People don’t just act out of interest; they also need opportunities.

This third proposition refers to one of the key theoretical contributions of my dissertation, tested in Chapter 4. A lot of research on (family) policy outcomes only focus on the characteristics of policy. In my case, my hypotheses in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of my dissertation were derived from the assumption that policies provide opportunities.

In Chapter 4 of my dissertation I argue that opportunities for employment will only be effective for those (women) with an interest in employment. In other words, the outcomes of opportunities are dependent on the interests of the actors.

From this I derived the hypothesis that reconciliation policies are more effective among higher educated women. This hypothesis was supported by the empirical analyses. The hypothesis that financial support policies were more effective among lower educated women, however, had to be rejected, although it was shown that financial support policies suppress the employment of mothers of all educational levels.

The summary of the Chapter reads:

In Chapter 2 we found that the size of the motherhood-employment gap was reduced by reconciliation policies and increased by financial support policies for families. In this Chapter, we answered the question of to what extent the outcomes of reconciliation policies and financial support policies differ between more and less educated mothers. Thus, we challenged the theoretical assumption held in Chapters 2 and 3 that all mothers are equally affected by family policies. Our data were obtained from the ‘Comparative Motherhood-Employment Gap Trend File’, combined with country-level data from the Comparative Maternity, Parental, and Childcare Database (Gauthier & Bortnik, 2001). The data covered 17 OECD countries, the period from 1980 to 1999, and 116,874 observations on individual women living in partnered households. The data were analysed using multilevel logistic regression. We found that paid leave – a reconciliation policy – reduces the motherhood-employment gap more strongly among more educated women than among the less educated.

——
This is a series on the 10 propositions that are part of my PhD dissertation. These propositions are a Dutch tradition to highlight key findings of a dissertation and some additional insights by the author. My dissertation is titled “Family Policy Outcomes: Combining Institutional and Demographic Explanations of Women’s Employment and Earnings Inequality in OECD countries, 1975-2005″ and I will defend my dissertation on January 10 2014. So, this series is also a count down. Find out more about my dissertation.

A 1975 study on graduate admissions at Berkeley found that male applicants had a substantially higher likelihood of being admitted, compared to women. However, upon closer examination the presence of aggregation paradoxes do not legitimize the conclusion that women were discriminated against.

In an attempt to study whether or not sex inequalities in higher education are due to discrimination, one may want to study individual admissions, and compare whether a man and a woman on average has an equal opportunity of being admitted, after applying for a graduate education. Sure, we need to take into account all possibly relevant differences between the candidates, such as prior academic performance, motivation, experience, and whatever other aspects may be relevant in the admission procedure. But then, when comparing (statistically) identical men and women, finding that men have a higher likelihood to be admitted to a graduate program compared to women, would lead many to the conclusion that this university discriminates against women. Right?

I believe that when such a research finding was published regarding a university, a great many of us would indeed suspect, or even believe, that women are discriminated on this university. And, in public opinion, the news, talkshows, and the blogosphere, I can easily imagine this university being accused of sex discrimination. And possibly Bickel, Hammel, and O’Connell did so as well, initially, when they indeed found that women actually had a substantially smaller chance of being admitted to a graduate program on Berkely university (the study was carried out during the fall of 1973 and published in 1975).

After having determined that 44% of all male applicants were admitted to Berkeley, but only 35% of all female applicants, the authors decided to find out which departments were the culprits. Perhaps some departments discriminated against women more strongly than other departments? Fortunately, the data on Berkeley allowed the authors to study the likelihood of being admitted for each department separately. Much to their surprise, however, they found only a few departments to be biased, and the number of departments biased towards men equalled the number biased towards women!

The paradox is clear: at the level of the departments men and women had about an equal chance of being admitted to a graduate programme, but still this resulted in the finding that in this university as a whole, a man had a substantially higher likelihood of being admitted than a woman.

A solution to this paradox lies in the aggregation: at different level of aggregation (university as a whole vs. individual departments) the association between an applicants’ sex and their likelihood of being admitted is of a different sign. This is an example of Simpson’s Paradox. As I illustrated in an earlier post, this paradox can occur when two or more sub-populations are aggregated, and if one or more of the associated characteristics is not equally prevalent amongst sub-populations.

As it turned out, Bickel, Hammel, and O’Connell indeed found that women applied relatively frequently to departments that reject more applicants in general. So, even while these departments did not have a bias towards either men, nor women, because they rejected a great number of applicants, they also rejected a proportionally large number of women. Therefore, while none of the departments discriminated against women, the selection of women towards specific departments resulted in a lower overall likelihood for women of being admitted to Berkeley.

Is this to say that no discrimination of women takes place? No, for as the authors conclude: “Women are shunted by their socialization and education towards fields of graduate study that are generally more crowded, less productive of completed degrees, and less wel funded, and that frequently offer poorer professional employment prospects” (p. 403). So, inequality and possibly discrimination remained, but this analysis showed that the unequal likelihood of a woman being admitted to Berkeley could not legitimize the conclusion that the departments, on average, showed a bias towards men. If there was discrimination, it was somewhere else.

Bickel PJ, Hammel EA, & O’connell JW (1975). Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley. Science (New York, N.Y.), 187 (4175), 398-404 PMID: 17835295

Secondly, statistics aficionado Stijn Ruiter writes on his blog ‘Your Sixth Degree’ about the advanced use of statistics. In his post on the presidential elections and the so-called Bradley-effect, he does however show that without asking the right question, advanced statstics does bring you nowhere. The election of Barack Obama denies this Bradley-effect, which “basically refers to the idea that a black American would not get elected because in the election booth voters would decide against what they said in the polls.” However, research should perhaps have a more detailed starting point: “The Bradley effect hypothesis is rather general, and as it is generally described (as above), it does not really specify who the voters are and what characteristics they (should) have. It only specifies whom to choose from, a black candidate or a white candidate. But there are two sides to the voting equation, namely voters and candidates. […] So, the question becomes who votes for whom.” ((Also see Gary King’s note on a paper investgating the (decline) of the Bradley effect.))

Such a detailed perspective was also taken up in an article on the educational achievement of migrants’ children, which I described myself a while ago. “The authors of the article — recently published in American Sociological Review — were able to take into account influences from both (characteristics of) country of origin, country of destination, and the migrant community in the country of origin.” Doing so, has led to some interesting findings, which would remain unclear if not this level of detail was maintained. “Counter-intuitively, immigrant children from countries with lower levels of economic development have better scholastic performance than comparable children who emigrate from countries with higher levels of economic development.”

Also focused on educational attainment of migrants’ children, in relation with integration in the host society, Fëanor on ‘Just a Mon’ discusses a ‘natural experiment’. This natural experiment entails that after Indonesian independence thousands Moluccans were allowed to settle in various Dutch municipalities. The socio-economic backgrounds of these people were rather similar, which allowed the the researchers to compare their children on educational achievement, and cross-tabulate this with measures of integration. They found that “children from Moluccan fathers and native mothers have a higher educational attainment than children from ethnic homogeneous Moluccan couples or children from a Moluccan mother and a native father.”

Finally, a `natural experiment’ is nice, but what about the holy grail of scientific rigourness: a real experiment? Often difficult to achieve in the social sciences, but it has been done. Ed Yong on ‘Not exactly Rocket Science’ discusses an experimental test of the ‘broken windows theory’, “which suggests that signs of petty crimes, like broken windows, serve as a trigger for yet more criminal behaviour”. The science-published article describes how simple experiments were conducted, such as measuring ‘littering’ when a wall was severely tainted by graffiti, or when it was completely painted over. A very interesting article, and Ed Yong gives a thorough summary. “All in all, the suite of experiments, all in a realistic setting, provide powerful evidence that the Broken Windows Theory is valid and all of Keiser’s results were statistically significant”

That’s it for today. No more entries for this first edition of the Curving Normality blog carnival. I would like to thank all those having submitted their entries. It was very nice to read all your blogs and to tie it all together in this editorial. The next edition will be published on the first day of 2009, so please submit your next article in the comments below as soon as it’s ready!

Moreover, and this is where it gets interesting, he agreed to change the words ‘lower class’, to ‘people with difficulties’. What? Higher educated, higher income, or in general higher class people don’t have difficulties? And indeed, all lower class people do have difficulties which clearly always results in government-dependence. Tentatively judging from the use of the words “hardworking people”, we might even suspect that the lower class people are perceived as being idly, work-shy, and in general: not working very hard.

What a peculiar world-view Mark Rutte has!

How well do migrant’s children fare in the schooling systems of the receiving countries? That has been the main question of sociologists Levels ((I personally know and work with the main author of this publication.)), Dronkers, and Kraaykamp. Using advanced statistical techniques on newly available (survey) data, they were able to improve upon existing research in the field of educational sociology in exiting ways.

The authors of the article — recently published in American Sociological Review — were able to take into account influences from both (characteristics of) country of origin, country of destination, and the migrant community in the country of origin. The did so by estimating advanced Cross Classified hierarchical regression models on the newly available data from the 2003 wave of the Project for International Student Assessment (PISA). Student performance of migrant’s children was measured at the hand of their math test scores.

Several of their findings stand out, and might have important policy implications. Regarding the migrant community a pupil resides in, it was found that the more economically prosperous that community, the better he or she performs at school. It seems that money, or the lack of worries, helps children perform well. More urgent is their finding that children from migrant parents that come from politically unstable countries, perform less well. Since it has been shown that these negative consequences are carried over across generations, Levels said (from the press release):

Specific educational programs designed to counter the negative effects of political migration may be essential to ensure that the children of politically motivated immigrants achieve their full potential

Perhaps even more fascinating is their prime finding on the effects of economic development in the country of origin. From the ASA Press Release:

The research, which looked at the mathematical literacy scores of thousands of 15-year-old immigrants to 13 Western nations from 35 different native countries, indicates that economic development and political conditions in an immigrant’s home country impact the child’s academic success in his or her destination country. Counter-intuitively, immigrant children from countries with lower levels of economic development have better scholastic performance than comparable children who emigrate from countries with higher levels of economic development.

So, children from migrants originating from a economically impoverished region outperform those from economically developed countries. This might seem seem contra-intuitive for many, especially when it is contrasted with their other finding that living in an economically strong migrant community helps children in their academic performance. However, what we actually see here, is the strength of the quantitative sociological perspective and the statistical techniques that were employed: being able to correctly differentiate between individual and context, and to relate the contextual characteristics to individual outcomes. Using that perspective, it may very well be that immigrants coming from economically impoverished countries are a specific selection of the people living in that country. It may very well be that for instance particularly enterprising people, the higher educated, the intellectuals, and the people that are financially (relatively) better of, are the only ones that are able of leaving their country to start a new life in a more developed country. In developed countries a larger part of the population has the means to migrate, so the countries of origin receive a more ‘average’ group of migrants from these countries.

This leads to many new, interesting questions. Is indeed selection taking place: are only the better of parents able to escape impoverished regions? And do indeed their children perform better than the ones that are left behind would have? If this is indeed the case, I wonder what the effects of recent changes in migration policy in many European countries may have been.

Are we picking the cherries from the pie?

Reference

Mark Levels, Jaap Dronkers, Gerbert Kraaykamp (2008). Immigrant Children’s Educational Achievement in Western Countries: Origin, Destination, and Community Effects on Mathematical Performance American Sociological Review, 73, 835-853

I’ve just started on my sociology today ‘project’ and already I’m running late. At least one week of daily posts should be do-able, wouldn’t you think?

Well, today for the blogs. I often read some blogs on planeetgroenlinks.nl, so today a selection of what I read on June 11.

Today’s Source: Planeet Groenlinks”

Rationalization: How do we educate?

How do we prepare our children for our increasingly complex society? We send them to school. And when society changes, we change our educational system. That this has not always went very well, is widely known and part of public debate in the Netherlands. That the change is often pushed through too fast, is once again illustrated by Gerben Kappert.

Inequality: Double lucky?

Inequality is often thought of as an unequal distribution of opportunities. And, of course, many things can be interpreted from that perspective. But today I read the blog of Han van Schendel: she writes on winning prizes two times in a row (congratulations!!), once for herself, once for her mother. She described how her mother checked whether her price was accessible for people in a wheelchair. It was, so Han could come along.

This made absolutely clear to me, that people with a disadvantage on some account have to be double lucky to arrive at the same level that people all to often arrive at after being lucky just once. In other words, we often need resources to be able to enjoy the opportunities we perceive.

Cohesion: Who helps whom?

Within the groenlinks political party is discussion is going on between people who generally focus on their own individuality, and people who focus on solidarity. Often, these are seen as clear and mutual exclusive opposites of each other. That this is not necessarily so, is made clear by a post written by Simon Otjes. Solidarity can mean to focus on the individuality people are able to express.

Today’s Source: NRC Handelsblad

Rationalization: Gene-technology and mode of thought ((Gentech moet van slecht imago af, NRC-Handelsblad, 06-06-08, p. 6))

While the debate on the selection of embryo’s (see yesterday’s Sociology Today) is still roaring in the Netherlands, Piet Schenkelaars argues that gene technology should be relieved from its bad image. This closely connects to the question how technology and our means of food production connects to the way people think. According to Gerhard Lenski, with his ecological-evolutionairy theory, mode of food-production in societies has developed, strongly influencing the structure of society (division of labour) and mode of thought (more activistic attitude). Perhaps the possibilities delivered by gen-tech and the promise to increase food production even further will have strong influences on human thought and morality indeed.

Inequality: Migrant educational equality ((Toename afhakers in eerste jaar van HBO, NRC Handelsblad, 06-06-08, p.3))

There is always a lot of news on inequality. What to choose? Today I did not select the poor position of rejected refugees in South Africa, but a more positive development regarding inequality. Absolutely one of the more important issues in the newspaper today. But no, for today a somewhat more optimistic issue.

In a short article on the increasing number of students not completing their higher education, it is also mentioned that the number of migrants finishing a higher education is relatively increasing. So, their unequal education position is starting to become more even.

Cohesion: Troubles with the Antilles people? ((Toename overlast Antilliaan in R’dam, NRC Handelsblad, 06-06-08, p. 3))

According to the newspaper article, people living in the Dutch city Rotterdam have had more nuisances and problems with immigrants from the Antilles. Clearly, this connects to the main sociological question of who has contact with whom, and, more directly, who has conflicts with whom. It could however have been categorized under ‘inequality’ just as well, for to a large extent different patterns of criminal behavior can be attributed to differences in social economic position.

The reason that I mention it, is that I think that the headline on the article is misleading: it sounds like that these people have started to misbehave more seriously. But, according to the police, it is due to their changed policy: the police started using a zero tolerance policy. Thereby, the conclusion should be that we’re only talking about a methodological issue, not a substantive one.