentence Templates under
Custom Fact Fields and in
Recording a Civil Partnership under
Standard Marriage Event which also mentions the
Cause field that you could 'misuse'.
Re: Occupations (standardising and grouping)
Posted: 01 Jul 2021 12:26
by Gowermick
A simple way is to add a catergory to each occupation as a prefix, denoting the main trade!
E.g Your Throssle Doffer could simply be written as Cotton Trade: Throssle Doffer
That way, all similar trade occupations would be listed together, and you also retain the Thossle Doffer detail.
Re: Occupations (standardising and grouping)
Posted: 01 Jul 2021 14:17
by Ruth_W
Thank-you for two excellent responses. Putting a generic name first is a good idea. I have to confess I had not seen or explored the 'Work with Data' option here, although I have done something similar with place names. There is so much to find and learn in this program, isn't there?
Re: Occupations (standardising and grouping)
Posted: 01 Jul 2021 16:07
by AdrianBruce
It's not answering your question, but of course the census analysts had the problem of how to standardise / group occupations.
The
Dictionary of Occupational Terms Based on the Classification of Occupations used in the Census of Population, 1921 can be found on URL
http://doot.spub.co.uk/intro.php. It's not an easy thing to read quickly (well, "impossible to read quickly" is more accurate) but people might find it useful. In particular, it summarises the various occupations so that if you go to the search page, and, e.g., enter the term
sagger (as in the famous job of
sagger-maker's bottom-knocker) you will find 6 occupations associated with the term
sagger and simple definitions of them. Which can be important even if you don't want to summarise / standardise / group them.
The higher level classifications are probably not much help as the SM's BK is described as a
118—Other Skilled Workers (Order V. Bricks, Pottery, Glass), which isn't hugely helpful as it's not quite what you want to do, but the definitions might help.