Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Main causes of gender pay gap in Russia

INTRODUCTION PARAGRAPH STRUCTURE
Hey! Here I am suggesting what could be our possible introduction paragraph's structure, considering that in the first sentence of both of our parts (economics and sociology) we cover 2 similar things: the definition of gender pay gap + the number of the existing gender pay gap). So, what I would suggest:) :


 * - intro sentences on why we are doing this, why research is relevant
 * - then we give an explanation of what is gender pay gap (which we give in the economics section but i think it applies to both disciplines in the end)
 * - then continue with the data on what was the exact number of gender pay gap
 * - then also mention we're inquiring into the non-adjusted pay gap!!
 * - and, as @Dearenemy mentioned, we could name in the beginning sentences (probably at the end) that the circumstances changes in both disciplines - that there were the economic circumstance changes - liberalisation, privatisation etc. - but also that the overall social situation with gender equality changed

Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey! yes this is the structure I had in mind too so that is perfect! We include statistical information in the economics section as well as a definition of the gender pay gap and our word count is quite high, I think we could move both those sections into the introduction and thus reduce the word count within the economics section, do you all agree?

I am also starting to form the intro sentence on "why are we doing this?" as I feel like it is key to make that strong as it sets the tone for the rest of our Wikibook.J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 09:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys, so I identified areas within the economics section which we could implement in our introduction. The first thing is the definition, if the sociology group agrees, this is the definition we used in the economics section:

- "The gender pay gap - an economic egalitarian measure that portrays the inequalities in the earnings between genders.[7]"

Linked to this we also found statistical evidence which could be included in the introduction if you all agree, I personally feel like it is a good thing to provide first so readers can distinctly see the reality of the gap in numbers (but of course if you don't agree please do say):

- "It was observed that women started earning less, with the hourly wage for men in larger by 31% in 1992 and men still earning more by 25% in 1994."

The last section I think we could use (which Luiza you mention in the bullet points above) is highlighting the economic and social changed faced post-communism as it is the foundation of our work and ultimately the increase in the pay gap. This could be used to expresses the change from a communist to a capitalistic market (we don't have to include this in this form of of course, and if you feel it is well suited in the economics section we can include this in the introduction in a different way:

- "With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia's economic participants were exposed to a very harsh and sudden reality in the form of capitalist market reforms - liberalisation, privatisation of state institutions and free trade.[3][5]" J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 10:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey Guys! For the introduction we agreed we would want a sentence introducing the topic and stating how/Why we are researching this specifically. I thought we could retrace the steps we took to come to this final question:

1) Firstly mention that we were really passionate in exploring an element of gender inequality

2) However, gender inequality was too broad and constitutes of too many individual concepts

3) So we decided to focus on a contributor of gender inequality, the gender pay gap.

4) Although the gender pay gap can be identified in many places/countries we decided to focus on Eastern European countries, more specifically Russia because we two clear time periods to set our research on.

5) Russia offered a change from a communist to a post-communist regime and thus a clear time change for us to identify a change in the gender pay gap and identify its effects.

This is a really rough overview of course, it Is not the right wording or structure and we should make it shorter given the world limit. I just wrote this so we would have a guide as to what we could mention in this sentence given how we came up with the research topic. J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 10:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys! I have added these two paragraph sentences to the book but I wanted to explain them further here to make sure you all agreed: - intro sentences on why we are doing this, why this research is relevant: - One of the significant factors in gender inequality is gender pay-gap - why did we decide to pick it? (eg - we were interested in exploring gender inequality, however, this concept was too broad to approach within this research, and thus we decided to focus on the gender pay gap, a branch of gender inequality.) Interesting example of the arousal or gender pay-gap is post-communist Russia - why this period? (eg - centralising our research during post-communist Russia, more precisely 1991 and 1995 provides a clear time frame in which a shift from a non-existing to an existing gender pay gap is identified. This allows for a clear analysis of possible gender pay gap causations through examining the change in societal and economic reforms at the time in contrast to the increased gender pay gap.)

These can fo course be amended, it is just an overview of how they could be written up and also what can be included at the beginning of the introduction. J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay guys I have uploaded the final introduction paragraph that Luiza and I wrote (amendments can still be made of course after we re-read it/get feedback) but it is the basis of what we want to include. I added a small type of thesis at the end of the paragraph, if you feel like this does not fit please tell me and I can change it. The word count is also stated below, and again once we have all sections, if needed we can definitely cut down the introduction.J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 23:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, thank you for your contribution! Everything was great! However, (of course, do let me know if you do mind!!!) I made some little corrections in the sentence structure and sequence. I felt that it would make more sense that our as "researchers" explanation on why we chose this topic and what is done in this little inquiry would be put in the last sentence of the introduction paragraph, as that is what I have observed in most academic papers when they explain what is to come in the following sections. I also changed the wording of our main aim to our aspiration to formulate reasons on why these disciplinary conclusions on the problem's inquiry differ (aka the different truths, theories existing within the disciplines). I hope you agree with my changes, but if not, I am always up to discussion!!! :)) Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

No that is absolutely perfect, the more input and perspectives on the text the better, thank you very much for doing that. I read through it and agreed with the changes, it is also more concise and coherent so im very happy with the final result! J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Tension in Evidence
Hey guys! So I have added this section, to add here any bits of information that you have found relevant in identifying the tension between the evidence presented by both disciplines. I think it may be helpful, given our concerns in that regard! I will repost here what I think Luiza has already posted on the main page - a quote from an economics point of view (well done)! --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 21:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

What tension arises between economists and sociologists when analysing this concept? - (tension within their perception of evidence)

i am just putting here our option of having this sentence as the basic sentence for explaining what economists use as evidence (and then compare to sociologists) : All the surveys, statistical methods and microdata used gave extensive empirical evidence which economists used to find correlations and form theories based on neoclassical economic models. It is important to observe that, when economists tackled the question presented, the evidence used did not arise from social or individualistic explanations for the increase in the gender-pay gap, but rather it came from observed correlations between changes in wage differences and economic occurrences at the time - such as structural wage changes or tax reforms.


 * Every research I found so far used surveys. The sentence you have written for an economic part, "Economists largely relied on household surveys. The almost 10 year period on which household surveys had been obtained allowed researchers to have more general and quantitative data at hand. [1]" is also true in regard to sociological research. If that is also true with Chelsea, we may have to have another call and discuss it..

I think the issue is that a gender pay gap is itself a difference expressed in numbers, therefore it is necessary to use numbers to calculate it/argument it in both disciplines. I think the difference between the sociological and economical perspectives may be in truth --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 00:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone! I completely agree with what you said about the gender pay gap itself being a numerical value which both disciplines use when stating that there is such. However, as you also pointed out, we could switch the whole essay to the TRUTH issue. Since, yes, both disciplines agree that the gender pay gap in Russia increased after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but specialists from both spheres will state different reasons on why this gender pay gap exists. Moreover, the tension arises from how they interpret the evidence used - they interpret it based on the conceptions of truth that exist in their disciplines. What do you think? Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! I agree that there isn't any tension between evidence in economics and sociology and that truth could potentially replace it in our chapter. However, I would like to propose a way in which we could do this. What I understand as the issue of truth is that it refers to what constitutes truth within disciplines, e.g. various social theories explaining a certain human behaviour in Psychology, where truth accords to the chosen theory. More clearly, we would have to look at what constitutes truth in economics and discuss whether there is a clash between what constitutes truth for sociology in the context of wage gap. For example, economics would look into the functionalist and conflict theory as possible causes for wage gap, while sociology/politics would look at Marxist ideology and the influence of the fall of communism. Hence, the difference between the theories economics and sociology/politics study is in itself the tension between the truths of these two disciplines. Do you think this is a good way to approach this? Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey again guys! I agree with you both, and I think it would be nice to identify the clash, or rather tension, between both disciplines and tie it to specific theories within. (From what I remember/understand though, conflict theory refers to the Marxist ideology?) However, I think we definitely need to check it against an economic team - can you guys identify the functionalist theory within your findings in economical discipline? My concern is that both, functionalist and conflict theories are in itself sociological theories, therefore I am not whether the economic part can take the side of one of them? Luiza and Lucia, what do you think about this? --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Wiktoria, with regards to marxist theory, we would definitely have to dig deeper and look for supporting evidence but from the knowledge I have from conflict theory (mainly developed by Marx) would you say he would argue that he would interpret gender specific differences as a cause fo the gender pay gap as a way for society to reinforce patriarchal standards and keep woman in lower payed/ traditional "women roles". this is just a thought but if that is true (I will research further, if any of you have found anything please let me know) this could be a possible difference of the truths between sociology and economics (as Neo-classical economists do not explore such theories) Please let me know what you think, I might have the wrong idea but it was just a thought! J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 13:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Lucia! I think it is important to remember that we need to be basing everything we are writing on scientific research done in those areas! I would definitely agree with your point, and I do think that the conflict theory developed by Marx would argue with gender pay-gap being a way of reinforcing women to remain in their "traditional" gender roles. I also think it is a very good point, that you have made. However, as long as we won't find research that argues specifically for this point, I would not include it in our wiki books chapter. Therefore I think we should leave this discussion for after we will have something to back it up with! Would you agree? --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 15:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

In regards to using functionalist theory for economics I am not too sure if that is a good idea. Although a great thought I feel like it would retract from the tension we are trying to identify as functionalism is a sociological theory. From the research Luiza and I did we also found nothing based on functionalism but rather on wage differences across the timeline we are analysing (during vs post communism). What do you think? if you find a way or have an idea on how to implement it please suggest it and I am sure we can work out something from there. J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, I agree with Lucia in this regard! If we don't have any research to back it up with, I think we should not include this idea in our Wikibooks chapter, as we must reference everything with reliable sources. It is also a sociological theory, which would undermine our point of different evidence and truth between those theories! Anyway, well done for spotting it --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 15:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that one of the main differences between economical and sociological approaches in looking for reasons in gender pay-gap is that economics mainly argue for it is NOT gender-specific reasons, but rather alterations in the overall wage structure - women being segregated into specific occupations etc. Many sociological papers I found, argues for gender-specific factors impacting the gender pay gap. They also do mention structural segregation, but they also discuss factors such as gender differences in human capital or increased employer discrimination against women. In our sociological part we could focus on those and other factors specifically relating to gender differences. What do you think? --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 16:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys! yes I think truth is the way to go, when Luiza and I were researching a lot of the economic papers suggested that it was a change in the wage structure that caused the increase in the gender pay gap in Russia rather than "gender specific factors". They basically argued that it was du to wage differences since communism and it didn't have much to do with particularities of each gender (ex- the perceptions people hold skills attributed to a specific gender) so that would be really interesting to explore (I am guessing sociologists could possibly argue that there are implications related to gender specific factors but I will have to look further into that, I think we really need to research and get our ideas straight. We should Identify the tension from the research, and then start writing, do you guys agree? J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3844489?seq=1 I have also found a qualitative form of evidence to support one of the arguments in this sociological paper - Interviews with workplace managers (Clarke and Kabalia (2000)) - stating that female employees are less flexible, ambitious, and more expensive. I have found only one such evidence, and the study was conducted in 2000, therefore I don't think it is enough to base our argument on tension in evidence section, but we could still use It to support the difference in some evidence used by sociological and economical papers. This way you guys (Luiza and Lucia) will have at least some use for the information you found while writing your section on the evidence used in economics? --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 17:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! yes this is great because it is also evidence in regards to gender-specific factors which can be used to explain the truth in sociology! I think it could be shortly included to show where these truths come from (but of course we will see as we go along) J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Tension in truth
I am just gonna summarise here the truth case here; In my opinion, the most important difference between truth in the causes of gender pay-gap presented by economical and sociological approach is a sociological take on gender differences. I feel like we have to focus on the fact that sociology takes into account individual differences (in this case gender differences) and looks into individual, subjective experience of people. They state that this factor affecting the situation of women is the main cause of the gender pay gap in post-communist Russia. Economics would argue that the case lays in wage alternations and, as we mentioned before, pay more notice to quantitative evidence. A sociologist would probably call them out on not paying attention to the individual experiences of people, and only focusing on numbers, while economics would probably say they are only looking at scientific proofs, and what you can prove scientifically is not the experience of people but wage structures. I am just guessing now because I don't know much about the economics and neoclassical school of economical thought, but you get the idea. What do you think? --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is exactly what we are going for! I think gender specific differences are where our tension arises within the disciplines. Neo-classical economists tend to explore explanations which they can interpret with their theories and their models, which usually don't take into account individualistic or social perspectives in these cases (we will definitely have to find proof for that, I am just speaking from what Luiza and I have researched. Are there any research papers that you have found which clearly state that sociologists focus on gender differences that Chelsea and Wiktoria? If so, I think that is a strong argument for the tension arising. Sociologists: argue economists are not focusing on the social aspect of gender and the perceptions connoted with the different genders. Economists: that sociologists are not focusing on the empirical evidence offered by economic calculations which show that there was a change in wage structure which according to economic models and theories explains the causation for the increase int he gender pay-gap post communism in Russia. Do you guys agree? I think Dearenemy you are completely correct and we should go down the road of gender differentials being/not-being accounted for. J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone!! Yes, I agree with all that you have stated above, meaning that there is tension in truth between sociologists and economists. Economists, especially neoclassical economists, just see a bunch of market forces as the determining causes for the pay inequalities, for them TRUTH about and in the causes for gender pay gap arises from the economic phenomenon (which in itself is a homogeneous, statistically proved variable), not from the social changes that women were exposed to after the fall of the soviet union. I think that in mine and Lucia's part, we will focus more on how economists see this one "single scientific assessment standard" as a tool for proving conclusions, ideas about the causes for gender pay gap. And this scientific assessment standard is those changes in the wage structure in general, not in certain gender differences. Also, to add, neoclassical economics presents itself as this single and coherently united theoretical framework of ideas, it is known to transform different social issues into easily solvable answers. Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, definitely! I am glad we are all agreeing to where the tension between those disciplines lies. I think that when you will be writing about how economics, and specifically neoclassical school of economical thought you have based your research on, perceive truths in identifying causes for the gender pay-gap in post-communist Russia, it is worth to mention as well the most common arguments economics discipline as a whole makes against the sociological (more individualistic and taking into account human experience) approach. It would be nice if you will be able to find any research on this? Basically economical critisism of sociological thought. Then I and Chelsea could do the same for sociological part - Outline sociological perception of truth within those causes, and criticises perception of the issue by economics. What do you all think about such structure of the argument? --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey! Yes, I think your proposal is great!! However, maybe we should formulate and use those findings (namely, economic criticisms on the sociological take when inquiring into such question/criticisms in general) when we write the analysis part (aka the discussion on where the tension in truth is found)? I think it would allow us all to fit into the word limit and would give a good structure to our discussions part. What I would propose (if you all agree), is that we could (in the 3rd section - which is the analysis of the tensions in truth, how differently each discipline answers the question based on the "truth") :


 * 1. a concise start with the criticisms on sociological "truths" from economists;
 * 2. a brief note on criticisms on economic "truths" from sociologists;
 * 3. few concise comparison sentences on how exactly truths differ in these disciplines, how they are made;


 * However, I found one research paper from economics discipline which writes rather not about the criticisms on sociological approach to this question, but marks out things that economics often times fail to acknowledge in such researches, like the "homogenisation and the silencing of dissenting perspectives through exclusion, which has led to the single paradigm" (aka how it sees these general wage structure changes as causes). What would you say if I concisely wrote the main ideas out of it and put them here tomorrow afternoon (for our analysis part) which I think would fit also under point 3 of this analysis section? Let me know!:) Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * these are my conclusions inspired from the article from economics discipline itself: "Economists inquired this question with having a very broad and unified theoretical framework which excludes the possibility of viewing historical occurrences as variables affecting women. (paper 3) This gender inequality in 1991-1995 Russia was a complex issue arising from various social challenges, but economists were trained to perceive it as a “technical puzzle” that has “clear right and wrong answers”. (paper 3) In neoclassical school of thought, the gained data was homogenised which led to the removal of different, non-economic reasons for such gender pay gap. (paper 3) Moreover, because gender pay gap is understood as an unfortunate economic occurrence, they choose abstract methods to explain it, which leads them to overlooking nuanced causes. (paper 2) Gender pay gap is perceived as a technical issue, one which is free from historical backgrounds, contexts, social norms or power relations. (paper 2)" I hope some of this can be used in our text:))) Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi yes I think that can definitely be included! I will try and search for some of those papers in which economists criticise sociological truth. We actually found a journal which stated that it was not gender specific differences but rather factors such as the wage structure, I was wondering if this would be a good example or whether we should find papers which explicitly criticise sociological truth? Luiza I really like the structure you proposed, below I wrote your points with some questions and notes on what I think is important in this analysis paragraph:


 * 1. a concise start with the criticisms on sociological "truths" from economists (are we making this general or specific to our question? personally I feel like we need to keep it specific at this stage because we do not want to deviate from the task);
 * 2. a brief note on criticisms on economic "truths" from sociologists (" ");
 * 3. few concise comparison sentences on how exactly truths differ in these disciplines, how they are made (what do you mean exactly with how are they made?). - I also want to note that here we need to focus on tension as it is the main purpose of our assessment so we need to place large emphasis on it.

What do you all think? J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 20:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, so I agree with what you, Hellllothere|discuss and J66C70I04E05, are saying. However, I feel like in this structure we should do a concise analysis on how exactly truths differ in these disciplines, how they are made, first - then proceed to the criticism of both disciplines. I think that to criticise each perception of truth, we need to first outline it, to avoid repetition? I think it is quite crucial for us to not repeat ourselves at this stage, to avoid going over the word count. What do you think? --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey yes I completely agree we do not have the word count to start repeating ourselves, we also need to ensure that we keep focus on the question and on the truth within the disciplines of our question specifically, I feel like if we deviate it will make our text incoherent and irrelevant to what we are investigating and with truth it is quite easy to do that! but yes Wiktoria I completely agree with you, that is a great point. J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 09:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, I completely agree with what you identified as a tension between truths of the disciplines. I also think that your proposed structure would suit our purpose well. I agree with Dearenemy that it should be quite brief and clear. I think the most important thing we have to do is to underline the differences in truth in both disciplines, while criticising them is something which I believe would be more adequate for a higher-level essay. However, I'm not opposed at all to include a little bit of criticism, as long as it doesn't become the focus of the tension paragraph. Do you agree? Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 12:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys I wrote a paragraph that could be useful for the tension in truth section, I put it in the book but I thought I would place it here so that we can discuss further ideas in relation to the paragraph or if you have any suggestions, we can amend it:

It is evident from the research presented that economists and sociologists perceive truth in terms of the increased gender pay gap in different ways (while economists …, sociologists....) Tension is thus likely to arise when trying to form a consensus on the causes of the increase in the Russian gender pay gap because their truths are individualistic to their discipline, what is true for an economist is not necessarily true for a sociologist and vice versa. Their differentiations in truth can allow for loopholes to be identified in one another in their theories and assumptions. Although this is one of the reasons for the creation of tension, this can be used to improve existing theories and develop further solutions. J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 21:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Sociology
Hey! I quite heavily cut the words on the first draft of our "Take on the issue" paragraph, however, I still feel it needs a little bit of shortening to fit at the end into word limit. Feel free to work on it, and I think we can be trying to cut some words as we are going further. I was mainly rewording and paraphrasing things to cut the number of words down, but in case you would like to bring something back, I made a copy of the previous version.

I merged the structural segregation and human capital paragraphs together, as I think it is very interconnected and women getting less lucrative jobs counts as a difference in human capital. I also feel like it is important to mention the gender differences in human capital, as most papers I have looked at mentioned it as one of the most important reasons for the gender pay gap. Let me know what you think! I also put discrimination in the job market and voluntary exits from work in the same paragraph, so they will go from one to another as both are talking about decreasing female employment as a way of significantly widening gender pay gap. Let me whether you agree and if you don't remember I have all of the previous versions saved!

What is more, as much as I like the counterpoint I presented earlier (arguing for market economy increasing gender equality), I don’t think we have a place for that. At the end of the day, we are identifying the tension between the perception of CAUSES of the gender pay gap in this period of Russia, and it isn’t a scientific essay so I think we don’t have to counterpoint if we don’t have a place for it. What do you think?--Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 01:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I have seen your edit and I agree with your modifications. We have little space for extrapolation and I would have also prioritised the arguments you chose to keep as they are the most relevant for the issue we selected: truth. Regarding your last question, I think that the argument about market economy (which I assume relates to communism? I haven't met the term in any of my sources) increasing gender equality was nonetheless very briefly mentioned before the segregation/Marxist ideology argument in order to point out that there was an increase in gender inequality after communism. I personally think it's important to provide this information so that it is more comfortable for the reader to understand the aggravation of the wage-gap having a benchmark for comparison. Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

As Russia experienced a shift from the state socialism to market economy, gender inequality within the country has increased. There are few theories within sociology to explain this phenomenon.


 * Hey! So I think we should agree on a few points that we gonna describe and concise our arguments. What would you say for general plan:

-situation prior to market economy
 * This is what you have described, I would just condense because it is not a core of our argument but provides nice background with how communism theory responds to the situation of gender equality under socialism - I would also refer it more to gender pay-gap specifically

- situation post-socialist 
 * general outline of the situation of gender inequality in the workplace and how did the transition affect gender pay-gap. I think we need to be more specific here, and state the gemder pay-gap clearly, not to loose focus from it to general gender inequality!

Then go on to describe few main possible causes of such:

- gender differences in human capital

- structural segregation + Marxist ideology to back it up (this is also where we would merge two of our paragraphs, cause we wrote complementary things!) -:counterpoint: Market transition reducing gender inequality? (we can briefly mention it if needed, but it is not necessary I think)

-increased employer discrimination against women

-voluntary exits from work
 * this is the part that discusses reduction of antidiscrimination policies in workplaces, childcare and maternity leaves etc. - we also both wrote on it so we can collaborate and merge our paragraphs. It will be also lovely to have it at the end of our section, as it just states why women decided to not take up any jobs at all

--Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I will try to segregate our findings in this structure in the attempt of producing the first draft. Feel free to alter it! --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 01:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

-situation prior to market economy

One of communism’s most prominent characteristics is that the citizens were being urged to work. Unlike prior to the establishment of this regime, when women were discouraged and sometimes forbidden to join the workforce, everyone was coerced into attaining jobs. From a sociological perspective, this aspect of communism favoured gender equality, as more women were provided jobs and their representation in the legislative space increased. Women representation significantly decreased after the fall of communism, when they highly suffered from unemployment.
 * Hey! So in the attempt of reducing word count, I deleted the numbers as they weren't necessary to understand the context. Of course, we can bring them back if you feel differently! --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 01:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

- situation post-socialist
 * general outline of the situation of gender inequality in the workplace and how did the transition affect gender pay-gap. I think we need to be more specific here, and state the gemder pay-gap clearly, not to loose focus from it to general gender inequality!

As Russia experienced a shift from the state socialism to market economy, gender inequality within the country has increased. There are few theories within sociology to explain this phenomenon.

- gender differences in human capital

“market transition theory” states that institutions in market economy reward human capital more than those of socialist. Therefore human capital differences between men and women lead to greater female labor market disadvantage during post-socialist period. Females have specialised in less lucrative disciplines than males. They have been underrepresented in the political power during socialism, in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CSPU). Social position and being main caregivers in families often led to fewer years of work experience obtained by women. This is used to explain the female abor market disadvantage.

- structural segregation + Marxist ideology to back it up

A common factor of both eras, however very prominent in post-communism, is that women were generally assigned low-skill and low-pay positions which implicitly increased the non-adjusted gender wage-gap in Russia. This phenomenon is believed to have been influenced by the Marxist ideology which promoted the fact that the more important type of labour is manual labour (construction, manufacturing, etc.) as opposed to non-manual labour (education, office, etc.). Manual labour is better suited for the economy of a country, hence, was regarded as superior and paid more. However, since manual labour requires accentuated physical strength, women weren’t considered for employment in these positions and were generally paid less than men, highly contributing to the gender wage-gap after communism.

Hey! how does this phenomenon influence marxist ideology? is there research that supports this? I am just asking because I do not really understand and I wanted to see if I could read the research this came from, Thank you! J66C70I04E05 ] ([[User talk:J66C70I04E05 |discuss • contribs) 14:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello! It is rather that Marxist ideology influences this phenomenon, not the other way around. Marxism promoted manual labour as more important than non manual labour because it was more efficient for the economy of the country. Therefore, manual labour was paid more. This is the paper I found : "Ogloblin, C. G. (1999) "The Gender Earnings Differential in the Russian Transition Economy. Industrial and Labor Relations 52(4): 602-634.". Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

-increased employer discrimination against women

Socialism has suppressed male superiority and gender discrimination. Russian trade unions in the market economy didn’t take much action to fight discrimination against women. Antidiscrimination policies, childcare and maternity benefits had been removed. Employers in post-socialist Russia no longer felt pressure for implementing gender equality into their workplaces. Without socialist regimes patriarchal political pressure constrained women to remain in their roles of staying at home as primary caregivers. Perception of women as more family oriented, less committed and ambitious, but also more likely to take maternity and sick leaves increased discrimination against them on the jobmarket. Due to enterprises becoming competitive entities and under the pressure of the market system, childcare and maternity leaves increased the cost of employment. This perspective explains the increase in gender inequality in post-communist Russia and the widening of gender pay-gap.

counterpoint: Market transition reducing gender inequality?? Although women in post-communist Russia had less work opportunities, it is argued that they were more effective in maintaining their jobs, meaning a lower rate of job loss by women. Some employers in post-communist Russia were in favour of female employees, as they have been found as more reliable and sober workers.

-' voluntary exits from work' Gender pay-gap in post-socialist Russia was also increased through the high number of voluntary exits from work by women. It is explained by the present in this period cultural norms which conditioned women to be in favour of staying at home. As the transition of Russia into an economic market increased economic pressure, it is also argued that voluntary exits from work may be an outcome of response to lower wages, loss of benefits and harassment rather than cultural norms. --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 01:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Due to the fall of communist laws, work was no longer a mandatory endeavour, which gave people the opportunity to live unemployed. Naturally, women gravitated more towards this alternative because they were burdened by balancing work and family responsibilities enforced by the patriarchal society which became even more accentuated in post-communist Russia. Also, while communism accommodated women joining the workforce by providing free childcare, maternity leave, child allowances, etc., this wasn’t the case after the fall of this regime. Hence, women found it even more difficult to sustain both work and family life. The decrease of employed women directly influenced the non-adjusted pay-gap. Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey! So I rewrote those two paragraphs: discrimination in the job market and voluntary exits from work. Let me know what you think! Both have 100 words now :)

What is more, as much as I like the counterpoint I presented earlier (arguing for market economy increasing gender equality), I don’t think we have a place for that. At the end of the day, we are identifying the tension between the perception of CAUSES of the gender pay gap in this period of Russia, and it isn’t a scientific essay so I think we don’t have to counterpoint if we don’t have a place for it. What do you think?--Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * discrimination in workplace


 * Socialism has suppressed male superiority and gender discrimination. After its fall, antidiscrimination policies, childcare and maternity benefits had been removed. Russian trade unions in the market economy didn’t take many actions to fight discrimination against women.  The perception of women as more family-oriented, less committed and ambitious has grown. They were seen as more likely to take maternity and sick leaves, which increased discrimination against them on the job market. As the pressure of the market system rose, childcare and maternity leave increased the cost of employment. The decrease in employed women directly influenced the non-adjusted pay-gap.


 * voluntary exits from work


 * Gender pay-gap has been further widened by the increase of voluntary exits from work by women. With the fall of communist laws, work was no longer a mandatory endeavour. Voluntary exits from work are explained by the cultural norms of the patriarchal society, accentuated in post-communist Russia, which conditioned women to be in favour of staying at home. Because of the increase in economic pressure after the shift of Russia into the market economy, increase of the voluntary job exit by women is thought to be an outcome of the response to lower wages, loss of benefits and harassment rather than cultural norms.

Hello! I suggest we keep the paragraphs about increased employer discrimination, voluntary exits from work and the segregation/Marxist ideology. I don't think that we should compromise quantity over quality. This way, we can keep most of the words while still allowing space for our introduction and conclusion and provide a more developed argument. What do you think? Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Economics - developments on truth section  Luiza and I have written the truth section for ours now, we feel like we have a pretty strong structure and points we are arguing in terms of truth (please tell us if you agree, if you don't please tell us and we will definitely change/Improve anything you disagree with), we have cut down quite a lot but we know we might have to shorten it even more in the future.

for reference our word count with the economic theory section and the economic truth section is at 468. J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sociology
What do we want to cover

Take on issue:

- the impact of the introduction of market institutions and lower quality of jobs “meant” for women

-the inequalities aroused after the introduction of democratic and market reforms

-distinction between non-adjusted and adjusted pay gap
 * I think this could go wither at the beginning of our section or even at the beginning of the whole chapter, what do you think?--Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Beginning of whole chapter sounds right as all of us are referring to non-adjusted pay gap only. Perhaps at the end of the introduction part or at the beginning of the contents part (before Economics) Luiza and Lucia, what do you think? Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for outlining this! I think we could note that we are writing about the non-adjusted pay gap even at the end of the introduction part! I think that would give a good starting structure, as well as bring more nuanced clarity. Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 14:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely, I think it would be appropriate and professional to clarify at the beginning, so probably in the introduction, what are we referring to talking about the gender pay gap. We should mention it at the meeting today --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I included the bullet point in the Introduction section, can you please check and tell me if you agree with where I located it?Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! Apologies for the reply, but I just read where you have put the bullet point for "the distinction between non-adjusted and adjusted pay gap", and I agree that we should tackle it right after we have mentioned what gender pay gap - as a factor in gender inequality and also as a term (but a very broad one, since I suppose economics and sociology define the term, within the discipline, more strictly and concisely). However, if you all agree, I think we should write about the distinction between the adjusted and non-adjusted pay gap very briefly (like 1 sentence)? and then continue to state that our research looks non-adjusted pay gap? What do you think?:)And thank you for writing the introduction structure!! Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 10:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey! I agree, this shouldn't be too long. I came up with this version :"There are two main types of pay gaps, non-adjusted and adjusted, where the former is what our study focuses on. Non-adjusted pay gap is the mean difference between income for men and women, while adjusted pay gap calculates this relating to specific job details, such as the occupation, hours spent working, job title, location,etc.". I tried to make it as concise as possible. What do you think? Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello! The newly proposed sentence looks great! You could put it in!:) Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * However, I wanted to ask, what is meant by the part in our research's structure which is named "conclusions and possible implications"? There is nothing wrong with it, more so I think I just don't understand what is meant by possible implications. :( What in this case would be meant by possible implications? Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 10:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Icloneseashells are you referring to the implications of the tension arising when mentioning "conclusion and possible implications" if so I think that is an essential aspect of our work, we really want to focus on why these discipline have tension when exploring this question (our answer will be evidence) but what does this imply? J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, so I suggested to include "implications" as a part of our conclusion section as it came up during one of our discussions with James! It was while we were discussing the Hourglass structure of our potential Wikibook chapter: "What are we doing -> Why are we doing it -> What part of the issue are we going to focus on and why -> Actual discussion -> Conclusion -> Possible implications"

In this context implications mean the possible use of the outcomes of our research - how can we use this knowledge of where the tension lies between sociology and economy, does it helps with tackling the issue etc.
 * BUT I have just dropped it down on the very beginning of the project when our structure was unclear and we don't have to necessarily follow that!! I think it will be easier to tell when our chapter will be bit closer to finishing, with ready conclusions, but we definitely can and should revisit it and discuss it!! --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 20:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for pointing that out since we also have a word limit too : ( Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey! the introduction structure looks strong and it covers everything we discussed in our meetings which is great, I also think either int eh economics section or introduction we should mention wage (do you guys think it should be mentioned in the introduction?) because when exploring the gender pay gap in the economic papers and articles we have read, they are largely reliant on wage. What have you found on sociology (Wiktoria and Chelsea) if wage is addressed in terms of the gender pay gap we might want to address wage in general? let me know what you guys think, we can also see how it plays out as we go along. J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 12:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

conclusions/comparison between the evidences used Hi! I wanted to say that the last sentence of my and Lucia's part on Evidence in Economics could be removed and replaced to the paragraph where we will analyse the differences and how they create the tension? I will give an example of this sentence here, since I think it would greatly outline in a concise manner what economists use and have as evidence! Let me know what you think! :) here is the sentence: "All the surveys, statistical methods and microdata used gave extensive empirical evidence which economists used to find correlations and form theories based on neoclassical economic models. It is important to observe that, when economists tackled the question presented, the evidence used did not arise from social or individualistic explanations for the increase in the gender-pay gap, but rather it came from observed correlations between changes in wage differences and economic occurrences at the time - such as structural wage changes or tax reforms." Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes! I completely agree with Luiza because we outline how social or individualistic explanations are not taken into account and we highlight how the main focus is on correlations and reliance on neoclassical economic theories. We are also very over the world limit on this section right now so I think that would work perfectly, we can of course amend it to fit the paragraph (conclusion). Do the rest of you agree? J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

An aspect added to the conclusions paragraph Hi all! I just wanted to say that I added to the conclusions paragraph an "inspiration" sentence (once again) or, rather, a question, which we could mention at the end of this chapter. What I mean by writing there is that we could state that our conducted research, and its outcome - the identified tension in evidence and how this makes conclusions about the causes of the gender pay gap differ - contributes to understanding the continued and facilitated differences between economists and sociologists about the gender inequalities, moreover, gender pay gap, in Russia! (we don't have to write how to solve the gender inequality, i think, because it is not what our research is done? but we can provide an argument how the tension identified can help to overcome the struggle?) Let me know what you think! This is just an #inspo sentence Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 10:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Yes! I completely agree I don't think we should offer a solution, I don't think that is what this research is about it think the main thing we need to strive for is to identify where the tension arises from (why do evidence in both of these disciplines cause tension?) I think this is what Chelsea means with implications (as stated above) J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 12:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

- white-collar jobs for women and blue-collar jobs for men, relating to Marxist ideology

-examining the reasons for unequal career opportunities (adding: decrease of caring facilities and maternal leave for women post-communism) :do you mean you will add part on the decrease of caring facilities etc? --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * After thinking twice about it, I think it would be best if I only talk about it in the last point of the text (women migrating back towards not working) because I would be repeating myself. Anyways, we'll see once this part is written. Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

- confirmation of wage mobility being one of the most important factors (will work well after your take on this point!)

-women started migrating back towards not working because working was no longer compulsory after communism, relevant for non-adjusted pay gap (where do you think I should add this?) :i think it will work well at the end of this paragraph! --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sociology - Truth
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3844489?

Examination of how the shift from state socialism affects gender inequality in the labour market using models of: employment exit, employment entry, job mobility and new job quality from 1991 to 1997. Basically it describes that although women had more access to new jobs relative to men, the disadvantage in the quality of those new jobs widened. This is connected to the introduction of market institutions, not gender differences in human capital or structural location in the labour market.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25621729?

The article assesses the degree to which Soviet-era workplace inequality between rural males and females has been remediated by the introduction of democratic and market reforms. The overall effects of reform institutions are mixed. Three forms of gender inequality within the job market are specified (rural males have larger total incomes than do rural females, equal pay for equal work does not exist, male managers have over three times the income from the private business as do female managers)

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0950017003017002006

This one describes the differences in gender inequality under communism and capitalism. It looks like a good resource to use for examining the reasons for unequal career opportunities. It examines the post-transition period in terms of the UN Gender Development Index, women's loss of social support, their decline in labour force participation and changes in employment and political representation. Finally, at the end it is supposed to refer to further implications of those findings and how to improve gender equality in the bigger picture - which may be useful for our general conclusion part.

[https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137364?

Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=russia+gender+pay+gap&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Drussia%2Bgender%2Bpay%2Bgap&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_SYC-5187_SYC-5188%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Ac375f5144f0e9f2e739f7fc1e3c9eee6&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137364?] Article argues that family influences and pay aspirations are NOT a reason for the gender pay gap in post-communist Russia. The major contributor to the changes in gender wage stratification was the wage mobility of gender-segregated occupations and sectors. - This confirms your previous findings! It is published in Sociological Review. --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

--

https://blogs.worldbank.org/jobs/why-are-women-working-less-under-capitalism-communism

https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315687681.ch17

So these basically say that part of the reason for which the gender wage gap increased after communism in all post-communist countries is that working was no longer compulsory or flexible, hence females migrated back towards being housewives and implicitly spent less time at work. Also, during communism, caring facilities for children, maternity leaves, access to equal education for women were emphasised, thus, when communism fell and part of these services were no longer provided, women struggled more often to balance work and personal life. This argument works only in the case of non-adjusted pay gap.

Non-adjusted pay gap means "difference between average gross hourly [or annual] earnings of male and female employees as % of male gross earnings" according to (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics ). So it is the difference between what men and women earn grossly, not between what a man and a woman earn when in the same working position and same hours spent working.

Then, I read in multiple places (haven’t yet collected all of the references, will do) that the Marxist ideology influenced the belief that white-collar jobs (non manual labour jobs, education, etc.) were inferior to blue-collar jobs (manual labour, construction, etc.) because they were less essential for the economy of a country. Women weren't allowed to have blue-collar jobs because they are physically less able to undertake such tasks, hence they were only attributed white-collar jobs, which were paid less because they were thought to be less important (this also only works under non-adjusted pay gap). Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Structure: Conflict theory is generally accepted within sociology as an explanation for gender discrimination expressed through wage-gap. The theory claims that society is in “perpetual conflict” due to a consistent race for resources. Russia, a manifest patriarchal country, facilitated men in the workforce as opposed to women, which ultimately led to increased gender wage-gap in 1991-1995. -talk about why men were privileged in job positions - due to patriarchy

-why there was hierarchy (competition) in attribution of positions, a.i. Limited resources, communist equality laws no longer valid, etc. - due to conflict theory

-conflict theory and patriarchy led to gender wage gap basically

-also functionalism contributed because economy was very important for the country → manual labour important, efficient → could be more effectively done by men workers because physical strength → led to women in low-pay jobs which led to wage-gap Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 10:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Take on issue
Hey! I specified the type of jobs women used to be segregated into (non-manual) adapted slightly your paragraph to make it more concise. Feel free to review the changes! I described bellow my thoughts on the second part of your section, but generally well done those are some super relevant snd strong information used!!

The word count for the first part now is: 177 For the second: 192 Together: 369 --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, thank you so much for doing that! I think that was a very valuable add on!:)) Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, yes that is great thank you so much! Luiza and I wanted to step away from the text for a bit and come back o it in a day or two to revise our sentence structure, grammar and the overall cohesiveness of our text, but it is great you could contribute to that because now we have an even clearer and newer perspective! Thank you the amendments really added.J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 09:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Perception of truth
Hey guys, so I adjusted our subtitles slightly, to “Perception of truth within economics” and “Perception of truth within sociology” to precise what are we researching, what do you think?


 * Hey, I am for it, truly gives a more precise idea on what we are doing for the outside reader! Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 11:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

To get a realistic idea of our word count, I went through your paragraph on economics, and adjusted it slightly, for eg. cut down phrases like “as Jean Tirole mentioned” (as I think we don’t need in-text citation, as we are referencing the information so if someone would like to look up who said that they can do it through reference!) I also changed long, complex sentences when they were hard to understand to few shorter and more concise. Of course, it all acts as a suggestion and feel free to change it accordingly with your opinion. (I made a copy with the previous version)


 * these are very valuable contributions, thank you! I must agree and say that our deliberations on the topic can be quite long and oftentimes not-understandable, so your involvement in this as from the side really helps to make the sentences easier! Thank you!! :) Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 11:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I also didn’t really understand this sentence:

“The core essence of reasoning for the gender pay gap comes from the motivation for such maximisation(Cite)” - I think it’s a really complex sentence, and so I changed it into “A founding axiom within neoclassic economics school of thought is that everything is done for the purpose of maximising profits and utility. The core essence of reasoning for the gender pay gap comes from the motivation for such maximisation. This was also a motivation for the increased gender pay gap.”


 * Yes, thank you! In this sentence we were writing how for neoclassical economists, at the back of their heads, every economic happening is carried out or incited by the aims of profit maximisation - here, the capitalist economic system did not see women as profit maximising, therefore their wages were smaller and less-valuable Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 11:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I also don’t understand what you mean by: “ When analysing the increased gender pay gap, the changes in distribution in a completely new economic system determined the causes, not historical, social reasons for inequality. [paper 2]”

Could you please clarify? Thanks! --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * For the last sentence what we meant is again we outlined how economists paid more attention to the overall changes in the monetary job position evaluation and how it affected women, not that there were historical (legacy of social norms, traditions of communism), but I do think now that the sentence is unneccessary and that we will elaborate on that in analysis part!:) Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Great @HellllothereIdiscuss, thank you so much for the clarification! I am glad I could be of any use!

Hey! yes as Luiza said with distribution in a new economic system we mean the change from communism to a capitalistic market and what we try to emphasise is that economists believe it was that caused the increase in the gender pay gap rather than gender specific factors. I think this is the key difference between economics and sociology so we really need to make this clear. I am happy to change it and try to make it more cohesive if you think it would help and increase the understanding? J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 09:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence in Economics
Evidence (probably delete due to change of issue to truth)

When conducting research, it is evident that for most economists the neoclassical economic model of thinking is dominant, meaning that for them everything is done with purpose of maximising profits and utility, which in correspondence to the researched question, makes the core essence of all reasoning behind the gender pay gap fall within the aim of such maximisations.[15]

When developing theories and conclusions, economists are largely dependent on statistical and empirical quantitative evidence. Here, empirical evidence is data which comes from reoccurring observations throughout a certain period.[16] The empirical data - the mean and median percentiles of female workers that were analysed in comparison to the gender pay-gap increase in Russia.[3] These percentiles constitute an objective and quantified methodological aspect.[5] Neoclassical economists could be argued to suggest that the gender pay gap increased due to the capitalist market not seeing female occupations as profit maximising as their male counterparts.

Economists largely relied on household surveys. The almost 10 year period on which household surveys had been obtained allowed researchers to have more general and quantitative data at hand. [3]

ISSP and RLMS are the two examples of household surveys which were used to research the gender-pay gap in Russia.[5] [8] Queries included questions on - age, marital relationship status, gender and earnings.[5][8] Ogloblin (1999) used the Oaxaca-Blinder-Neumark method of gender earning differential decomposition as his evidence.[4] Evidence, namely, the quantified factors - gender differences in hours worked and gender worker status (part-time or full-time).[4] Also, he used the basic human capital regression model.[4] This number was calculated by the level of education a person has and the experience in the sector - since more men had gained education in sectors that offered higher wages, they could also work longer hours.[4]

All the surveys, statistical methods and microdata used gave extensive empirical evidence which economists used to find correlations and form theories based on neoclassical economic models. It is important to observe that, when economists tackled the question presented, the evidence used did not arise from social or individualistic explanations for the increase in the gender-pay gap, but rather it came from observed correlations between changes in wage differences and economic occurrences at the time - such as structural wage changes or tax reforms.

Hey guys, I have included the evidence section Luiza and I wrote for Economics here (as it is no longer directly relevant as we have changed to truth) but I still wanted to save it in case we wanted to use it at some point or for reference in terms of statistical/empirical evidence.J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 10:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I need to know what Luiza and Lucia will include in the 'Evidence' section of the Economics part in order to formulate my Sociology argument accordingly. Could you please provide a short summary of your intentions if you do not manage to finish it before tonight? It would be very helpful, thank you!Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! Yes, I will send you the link to the google docs!! :) Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

We have now uploaded everything for both the theory and the evidence section within economics, we are aware that it is over the word limit and have discussed a few things on how to cut it down (ex- placing the last paragraph of the evidence section in the conclusion or comparison section) but it is a pretty strong idea and involves all the concepts we are arguing so you can fully use that as reference and comparison for the sociology section! J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

An inspiration sentence for our conclusion/comparison paragraph
Hey again! I am just writing down the idea we had today in our seminar that at the end, we could write a sentence on what the research on this time period means to the still existing gender pay gap in Russia today, that this allows us to better understand the legacy of the communism in today's age. Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey again! I just wanted to say that I added a little introduction sentence under the introduction section. Feel free to express comments about it! I had it in my part on the economics theory, but I felt that it could be an acceptable statement for the first sentences of our essay, since it would have an academic source! But yes, what do you think?:) Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A question in regards to our title
Hey!! As I mentioned during the meeting (and I am writing this down so we do not forget) - do we keep the time period in our title 1991-1995, or should we rather change it to 1992-1995? I would suggest maybe changing it since the Soviet Union fell on Dec 25, 1991, if I am not mistaken, and a lot of research done on the topic is about the period that followed right after - 1992-1995. However, I do see the appeal of keeping 1991 since it could give us more space for exploring previous data about gender (in)equality in Soviet Russia under communism (but in this year there, in theory, was not supposed to be any gender inequality due to Russia still being communist. What do you think? :) Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This is an important point, from the economics research I have done with Luiza most resources are based from 1992 onwards so reducing the time frame could make our work more specific to the causes we are trying to target. However, I have not explored sociological papers thoroughly enough yet. Chelsea and Wiktoria, as you are focusing on the sociological aspect of the research it would be great if once you start deeply researching you can tell us your view on this as it would have to be coherent within the two disciplines. This can always be amended later on so no pressure! Whenever you have a general idea we can then make the final decision (1991-1995) or (1992-1995). What do you guys think? J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, this is an important point to make, thank you for raising this. Most sociological researches that I have found are mainly exploring 1991 onwards - I will try to find their justification for this. As my and Chelsea's research goes on we will definitely review the question, and we should discuss it closer to finishing our chapter. What do you think? --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes I think that is the best option, it needs to be coherent between both disciplines so I think it is a good idea to wait and see what you find within sociology, I will also dig into some sociological research and see what I find in regards to this. J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Adjustments to the introduction and conclusions part
Hey guys! I have added suggestions for the structure of our introduction and conclusion part that we discussed today on the seminar. I also made the guidelines for introduction more specific, I'm pasting it below. Of course, it can be adapted as we go!

Hourglass-shaped structure of the Wikibooks chapter - from the big perspective - to the discussion - to the conclusions and possible implications

- We are looking at the issue of gender inequality

- One of the significant factors in gender inequality is gender pay-gap - why did we decide to pick it? etc.

- Interesting example of the arousal or gender pay-gap is post-communist Russia - why this period? etc.

- Why did we decide to research it; why is it important/relevant to explore this?

Feel free to add your suggestions! --Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes! This is great, I think it would be good to address the big picture as you said (hourglass figure) and then narrow down into the specific areas we are investigating.

I also think it is important to state: "we are addressing this question in regards to how evidence in the different disciplines of economics and sociology is perceived" (the wording can be changed it is just an overall idea) Another important note: we forgot to discuss this in our meeting but do you think we should include a thesis statement (even if it is short) or do you think it is not necessary as it is a short piece of research? (personally I think if we have the word count it is quite importune too contribute to the structure and cohesiveness of our piece, what do you guys think?)J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think a thesis statement is quite essential for the coherence and cohesiveness of our work. However, we should keep it as short as possible to reserve words for the content. I suggest we include something along the lines of: "Economics and sociology studies agree upon and provide different evidence for the existence of gender wage-gap in post-communist Russia". I think it must be concise and clear and inclusive of the essence of our work. Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with that, and I like the sentence! We can discuss it further on our meeting today. --86.147.139.156 (discuss) 13:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes! do you think we should include anything the differences identified or just state that there is a difference overall (I am referring to stating the differences in evidence between the two disciplines shortly in the introduction thesis?) J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I like the sentence you have proposed, it is nice, comprehensive and concise. Well done!

Hi guys! Here I will post a sentence which I have written in the economics paragraph on "the take on issue", but i feel like we could include it in the general introductory paragraph of the essay to give a numerical example of how big this gender pay gap was.

"Glinskaya and Mroz (2000) in their research show that the hourly wage for men was larger by 31% in 1992, and, in 1994, men still earned more than women by 25%."

Let me know what you think! Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Meetings
Last meeting summary: Formulated last version of conclusion  Reduced word count for introduction  Reviewed Grammar, sentence structure and spelling. Is there anything left before we submit our final work? If not I think we are ready to go! J66C70I04E05 (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Deadline Plan:

Economics and sociology for Sunday the 6th (theory and truth)

Personal group deadline: 10 December (complete version with comparison, analysis and introduction)

(14th December):used for general revision of the chapter, grammar, spelling and small amendments that could be made to improve the chapter (it will give time to get a fresh perspective on our chapter)

Tuesday meeting discussion (economics meeting) - possible points in economic discussion.

Economics:

Theories/ ideas economists use to explain the increase in gender pay gap:

- wage structure

- decentralisation

Evidence economists use to explain increase in gender pay gap:

- quantitative mathematical statistics: ex- evidence on quartile of female workers in the labour force

- household surveys

- indexes (the factors each index entail)

Key to mention the reliance on empirical data/findings in economic evidence (important to emphasise on the implications of this)

Sociology:

Possible theories that could be addressed:

- functionalist theory

- conflict theory