Recent years have witnessed an intensification of interest in research on family behavior. Economists have increasingly turned their attention to analysis of the determinants and consequences of family decisions, and historians have become more concerned with charting trends in the composition and behavior of families in the past. Considerable study has been devoted to some key decisions in the life-cycle of individuals that affect the family, including the determination of the age at marriage and the timing of fertility. Another such decision that has been recognized but has received relatively little attention is that of when children departed from the parental home.

It is conventional in the social sciences to treat the worlds of theory and empirical analysis as separate and distant from one another, and the theory construction literature is replete with proposed solutions to the problem of “bridging the gap” between theory and empirical practice. But for purposes of understanding empirical research literatures, especially interdisciplinary literatures such as those in social history research, the more pressing problem may be separating out theoretical and observational elements within existing research practice. Whether we are trying to “bring theory in” to our research setting or trying to identify that which has already been embedded in the research of others, we are engaged in the construction of theoretical models. This paper begins with Murphey’s discussion of the “theory-laden” nature of historical research, and uses this as a stepping-stone into an elaboration of how theoretical model building can contribute to our understanding of empirical research in social history.

The study of the origins of educational systems is a topic that has commanded the attention of both history and sociology. This disciplinary overlap arises because the origins of educational systems are seen as problematic. The “problem” about the origins of educational systems is highlighted most by the interdependence of historical timing and institutional form. The first denotes the historical point when provisions were established for some popular, and largely elementary instruction under the jurisdiction of the state. The second embraces both the hierarchical structure and pedagogical (curricular) content which educational systems assume. The two dimensions are closely linked, for the comparative lateness of formation can distinguish educational systems in significant ways from those which were formed early. Antecedent networks of instruction retain some presence and effects in spite of their legislative subordination to the state.

Critical analysis is the basis of the liberal arts education, and computer analysis is so much a part of contemporary society that liberal arts majors need to learn to assess the veracity of computer-derived information just as they do the sources for a historical monograph. It is increasingly clear that humanists should acquire basic understandings of the use of the computer. Jobs for traditionally trained liberal arts majors are scarce, and computer skills will make history graduates more competitive in the job market. We are not necessarily suggesting that all historians understand “computerese,” or the way some computer users talk to one another. What is important for the historian, or for any humanistic scholar for that matter, is the ability to understand the algorithm, or in the language of the humanist, the logic of how a computer program operates to produce output. This is also essential if scholars in the humanities are to be able to understand and evaluate the new social science research.

The fourth president of our Association made a presentation totally different from those of his predecessors, stating that he wanted to interdict any presumption that such addresses ought to fit a particular mold. Subsequently, these addresses have been comfortingly varied—the eighth just not given at all in the cheery din of a great Chinese restaurant in Toronto. I feel free, therefore, to do exactly what I please today, and I appreciate the supportive precedents.