Advertisement

Demography

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 497–504 | Cite as

The past, present, and future of sex segregation methodoloqy

  • David B. Grusky
  • Maria Charles
Occupational Segregation by Sex

Abstract

We review the logic underlying margin-free analyses of sex segregation arrays. In the course of our review, we show that the Karmel-MacLachlan decomposition does not live up to its margin-free billing, as the index upon which it rests, I p , is itself margin-sensitive. Moreover, because the implicit individualism of D is necessarily inconsistent with margin-free analysis, the field would do well to abandon not merely the Karmel-MacLachlan decomposition but all related efforts to purge marginal dependencies from D-inspired measures. The criticisms that Watts (1998) levels against our log-multiplicative approach are likewise unconvincing. We demonstrate that our preferred models pass the test of organizational equivalence, that the “problem⤎ of zero cells can be solved by applying well-developed methods for ransacking incomplete or sparse tables, and that simple log-multiplicative models can be readily devised to analyze disaggregate arrays. We illustrate these conclusions by analyzing a new cross-national archive of detailed segregation data.

Keywords

Occupational Segregation Methodological Individualism Segregation Index Zero Cell Segregation Profile 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrahamson, M. and L. Sigelman. 1987. “Occupational Sex Segregation in Metropolitan Areas.” American Sociological Review 52:588–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bishop, Y.M., S.E. Fienberg, and P.W. Holland. 1975. Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Blau, F.D. and W.E. Hendricks. 1979. “Occupational Segregation and Labor Market Discrimination.” Pp. 117–43 in Sex Segregation in the Workplace, edited by B. Reskin. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  4. Charles, M. Forthcoming. “Structure, Culture, and Sex Segregation in Western Europe.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 16:89–116Google Scholar
  5. Charles, M. and D.B. Grusky. 1995. “Models for Describing the Underlying Structure of Sex Segregation.” American Journal of Sociology 100:931–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charles, M. and D.B. Grusky. Forthcoming. Sex Segregation in Comparative Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clogg, C.C. and S.R. Eliason. 1987. “Some Common Problems in Log-Linear Analysis.” Sociological Methods and Research 16:8–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elias, P. and M. Birch. 1993. “Establishment of Community-Wide Occupational Statistics.” Working paper, Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  9. Elias, P. and M. Birch. 1994. “Harmonising Occupational Information Across the European Union: Progress on the Labour Force Survey.” Working paper, Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  10. Fuchs, V.R. 1975. “A Note on Sex Segregation in Professional Occupations.” Explorations in Economic Research 2:105–11.Google Scholar
  11. Gibbs, J.P. 1965. “Occupational Differentiation of Negroes and Whites in the United States.” Social Forces 44:159–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gross, E. 1968. “Plus ca change…? The Sexual Structure of Occupations Over Time.” Social Problems 16:198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobs, J.A. 1993. “Theoretical and Measurement Issues in the Study of Sex Segregation in the Workplace: Research Note.” European Sociological Review 9:325–30.Google Scholar
  14. Jacobs, J.A. and S.T. Lim. 1992. “Trends in Occupational and Industrial Sex Segregation in 56 Countries, 1960–1980.” Work and Occupations 19:450–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. James, D.R. and K.E. Taeuber. 1985. “Measures of Segregation.” Pp. 1–32 in Sociological Methodology, edited by N.B. Tuma. New York: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Kanter, R.M. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  17. Karmel, T. and M. MacLachlan. 1988. “Occupational Sex Segregation— Increasing or Decreasing?” Economic Record 64:187–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oppenheimer, V.K. 1970. The Female Labor Force in the United States: Demographic and Economic Factors Governing its Growth and Changing Composition. Berkeley: Institute for International Studies.Google Scholar
  19. Peach, C. 1975. Urban Residential Segregation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. Stinchcombe, A.L. 1965. “Social Structure and Organizations.” Pp. 142–93 in Handbook of Organizations, edited by G. March. Chicago: Rand-McNalley.Google Scholar
  21. Tienda, M., S.A. Smith, and V. Ortiz. 1987. “Industrial Restructuring, Gender Segregation, and Sex Differences in Earnings.” American Sociological Review 52:195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Watts, M.J. 1992. “How Should Occupational Sex Segregation be Measured?” Work, Employment, and Society 6:475–87.Google Scholar
  23. — 1993. “Explaining Trends in Occupational Segregation: Some Comments.” European Sociological Review 9:315–19.Google Scholar
  24. — 1997. “The Measurement of Occupational Gender Segregation.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (A) 160:141–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. — 1998. “Occupational Gender Segregation: Index Measurement and Econometric Modeling.” Demograpky 35:489–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weeden, K. 1998. “Revisiting Occupational Sex Segregation in the United States, 1910–1990: Results From a Log-Linear Approach.” Demography 35:475–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weeden, K. and J. Sarensen. Forthcoming. “Two-Dimensional Models of Sex Segregation: Industries and Occupations.” In Sex Segregation in Comparative Perspective, M. Charles and D.B. Grusky. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. White, M.J. 1985. “Segregation and Diversity Measures in Population Distribution.” Population Index 52:198–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyStanford UniversityStanford
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of California-San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations