Research Portfolio Post #7: Qualitative Data

Through a small-N approach, I intend to answer the question: What explains the difference in the success and failure of son preference policies in China, India and South Korea.

My DV will be the “success”, “failure” and “mixed-success” of implementation of son preference policies. Son preference policies have been defined as policies and legislation passed to improve and reduce gender inequality and gender discrimination by addressing women’s status, marriage rights, inheritance and property rights in comparison to men. The failure, success and mixed success of policy implementations are multidimensional measurements of 1) demonstrated ability in minimizing associated external affects such as sex ratios, fertility and marriage patterns over time (pre and post implementation) and 2) comprehensiveness of policies in creating change to the structure and persistence of preference.

I plan to use primary sources such as legislation and amendments like India’s Hindus Succession Act amended in 2005 [1], China’s 2005 revised: Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Rights and Interests of Women [2] and  The 1992 Revisions of Korea Family Law (Women Policies) [3]. These are not the only source I plan to use but demonstrate an outline of major laws and acts that have been revised or enacted to asses issues of gender inequality that can be compiled to compare success, failures and mixed success across different social, cultural and historical contexts.

Additional sources, along with policy (economic and social), court rulings, and legislation such as media (news) coverage of preference, national and international reactions and response  from global institutions such as the World Bank and UN would add depth and perspective in evaluating policy implementation. These sources are collected to better understand policy implementation that can directly or indirectly shape women’s preference for sons and uphold or limit women’s status and value in society.

Reuter’s SCMP article on the South Korea’s 2019 court appeal to remove exemptions in their 1953 Abortion Law[4]  demonstrates that the negation of existing law (repeals) could be due to existing policy on women’s fertility rights and constitutional framing on women’s rights and valuation in society. Current news sources could be helpful in outlining whether certain policy implementations were more potent in upholding women’s status and supportive of their decisions and the continued influence of policy related decisions affecting women and preferential treatment.

 

[1]  Hindu Succession Act 1956 Amended in 2005. s 6. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1883337/. ( Accessed 27 October 2019).

[2], National People’s Congressional Standing Committee. Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Rights and Interests of Women. US Congressional-Executive Commission on China. 1992. https://www.cecc.gov/resources/legal-provisions/protection-of-womens-rights-and-interests-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of. (Accessed 26 October 2019).

[3] Korean Civil Code, Books N and V, reprinted in Korean Women’s Development Institute, Statute Book On Korean Women 53-118 (1992).

[4] Reuters. “Law Limits women’s rights’: South Korea’s Constitutional Court Strikes down abortion ban in landmark ruling.” South-China Morning Post (SCMP). 11 April 2019. https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3005693/south-korean-constitutional-court-overturns-abortion-ban.  (Accessed 27 October 2019).

 

Bibliography

Korean Civil Code. Books N and V. Statute Book On Korean Women. Korean Women’s Development Institute. 53-118 (1992).

National People’s Congressional Standing Committee. Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Rights and Interests of Women. US Congressional-Executive Commission on China. 1992. https://www.cecc.gov/resources/legal-provisions/protection-of-womens-rights-and-interests-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of. (Accessed 26 October 2019).

Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005. Amended. s 6. 2005. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1923186/. (Accessed 27 October 2019).

Reuters. “Law Limits women’s rights’: South Korea’s Constitutional Court Strikes down abortion ban in landmark ruling.” South-China Morning Post (SCMP). 11 April 2019. https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3005693/south-korean-constitutional-court-overturns-abortion-ban.  (Accessed 27 October 2019).

2 thoughts to “Research Portfolio Post #7: Qualitative Data”

  1. I like how you are thinking about different government documents specifically which would be helpful in explaining your puzzle regarding female infanticide. I wonder if, to understand the historical differences in valuing male over female children and people, you would be able to access even older historical documents regarding such values as all three of the countries you are studying have rich historical identities and cultures. Additionally, you may want to look into a way of locating qualitative data which represents a less governmental perspective of these issues; perhaps there are interviews or other field work you could use from scholars who have also done research in your topic area? Either way, I am excited to see the direction your research continues to go in.

    Best of luck!

  2. Lizzie — the data sources that you discuss here are relevant to the DV that you propose to analyze. As Claudia points out, one of the strengths of this methodology is the ability to have several facets to any given variable (just like Howard had two dimensions to the operationalization of her success/failure variable). What other aspects would make up success or failure? What specific questions would you ask of the data to establish the value of the DV in each case? Since part of this post was to identify what you know about the value of the DV for each of your cases, what do the data sources that you cite tell you about the value of the DV for the three cases that you identify here? Keep thinking about these things as you continue your research in this methodology!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *