Quetelet Conferences

While information on individuals has never been more abundant—particularly through administrative databases (registers, censuses, surveys) or private sources (individuals’ digital footprints on the internet or telephone networks)—many populations remain partially, and sometimes completely, beyond observation and measurement, whether intentionally or not. It is important to distinguish between invisibility—which concerns categories of people and/or events that are not or are no longer measured in the same way—and the lack or absence of data regarding marginal populations and phenomena, which are numerically small and difficult to quantify. These different situations effectively lead to invisibility or statistical uncertainty! 

Invisibility, which often stems from the absence or loss of legal and administrative recognition, can be linked to a process of social exclusion and involuntary marginalization. This is the case, for example, with the homeless or with people residing in the country without legal status. Invisibility can also result from a voluntary choice on the part of those who fear being stigmatized or who wish to place themselves on the margins of society, to escape a certain lifestyle, or to avoid the collection of information about themselves that they consider intrusive. These forms of invisibility—whether imposed or voluntarily maintained—constitute a rupture between the individual and society, stemming from a lack of consideration or recognition, from mistrust, or from a void that the administrative system fails to fill. 

Invisibility can also arise purely by chance, without necessarily reflecting marginalization. For example, one’s usual place of residence does not always correspond to one’s “legal” domicile. This is particularly the case for students or workers who live in one place (alone, as a couple, in a shared apartment, etc.) while remaining domiciled elsewhere (at their parents’ home, etc.). This effectively makes it difficult to count or track these individuals and/or leads to double counting. Statistical invisibility can also apply to certain lifestyles that were initially “non-traditional” but are becoming increasingly common amid changing family and marital patterns. These examples highlight the growing diversity of lifestyles and their rapid evolution (same-sex couples, cohabitation outside of marriage, same-sex parent adoptions, shared custody of children in cases of parental separation, etc.). They attract the interest of social science researchers but require constant adaptation of data collection tools (accounting for “new” phenomena and new categories). 

Similarly, official statistics, due to a certain inertia and because measurement tools are not always adapted, often struggle to capture the sudden changes occurring at the macrosocial level, such as during economic, political, or health crises. The current health crisis has highlighted problems with the definition, measurement, and comparability of indicators. 

At the same time, situations associated with past and/or present taboos are often subject to significant statistical underestimation. For example, the attention given to gender identities and sexual orientations remains minimal in the realm of statistics. Faced with the heteronormativity of current statistics and society, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or transgender populations are likely to conceal their family or personal situations to avoid social stigma, or because individuals do not identify with the statistical categories provided. Other sensitive topics may be omitted from administrative and statistical sources due to the social and emotional weight associated with them. Sexual and domestic violence are examples of this. Fear of retaliation, judgment, and misunderstanding are all factors that may lead some victims to refrain from reporting assaults they have suffered, which are sometimes daily occurrences. Finally, a society’s social, religious, and cultural history leaves its mark on current reluctance to discuss and address certain topics, such as suicide, euthanasia, or abortion. These taboo subjects, because they provoke social condemnation and heated debates, are particularly difficult to study and understand without fearing some form of bias or underestimation in conventional statistics, including in specific surveys on the matter. 

The 2021 Quetelet Chair proposes to examine these invisible populations and the uncertainty of events, the shortcomings of observational tools, how to statistically capture them, and the determinants and effects of the process of statistical invisibility. Ultimately, the aim is to highlight the shortcomings of current statistics in the face of societal changes. 

Papers may: 

Degree of urbanization in demographic research 

The terms ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ are crude measures of residential settings, and there is in fact no universal definition of what is considered urban. Moving beyond the city-countryside dichotomy is an important step toward addressing this. Indeed, a large portion of the world’s population lives in semi-urban or peripheral settlements, suggesting that a continuum of urbanity is far more relevant. Grouping towns of 5,000 inhabitants and megacities into a single category obscures the diversity of characteristics among the urban areas where people live. Papers addressing these issues are welcome, particularly those focusing on: 

Spread of behaviors in rural and urban settings 

The urban environment is often considered a precursor to the first demographic transition. Mortality is thought to decline first in urban areas as infectious diseases begin to recede. The decline in fertility is also believed to begin in urban settings. Is this truly a universal pattern? How does this decline in demographic rates spread across sectors? Does the availability of health infrastructure in urban areas lead to a decline in mortality in urban areas? Does the idea of limiting fertility spread from urban to rural areas? Or do both urban and rural areas want to limit pregnancies, but unmet needs for contraception hinder the transition toward lower fertility in rural areas? 

Furthermore, although the second demographic transition varies by location, there is no conclusive evidence of differences in the characteristics of the second transition—such as cohabitation outside marriage or single-parent households—between urban and rural settings. Papers addressing the diffusion of behaviors along a rural-urban gradient are encouraged, with particular attention to the following: 

Migration and internal mobility 

Internal migration is more common than international migration, but population movements within a country are often overlooked. People may move from one region to another within the same country, between rural and urban areas, between rural areas, or between urban areas. Moves may be long-term, temporary, or seasonal. Some may choose to live in one region and work in another. Push and pull factors do not carry the same weight throughout an individual’s life, and events such as starting school or getting married are major triggers of residential mobility. Little research focuses on these types of mobility, and especially on how they shape the characteristics and behaviors of rural and urban populations. How are these internal movements measured? How might mobility and movement affect demographic estimates? What is the scale of intra-urban migration—the presumed final stage of the transition toward mobility? Contributions addressing the following themes are encouraged: 

Urbanization, economic inequalities, and ecology 

Urbanization is often associated with economic progress, accompanied by industrialization and advanced economic systems, as well as mass education and democratization. But this relationship has also been called into question, given the worsening of inequalities and environmental risks. Does urbanization necessarily go hand in hand with economic growth? To what extent does it cause poverty? What are the benefits of urbanization for sustainable development? On the one hand, dense urban areas supply and distribute food and water more efficiently and preserve green spaces within them. On the other hand, local biodiversity is affected, and rural land is used to supply food to cities. What are the environmental impacts of different types of urbanization? Papers addressing the following topics are welcome: