[Futuregen] 2nd round of results: cohort analysis of caregiving

[Ricardo Rodrigues]

Dear Stefan,
Thanks a lot for the comments. They are very productive indeed and touch 
on a couple of issues I want to discuss further today. It's really 
helpful to get this ahead of the meeting.

Which Katherine Keyes' paper did you had in mind exactly? She is an 
incredibly prolific author! :)
Talk to you soon!

Best wishes,
Ricardo

On 28/04/2021 10:16, Stefan Fors wrote:
> Thanks a lot for this, Ricardo. It looks really promising! I've added some comments (see the attached file) - and look forward to the discussion this afternoon.
>
> All the best,
>
> Stefan
>
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: Futuregen <futuregen-bounces at euro.centre.org> För Ricardo Rodrigues
> Skickat: den 26 april 2021 14:32
> Till: futuregen at euro.centre.org
> Ämne: [Futuregen] 2nd round of results: cohort analysis of caregiving
>
> Dear all,
>
> Please find attached a new version of the results for analysis on cohort differences in caregiving.
>
> This version focuses on the gender inequalities and shows some components that will likely form the central basis of the paper, namely Tables 1, 2 and Figures 1a and 1b. The document also includes the abstract we submitted to the ESPAnet to give you a flavor of the general context and research questions of the paper.
>
> We would really appreciate if you could read the document ahead of the meeting on Wed. Here are some questions/issues we would like to discuss at this stage with you and which supplement the comments added to the tables and figures:
>
> Generally:
>
> i) We will have one additional table with just descriptive statistics for the sample. While being mindful not to make the article too cramped, we are considering adding an additional short table just with a cohort analysis of how caregiving has evolved for the pooled sample and total population (women and men).
>
> Some more technical questions:
>
> i) Please bear in mind while reading Tables 1 and 2 that cohort is codded from 0 (1900-29) to 5 (1950-54). This is important to understand the interactions and coeff for variables. While we treated cohort and wave as continuous, just as Stefan and Johan did in their paper, we wonder if these should be entered as dummy variables in view of non-linear relations we found in Figures 2a-c.
>
> ii) Related to i), we are curious to hear your opinion about which of the graphs reported in Figures 2a-c would be best suited to represent the results (although we would likely show figures for Table 2 only in the annex).
>
> iii) Following Suanet et al (2013), we did a cohort-specific analysis (Table 2) to better capture the gender inequality effects. As we use non-linear and non-nested samples in this table, we would like to hear your thoughts about what tests to employ to compare the coeff across cohorts.
>
>
> Looking forward to your inputs on Wednesday on this and the full agenda and zoom link for the meeting will follow still today.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ricardo
>
>
>
> När du skickar e-post till Karolinska Institutet (KI) innebär detta att KI kommer att behandla dina personuppgifter. Här finns information om hur KI behandlar personuppgifter<https://ki.se/medarbetare/integritetsskyddspolicy>.
>
>
> Sending email to Karolinska Institutet (KI) will result in KI processing your personal data. You can read more about KI’s processing of personal data here<https://ki.se/en/staff/data-protection-policy>.