The danger of demographic snapshots

Using surveys and statistical data as the sole means of gaining knowledge has always bothered me. Why? Because so often this data fails to capture what's actually there.

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of a fairly informal chat with an employee of Sutherland Shire Council. I say 'the pleasure' because it was a morning of rich insights built on the sound observations of those who know the area.

It's not hard to take a snapshot of Sutherland shire: an area 370 km² populated with 215,000 people (around 80% Australian-born), 3 national parks and 1 nuclear reactor.

But 'The Shire' is more than this.

There is a missing 'third dimension' when we choose to interpret a place purely through statistical data: we miss out on its story.

This is the danger of demographic snapshots: they need to be supplemented with a steady diet of stories (local histories, written and oral) if we are really going to 'get at' the things that make a place what it is.

My understanding of Sutherland Shire was enriched immensely through the sharing of some stories (e.g. how its development was shaped by its geographic isolation, and how its residents have responded to local issues and related dynamically to their council over time).

And of course one major historical decision dramatically affected the whole shape of The Shire's present demography: Captain Arthur Phillip's decision to break with James Cook's assessment, and to base the new colony at Port Jackson instead of Botany Bay.

If that one historical decision had been different, perhaps the demographic snapshots would look more like these.

I guess I'm only repeating what Jim said yesterday, and what I was hinting at the other evening with my post on the place of local knowledge in the world of satellite navigation: there's no substitute for a sensitive reading of context. And statistics will never suffice without stories.