Talk:Gender Inequality Index
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gender Inequality Index article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article was the subject of an educational assignment at University of Utah supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.|
Gender Inequality Index (In Progress)
U of U Student Critique
One critique I have, is I am guessing that Dr. Berik will want you to tie this into the class. Why does it matter? How does it related to gender econ? Your organization looks really great. All of the sections and sub sections make it easy to read and find what you’re searching for. One thing I think could be added is the possibility of data being skewed due to bias or confounding. Hmorris3 —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC).
- I agree with the addition to data being skewed. The problem is that unless this is a current critique and written in a scholarly article I can't add it because it would be purely my opinion. In regards to the tying it to class. I assumed, I suppose, that the subject its self is of gender economics. I am not really sure how I would relate it more. Thank you for the advise I will research more. Teashias (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Teashia, I think the concepts you are discussing in your article can be elaborated more, specifically the following. Under your heading, "Mix Indices", you wrote that one of the issues/concerns with this measurement is that it "lacks transparency", and using arthemetic mean of ratio is stated as a problem by you. I guess you can further explain these terms for the readers, so they can fully comprehend, why they are problem? In your heading "Regional Relevance", you wrote that "robust to alternative specifications of gender-related indicators", again i feel you can shed more light on this, so reader don't have to guess what you mean by it. Under "Choice of variable", you have mentioned "unpaid work", and you have stated that GII ignores unpaid work, and that's why it is unable to fully capture the gender disparities. I think you can talk about gender division of labor here, which will make your point more clear to readers. Because one can ask, how gender disparities will be captured more optimally if unpaid work is included in GII, how it makes difference? Overall I think your article is very well organized and written. You have done a good job:) Dkhan2012 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Dkhan2012
- Yes, I do need to read through all of the mathematical terms and likely induce, according to .... this is a problem, as well as explain in more detail. This is still my rough draft with the few minor changes I could get to. I have much work to do. I appreciate the feedback. In regards to unpaid work, I have not found any research critiquing the GII for this explicitly but mentioning it in a sentence. The GII is new and therefore there aren't many critiques. That is why it is very vague. This is not my thought or opinion, it is solely the opinion of the criticizer's. Although I personally feel evaluating the share of unpaid work among the household would be beneficial. How much does man clean-up, tend children, etc. in comparison to the women would be a wonderful inclusion. But I could see the data availability being quite difficult. Thanks again for your feedback. Teashias (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Overall the format and flow are nice and the small sections make it easy to read. I only have a few suggestions, in general they regard a need for more detail and clarification. I will list them by heading, they are:
- In the intro: clarify where the "loss of achievement" is occurring (loss of achievement in what?).
- "Origins": perhaps the last part of this section could be made into a new paragraph that discusses support for GII.
- "Reproductive Health": here detail is provided about the AFR, consider also providing further detail about the MMR.
- "Labour market participation": rephrase the second sentence so that it flows better.
- "Calculations": provide more information about what it means to be "association sensitive". An explanation is provided later in the article but it may be better to provide that explanation when the terms are first used.
- "Loss Due to Gender Inequality": specification is needed about where a loss is occurring (loss of what?).
- "Complexity": add detail about the "standard". What would a standard contribute?
- "Mix of Indices": further detail is needed about how the combination of well-being and empowerment pose a problem.
- "Regional Relevance": revise the last sentence which speaks specifically of developed countries (specifically European countries), if I am not mistaken, technically any country can apply methods for analyzing data that yield desired results. Clarification is also needed in the sentence that reads, "Unlike the GDI which with the losses...".
- "Choice of variables": rephrase the last sentence for better clarity.
Good work overall!
- Thank you Lupe for the direct suggestions. It make it much easier to correct. I still haven't been able to fully edit what was needed from the last peer review, so it is still a work in progress. I will do my best to correct what was suggested in these sections. IN regards to the critique sections, I can not say why they feel it is a problem unless they have said it. Therefore I can only add what has actually been critiqued. We must remember this is a new measurement. Thank you, I appreciate your feedback. Teashias (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The opening paragraph might mention the importance of measurement effort, the fact that GII, and its predecessors GEM and GDI, provide measures that allow countries' standing on gender inequality relative to each other can be measured.
I did some light editing in the several paragraphs. Standardize spelling of "labor" throughout as the American spelling.
You mention World Economic Forum in reference to the idea of how gender equality matters for growth, but a) there are other references you could add for that idea; b) WEF has a gender inequality index of its own, which might merit mentioning (along with its components) as background.
Elaborate on "The GII has shown reproductive health to be the largest contributor to gender inequality across the globe." How? Does HDR 2010 of 2011 report the % contributions of different components? If so, add this discussion. Also, adding the MMR and AFR averages for 2011 from the end of Table 4 would be useful. (Perhaps you can give a range--the highest MMR average was x per 100,000 live births in the case of SSA and the lowest MMR was y in xtv countries...etc.) Same for other components.
A minor correction: GII, GEM, GDI are "indicators" or "measures" (rather than "measurements").
Whether or not GII represents a loss of human development is not clear (since the components of the two differ, GII should not represent loss of human development, except in a broader sense (and not in the HDI sense). Clarify.
In the tables (which are impressive!) add 0's before decimal points. The title could be Top Ten (rather than Highest Ten) countries and then the text could be "The top ten countries in terms of lowest gender inequality as measured by the GII..." The second table could parallel this one--The Bottom Ten..."Ten countries with the highest levels of gender inequality as measured by the GII"
Add what "association-sensitive" means.
In addition to the footnote references identify the authors in the article, such as, "According to Permanyer,...." Related, avoid the passive voice "The GII has been criticized on whether or not..."
"The Mix of Indices section needs elaboration. The problems here are not clear.
Be sure to provide full references. Permanyer is published in Social Indicators Research. You should delete the publisher (in the case of journals), but should include vol. no, the page numbers for the article.
In the last paragraph add a link to the article oon Unpaid Work by FMVeblen. (to do so, you need to change "unpaid domestic or care work" to "unpaid work (domestic or care work)")BerikG (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)BerikG