The project had two main dimensions: the first is theoretical and the second is empirical, focusing on three case studies (Moscow, Tatarstan and Dagestan). The theoretical aspect of the project examines two main sets of questions: First, how the general concepts of extremism and moderation, and the associated concept of radicalization, are understood in the Russian context. How is radicalization linked to identity politics(ethnicity, nationalism and religion) and radical ideological movements? Second, how these concepts - moderation, extremism, and radicalization- applied in discourses and policies towards Muslim communities in Russia? What are the presumed internal and external influences? What are the comparisons and links with elite discourse in other European countries with significant Muslim communities, such as UK and France? The empirical aspect of the project examines how these general concepts and approaches help to illuminate and explains developments in regions of Russian where there exist sizeable Muslim communities. The three case studies chosen include a) the city of Moscow, where it is estimated that there are 1-2 million Muslims, representing at least 10% of the population; b) Tatarstan, which has an ethnic Tatar Muslim plurality and which is often taken to be the best example of the influence of moderate Islam; c) Dagestan, which is regularly taken to be the region with the greatest potential danger, apart form Chechnya, of Islamic radicalization. The dataset was originally intended to include transcriptions of elite interviews which would have been in the format of elite interview-audio files. However, as we warned might be the case, it did not prove possible to gain consent to recording the interviews. This project investigates the causes of Islamic radicalisation within Russia and their consequences for Russia's relevant domestic policies (for example ethnic, regional, immigration policies, and domestic democratisation), as well as its foreign policy response towards the Muslim world in the context of the global 'War on Terror'. There are four principal research questions:(1) How Russian policy-making and academic elites conceptualise the idea of 'radicalisation' and political violence. (2) How these discourses are translated into state practice and policy. (3) How these state-driven practices feed or undermine underlying processes of radicalisation. (4) How Russia's domestic context of combating radicalisation drives its foreign policy. The project methodology includes a discourse analysis of academic and journalistic writings and three regional case studies of Russian state policy towards Islam (Moscow, Tatarstan and Dagestan). Each case study relies on discourse analysis of public and media approaches, content analysis of relevant legal and state policy documents, and semi-structured elite interviews. The project co-ordinators will work with local institutes in Russia and will invite scholars from these institutes to the UK as research fellows. The project findings will be disseminated by four journal articles, policy briefings and a co-authored monograph. The interviews were in semi-structured format. Unfortunately, consent was not obtained for audio recording of the interviews. There were 20 principal interviews with Russian elites in academia and politics and among Muslim communities in Russia; in Moscow, Tatarstan and Dagestan.

This dataset is a research outcome of a European Research Council, Starting Grant funded (Grant Number 679097, Industrialisation and Urban Growth from the mid-nineteenth century Ottoman Empire to Contemporary Turkey in a Comparative Perspective, 1850-2000, UrbanOccupationsOETR) project. It contains a mid-nineteenth-century urban Ottoman population micro dataset for the city of Bursa.

In recent decades, a "big microdata revolution" has revolutionized access to transcribed historical census data for social science research. Despite this, the population records of the Ottoman Empire, spanning Southeastern Europe, Western Asia, and Northern Africa, remained absent from the big microdata ecosystem due to their prolonged inaccessibility. In fact, like other modernizing states in the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire started to enumerate its population in population registers (nüfus defterleri) in 1830, which recorded only males of all ages for conscription and taxation purposes. These registers were completed and updated in two waves, one in 1830-1838 and the other in the 1839-1865 period. Following this experience, the Empire implemented its first modern census, which included females, in 1881/1882 for more comprehensive statistical and governance reasons to converge with European census-taking practices and account for the increasing participation of females in economic and social spheres.

The pre-census population registers were opened to researchers in 2011. There are around 11.000 registers today. The microdata of the late Ottoman censuses is still not available. Still, unfortunately, the majority of the existing literature using the population registers superficially utilized and failed to tabulate the microdata. Most works using these valuable sources contented with transcribing the microdata from Ottoman to Latin script and presenting their data in raw and unstyled fashion without publishing them in a separate repository.

Our dataset marks the inaugural release of complete population data for an Ottoman urban center, the city of Bursa, derived from the 1839 population registers. It presents originally non-tabulated register data in a tabular format integrated into a relational Microsoft Access database. To ensure that our dataset is more accessible, we are also releasing the dataset in Microsoft Excel format.

The city of Bursa, a major cosmopolitan commercial hub in modern northwestern Turkey, is selected from the larger UrbanOccupationsOETR project database as an exemplary case to represent the volume, value, variety, and veracity of the population data. Furthermore, since urban areas are usually the most densely populated locations that attract the most migration in any country, they are attractive locations for multifold reasons in historical demography. Bursa is not the only urban location in the UrbanOccupationsOETR database. As it focused on urbanization and occupational structural change, it collected the population microdata on major urban centers (chosen as primary locations) and towns (denoted as secondary locations), which pioneered the economic development of post-Ottoman nation-states. What makes the city of Bursa’s data more advantageous than other cities is that it has been cleaned and validated multiple times and used elsewhere for demographic and economic analyses.

The Ottoman population registers of 1830 and 1839 classified the population under the commonly and officially recognized ethnoreligious identities- Muslim, Orthodox Christian, Armenian, Catholic, Jewish, and (Muslim and non-Muslim) Roma. Muslim and non-Muslim populations were counted in separate registers. The registers were organized along spatial and temporal lines. The standard unit of the register was the quarter (mahalle) in urban and village (karye) in rural settings. Within these register units, populated public and non-household spaces such as inns, dervish lodges, monasteries, madrasas, coffeehouses, bakeries, mills, pastures (of nomads), and large private farms (çiftlik) were recorded separately.

The household (menzil/hane) was the unit of entry, which sometimes took different forms depending on the context, such as the room for inns and the tent for nomads. Each household recorded its members on a horizontal line. The variables of male individuals inhabiting them were self-reported biographical information (names, titles/family names, ages, and occupations), physical description (height and facial hair), relationships with other household members (kinship, tenancy, and employment ties), infirmities, and military and poll tax status, including the reasons for exemption, military post, and poll tax category (high-ala, medium-evsat, and small-edna). Households with no inhabitants were differentiated. At the same time, if a resident was known to be absent during registration due to reasons such as military service or migration, he was recorded in his household with a note stating that reason. If he was missing and appeared later, he was added to the household during updates with a note like “not recorded previously” (e.g., hin-i tahrirde taşrada olub) or “newly recorded” (tahrir-mande).

In addition to the permanent residents of a given location, migrant/temporary non-local (yabancı) residents such as laborers, inn-stayers, and unskilled bachelors (bî-kâr) were recorded along with their place of origin and for how long they had been in the migrated place. Non-Muslim migrants were registered with information regarding the last location where they got their poll tax certificate and if they would make their next poll tax payment in the migrated location.

Updates were made mainly to births, deaths, migrations, and military and poll tax status. No other variables, such as age, were renewed except for occupations in a limited number of cases. Updates are easily identifiable since they were written in siyakat, a special Ottoman chancery shorthand script, and occasionally in red ink. Births were specified with newborns’ names added next to the father’s entry. Deaths were updated by crossing out the deceased person’s record. Migrations were added with a description of the migrated place (including the military branch if the person was conscripted). Military and poll tax status was updated by crossing out the old category and adding the new one next to it. Updates were usually expressed in hijri years, sometimes in month-year, and rarely in day-month-year fashion. It is important to note that since updates were made once every few months, these dates may reflect their registration date rather than giving the exact time of the events. Equally crucial is that many events, especially births, were not reported, so their quality is limited.

Modeled after the way information was contained in the population registers, this relational database has two tables, “tblHouse” and “tblIndividual.” Each table categorizes and standardizes the register variables. To make the data easier to use, the dataset also includes a query “Query_InnerJoin” that combines all the variables from each table in a separate sheet.

Given Bursa’s important place in Ottoman history, our dataset serves as a large and crucial resource for comprehending historical societal, economic, and demographic trends within the Empire in the early stages of globalization. The dataset has 8391 household entries (HouseID) and 19,186 individual (IndivID) entries. This data includes the population registered in all of Bursa’s quarters and other location categories in 1839 and the updates until and including 1843 (Figure 2). The ethno-religious breakdown of the total population is 12462 Muslims (65%), 3315 Armenians (17%), 2466 Orthodox Christians (13%), 749 Jews (4%), and 194 Catholics (1%).

To broaden access and use of our data and bring it more in line with findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) data guidelines, the variables of “tblHouse” and “tblIndividual” are sorted into general categories and described in detail in the following tables. As the variables indicate, the dataset and population registers, in general, could serve to formulate unprecedented, hitherto impossible research questions related to major demographic dynamics, i.e., household size and composition, ethnoreligious differences, population density, occupational structure, intergenerational mobility and status transfer, mortality, fertility, migration, age-heaping/human capital, conscription, settlement patterns within and across urban locations, onomastics, toponymy, etc.

Table 1: Categories and descriptions of the variables of tblHouse

The latest population figures produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on 28 June 2018 show that an estimated 534,800 people live in Bradford District – an increase of 2,300 people (0.4%) since the previous year.

Bradford District is the fifth largest metropolitan district (in terms of population) in England, after Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester although the District’s population growth is lower than other major cities.

The increase in the District’s population is largely due to “natural change”- there have been around 3,300 more births than deaths, although this has been balanced by a larger number of people leaving Bradford to live in other parts of the UK than coming to live here and a lower number of international migrants. In 2016/17 the net internal migration was -2,700 and the net international migration was 1,700.

A large proportion of Bradford’s population is dominated by the younger age groups. More than one-quarter (29%) of the District’s population is aged less than 20 and nearly seven in ten people are aged less than 50. Bradford has the highest percentage of the under 16 population in England after the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Slough Borough Council and Luton Borough Council.

The population of Bradford is ethnically diverse. The largest proportion of the district’s population (63.9%) identifies themselves as White British. The district has the largest proportion of people of Pakistani ethnic origin (20.3%) in England.

The largest religious group in Bradford is Christian (45.9% of the population). Nearly one quarter of the population (24.7%) are Muslim. Just over one fifth of the district’s population (20.7%) stated that they had no religion.

There are 216,813 households in the Bradford district. Most households own their own home (29.3% outright and 35.7% with a mortgage). The percentage of privately rented households is 18.1%. 29.6% of households were single person households.

Information from the Annual Population Survey in December 2017 found that Bradford has 228,100 people aged 16-64 in employment. At 68% this is significantly lower than the national rate (74.9%). 91,100 (around 1 in 3 people) aged 16-64, are not in work. The claimant count rate is 2.9% which is higher than the regional and national averages.

Skill levels are improving with 26.5% of 16 to 74 year olds educated to degree level. 18% of the district’s employed residents work in retail/wholesale. The percentage of people working in manufacturing has continued to decrease from 13.4% in 2009 to 11.9% in 2016. This is still higher than the average for Great Britain (8.1%).