Jump to content

Talk:Preference theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hrafn (talk | contribs) at 06:44, 31 December 2010 (→Third party sourcing: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconSociology Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Catherine Hakim

There is no separate page for Catherine Hakim? That's a shame.--Vulc (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sourcing

The vast majority of this article is sourced to Hakim herself. Half a sentence, sourced to a dictionary definition, does not change that fact. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The article cites a dictionary entry in the Dictionary of Sociology (which is a third party source) for preference theory, thereby clearly establishing its notability. Claiming it's not notable is just ridiculous. It's one of the most widely debated sociological theories for the last ten years or so, you find articles like "Hakim's preference theory in the Czech context". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soc628 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. A single dictionary definition does not "address the subject directly in detail", so is not "significant coverage" per WP:Notability. Additionally, sourcing the article almost entirely to Hakim results in an inherently unbalanced treatment. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ. The article contains several sources that are not written by Hakim. "preference theory" returns 8 280 Google Scholar results and has received significant coverage by any standards. Soc628 (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The article, striking what is cited to Hakim or uncited:

Preference theory is a multidisciplinary (mainly sociological) theory developed by Catherine Hakim and that "sparked off considerable interest". It seeks both to explain and predict women's choices regarding investment in productive or reproductive contributions to society. Preference theory is a historically-informed, empirically-based, and predictive theory about women's choices between market work and family work.

The theory sets out five socio-economic conditions which jointly create a new scenario for women:

  1. The contraceptive revolution gives women reliable control over their own fertility for the first time in history.
  2. The equal opportunities revolution gives women genuine access to all positions and occupations for the first time in history
  3. The expansion of white-collar occupations, which are more attractive to women.
  4. The creation of jobs for secondary earners, such as part-time jobs, working at home, teleworking, and annual hours contracts.
  5. The increasing importance of attitudes and values in affluent modern societies, which gives everyone the freedom to choose their lifestyle.

The theory posits that women fall into three main groups: women who prefer a work-centred lifestyle and often remain childless by choice (about 20%); women who prefer a home-centred lifestyle, often have many children and little paid work (about 20%); and the remaining majority of women who can be labelled adaptive, who seek to combine paid work with family life and raising children.[1] Catherine Hakim carried out two national surveys, in Britain and Spain, to test the theory, and showed that questions eliciting personal preferences can strongly predict women's employment decisions and fertility. In contrast, women's behaviour did not predict their attitudes, showing that lifestyle preferences are not post hoc rationalisations.[2] This study also showed that other sex-role attitudes do not have the same impact on women's behaviour; notably, the patriarchal values measured by most social surveys, including the European Social Survey, have virtually no impact on women's personal choices and behaviour. The only study that has validly re-tested preference theory is by Rabusic and Manea: they show that all three groups can be identified in the Czech Republic, but there are no important differences in fertility between the three groups, probably due to the strong two-child family norm in the Czech Republic. Other studies have also found that all three groups of women can be identified in all modern countries, even when quite different questions on societal norms are used (instead of questions on personal preferences), or using career choices as an indicator of 'revealed preferences'.

Hakim’s preference theory has attracted great interest in the literature, but also considerable criticism.

Doesn't leave much left, does it? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Marshall was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Catherine Hakim, Models of the Family in Modern Societies: Ideals and Realities, Ashgate, 2003.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Preference_theory&oldid=405127888"