the Royal Society offered at that time (Knight, 2006 ). The design of the lecture theatre mirrored that of the broader London theatre scene, its upper levels allowing for the entrance of those deemed to occupy the lower socialclasses to be hidden from individuals at the forefront, who often included noble and royal patrons (Bensaude-Vincent and Blondel, 2008 ; Knight, 2006 ). As we will discuss later in this chapter, it is difficult to estimate how wide an audience was truly catered for, as rents alone for the central London location required good patronage from
than ‘all’, and that at least in the context of the United Kingdom most visitors tend to be from ‘[w]hite ethnic backgrounds, middle and upper classes, live in cities and visit with their families or schools’. Across the United States and Europe, although Dawson ( 2014a ) highlights that there is less comparable data available, a similar picture emerges, whereby those in attendance at such sites tend to be younger, with children and from higher socialclasses. Her work suggests that the needs of those who have been disenfranchised in such settings, including on the
statistical analyses of socialclass.
b. How does the methodology relate to the question posed by the text? For example, such a statistical examination of class is liable to assume a positivist methodological outlook and so will highlight concerns of validity, reliability and generalisability.
Is it a largely empirical or a theoretical work? If it is both, how are data and theory related to one another?
a. Where do the data come from and what form do they take?
b. How well do the data support the conclusions?
c. Are there