在全国代表性的调查项目中,对妇女控制收入和决策的估计是否有所不同?

IF 2.8 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Social Indicators Research Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-25 DOI:10.1007/s11205-025-03605-x
Kalyani Raghunathan, Mai Mahmoud, Jessica Heckert, Gayathri Ramani, Greg Seymour
{"title":"在全国代表性的调查项目中,对妇女控制收入和决策的估计是否有所不同?","authors":"Kalyani Raghunathan, Mai Mahmoud, Jessica Heckert, Gayathri Ramani, Greg Seymour","doi":"10.1007/s11205-025-03605-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Empowering women is an explicit aim of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5 and underpins 12 of the 17 SDGs. It is also a key objective of other pan-national agreements, such as the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme. Tracking global progress toward these goals requires being able to measure empowerment in ways that are consistent and comparable-both within and across countries. However, empowerment is a complex concept, hard to quantify, and even harder to standardize across contexts. Two large survey programs-Feed the Future and the Demographic Health Surveys-ask women about two aspects of empowerment, their control over income and input into decisionmaking. Each program uses a different set of questions administered to different sub-populations of women. We use data from 12 countries to show that large within-country inter-survey differences persist even after efforts to harmonize questions and samples. Where available, we compare the FTF and DHS with the Living Standards and Measurement Surveys-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture. We present several hypotheses related to survey structure and survey administration to explain these inter-survey differences. We then either test for or rule out the role of these competing theories in driving differences in levels and in associations with commonly used characteristics. Standardizing survey measures of decisionmaking and control over income and how they are administered is important to track progress toward the SDGs; meanwhile, caution should be exercised in comparing seemingly similar survey items across survey programs.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11205-025-03605-x.</p>","PeriodicalId":21943,"journal":{"name":"Social Indicators Research","volume":"179 1","pages":"95-122"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12321913/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Estimates of Women's Control over Income and Decisionmaking Vary Across Nationally Representative Survey Programs?\",\"authors\":\"Kalyani Raghunathan, Mai Mahmoud, Jessica Heckert, Gayathri Ramani, Greg Seymour\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11205-025-03605-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Empowering women is an explicit aim of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5 and underpins 12 of the 17 SDGs. It is also a key objective of other pan-national agreements, such as the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme. Tracking global progress toward these goals requires being able to measure empowerment in ways that are consistent and comparable-both within and across countries. However, empowerment is a complex concept, hard to quantify, and even harder to standardize across contexts. Two large survey programs-Feed the Future and the Demographic Health Surveys-ask women about two aspects of empowerment, their control over income and input into decisionmaking. Each program uses a different set of questions administered to different sub-populations of women. We use data from 12 countries to show that large within-country inter-survey differences persist even after efforts to harmonize questions and samples. Where available, we compare the FTF and DHS with the Living Standards and Measurement Surveys-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture. We present several hypotheses related to survey structure and survey administration to explain these inter-survey differences. We then either test for or rule out the role of these competing theories in driving differences in levels and in associations with commonly used characteristics. Standardizing survey measures of decisionmaking and control over income and how they are administered is important to track progress toward the SDGs; meanwhile, caution should be exercised in comparing seemingly similar survey items across survey programs.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11205-025-03605-x.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21943,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Indicators Research\",\"volume\":\"179 1\",\"pages\":\"95-122\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12321913/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Indicators Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-025-03605-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Indicators Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-025-03605-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

增强妇女权能是可持续发展目标5的明确目标,也是17项可持续发展目标中12项的基础。这也是非洲农业综合发展方案等其他泛国家协定的一个关键目标。跟踪实现这些目标的全球进展情况,需要能够在国家内部和国家之间以一致和可比的方式衡量赋权。然而,授权是一个复杂的概念,很难量化,甚至更难跨上下文标准化。两个大型调查项目——“养活未来”和“人口健康调查”——向妇女询问了赋权的两个方面,即她们对收入的控制和对决策的参与。每个项目使用一套不同的问题,针对不同的女性亚群。我们使用来自12个国家的数据表明,即使在努力协调问题和样本之后,国内调查之间的巨大差异仍然存在。在可行的情况下,我们将FTF和DHS与生活水平和计量调查-农业综合调查进行了比较。我们提出了几个与调查结构和调查管理有关的假设来解释这些调查之间的差异。然后,我们测试或排除这些相互竞争的理论在驱动水平差异和与常用特征的关联方面的作用。将有关决策和收入控制及其管理方式的调查措施标准化,对于跟踪可持续发展目标的进展情况非常重要;同时,在比较调查项目中看似相似的调查项目时,应谨慎行事。补充信息:在线版本包含补充资料,可在10.1007/s11205-025-03605-x获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Do Estimates of Women's Control over Income and Decisionmaking Vary Across Nationally Representative Survey Programs?

Do Estimates of Women's Control over Income and Decisionmaking Vary Across Nationally Representative Survey Programs?

Do Estimates of Women's Control over Income and Decisionmaking Vary Across Nationally Representative Survey Programs?

Do Estimates of Women's Control over Income and Decisionmaking Vary Across Nationally Representative Survey Programs?

Empowering women is an explicit aim of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5 and underpins 12 of the 17 SDGs. It is also a key objective of other pan-national agreements, such as the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme. Tracking global progress toward these goals requires being able to measure empowerment in ways that are consistent and comparable-both within and across countries. However, empowerment is a complex concept, hard to quantify, and even harder to standardize across contexts. Two large survey programs-Feed the Future and the Demographic Health Surveys-ask women about two aspects of empowerment, their control over income and input into decisionmaking. Each program uses a different set of questions administered to different sub-populations of women. We use data from 12 countries to show that large within-country inter-survey differences persist even after efforts to harmonize questions and samples. Where available, we compare the FTF and DHS with the Living Standards and Measurement Surveys-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture. We present several hypotheses related to survey structure and survey administration to explain these inter-survey differences. We then either test for or rule out the role of these competing theories in driving differences in levels and in associations with commonly used characteristics. Standardizing survey measures of decisionmaking and control over income and how they are administered is important to track progress toward the SDGs; meanwhile, caution should be exercised in comparing seemingly similar survey items across survey programs.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11205-025-03605-x.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.50%
发文量
174
期刊介绍: Since its foundation in 1974, Social Indicators Research has become the leading journal on problems related to the measurement of all aspects of the quality of life. The journal continues to publish results of research on all aspects of the quality of life and includes studies that reflect developments in the field. It devotes special attention to studies on such topics as sustainability of quality of life, sustainable development, and the relationship between quality of life and sustainability. The topics represented in the journal cover and involve a variety of segmentations, such as social groups, spatial and temporal coordinates, population composition, and life domains. The journal presents empirical, philosophical and methodological studies that cover the entire spectrum of society and are devoted to giving evidences through indicators. It considers indicators in their different typologies, and gives special attention to indicators that are able to meet the need of understanding social realities and phenomena that are increasingly more complex, interrelated, interacted and dynamical. In addition, it presents studies aimed at defining new approaches in constructing indicators.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信