Talk:Preference theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catherine Hakim[edit]

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

Third party sourcing[edit]

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. 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. 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]

The article needs more work. Much of this could easily be replaced by citing works by others on preference theory, such as the article mentioned above. Soc628 (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

No. What it needs is what third party sources say about preference theory, not merely using them to parrot what Hakim had already said (which is pretty much all Marshall is being used for). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In explaining what the theory is all about about, I see no reason why we can't cite the scholarly books and articles by Hakim. [1] says: "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia". Discussing preference theory without citing its author is meaningless. Soc628 (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

You obviously haven't read that section of policy with any care. It clearly states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." and "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." This article (i) has very little secondary-based content & (ii) has made rather careless use of primary sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I see absolutely no "misuse" of the articles and books by Hakim in this article. The fact that the article needs improvement and could do well with more secondary based content is a different matter. Soc628 (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Misuse:

  1. "The theory was developed by Catherine Hakim, based on an extensive review of the research evidence on women's choices in the last two decades, and first published in 2000 in a book. However she has also published numerous articles and chapters in books describing the theory's application to particular topics." = blatant WP:Synthesis (since removed)
  2. "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'" -- not found in the cited sources.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Both the external links violate WP:ELNO # 6: "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation.[3] See below." ... so I'm moving them here to talk, unless and until they're used as an actual citation (per the explicit exception in #6).

Positive
Negative

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they made little sense as external links. McRae, however, is one of the most prominent critics of the theory, so she should be cited properly elsewhere. Soc628 (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

However, the links per se did not violate the policy you cited. The key here is "or the link is a convenience link to a citation". The citation is "McRae, Susan. Constraints and Choices in Mothers' Employment careers. A Consideration of Hakim's Preference Theory. British Journal of Sociology 54 (2003): 317–338", the link is merely a convenience link (useful for people who access it from a university network, such as me, who don't have to register or pay anything). Soc628 (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not a "link to a citation" -- citations are for sources for a particular piece of text (per WP:CITE, also "citations to sources supporting article content" in the lead of WP:EL). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Preference theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Preference_theory&oldid=1204899997"