Madhavan et al

6 Responses to Madhavan et al

1. Sara Randall says:

   January 9, 2014 at 10:05 am

   I really liked this paper. One aspect which I felt was very important – and that maybe some of the other contributors could use as a model – was the very clear outline of key concepts and definitions. In this field there are a number of terms and ideas which are both used technically in demography and also used in everyday life (household, family, relationship etc). This means that, in a cross cultural research context even researchers who are all trained in the same discipline may have different understanding and interpretations of key concepts. This paper was very clear about the different concepts and their understanding of how these fitted into relationships to do with schooling success.

   One question: as I understand it the data from this Agincourt INDEPTH site have been collected in ways that allow for different forms of household membership (absent but contributing, sometimes present etc – I think Vicky Hosegood and Ian Timaeus published some interesting work on that a few years ago). Given the fact that these data exist how (if at all) were they incorporated into this analysis? Were the absent household members included in the kin and in the structure of the household or were they excluded? Did including / excluding them make any different to the findings? This is important because if different types of kin / household structures are having an impact on children’s schooling achievement – there are a number of different pathways through which this could occur – which could be through presence of key people, competition for resources, supply of resources, or more nebulous influences of key individuals in children’s lives (where the absent household members might be key)
2. Gabriela Mejia-Pailles says:

   January 9, 2014 at 10:51 am

   I think this is a very interesting paper in terms of the findings presented by the authors in the context of rural South Africa. I really enjoy reading it.

   I have a question and a comment for the authors. I was wondering how much do you think these outcomes have changed in the past decade given the HIV prevalence among the adult population in rural South Africa? Probably you could add up to your analysis by drawing a comparison between the wave that you are currently using (2002) and a more recent one (2012) to trace the possible changes in children’s living arrangements and schooling outcomes.
   • Sangeetha Madhavan says:

     January 9, 2014 at 4:50 pm

     Great question about HIV influence.. something we did not look at explicitly in this paper (but have done in others). and yes I agree that a comparison of time points would shed some light on this; in future work, we are planning to run more dynamic models using time varying covariates, one of which could be death (from HIV or other causes);
3. Brigida Garcia says:

   January 9, 2014 at 3:48 pm

   I also liked the paper and agree with Sara Randall that it is very clear regarding concepts and definitions. As the authors indicate, the main finding, regarding the limited role of extended kin in schooling outcomes is surprising in the context of existing literature, and it is telling us that this role has probably been overemphasized in the past.

   I would like to emphasize that looking at this paper from the Mexican context, the kin presence approach seems specially important, because it identifies the role of the grandmother, specially in the case of boys. I think that not enough socio demographic research has been carried out about grandmothers. A few qualitative studies regarding women’s work in Mexico have shown that they are particularly relevant when it comes to taking care of children and doing housework.
4. Sangeetha Madhavan says:

   January 9, 2014 at 4:48 pm

   Thanks to the discussant for 1) slogging through a not-so elegantly written paper (work in progress and constantly changing) and for 2) asking a great question about absent members which we should address more directly. The AHDSS, like Africa Center, distinguishes temporary migrants as those who spent six or more months of the previous year out of the household for employment or other reasons. These people are still counted as members of the household.

   In our analysis, they would be counted as part of the structure or kin counts and would also be identified as labor migrants (one of our controls) to try to capture possible additional sources of income. However, one thing we do not do is to distinguish parental absence by reason for absence which I think it important.

   Thanks again!!
5. Jacques Emina says:

   January 10, 2014 at 11:25 am

   Existing literature revealed the association between children’s living arrangement and their wellbeing in sub-Saharan Africa. Theoretically, children’s living arrangement differences in wellbeing indicators are largely determined by the household’ social, human capital and economic resources. Overall, children living away from their mothers have poor outcomes, whilst those living with two parents have better education and health outcomes. However, little is known about the influence of number of generation in the household and kin presence on children wellbeing indicators.
   This study contributes to fill this gap by: 1) examining two different ways of capturing co- residential living arrangements – structural and kin presence; and 2) comparing the effects of each on children’s educational attainment in a rural community in South Africa.
   Theoretical Debate or Historical Context: The paper reviewed the conceptual background of household’ structure and composition as well as its role on children’s wellbeing in social sciences, particularly in the demography of family and household. Theoretically, the paper is based on two complementary approaches: (1) the structural approach, which refers to the generational contours and extend of nucleation in the household; (2) and the kin presence model.
   Data Collection and data analysis: The study used data from the Agincourt Health and Demographic Surveillance System (AHDSS) conducted in 21 villages, province of Mpumalanga, South Africa. Analyses are focused on 22,997 unmarried children aged 6-18 years old in 2002 and who do not have a child. Unfortunately, the independent variable (children’s living arrangement does not take into account parents’ survival status and/or their migration status. This may have an influence on children’s education outcome. Statistical analyses include OLS and logistic regression models. However, we do not whether authors have controlled for the hierarchical nature of these data. A household may have more than one child. This will influence stability of estimates.
   Results: Findings from the two approaches are consistent and support the positive role of living with two parents on education. Furthermore, the study revealed the advantage of living in a vertical structure compared to a lateral structure. This research showed also the complexity and selectivity of the composition approach. For instance, grandmothers exert a favorable influence particularly for boys, positive effects of siblings and step kin, the absence of any effect of maternal or paternal aunts/uncle on children’s education outcome.
   Conclusion and way forward: This paper most important contribution in the demography of household and family is its explicit focus on the difference between household structure and composition, which are often used interchangeably though the two concepts are different. However, there are some areas that need improvement. First, authors can include a section “Measurement” where they will explain how the different concept (structure, composition, education pace) are captured in the study. Currently, they are reported in the data section, which should include only data information (data collection, sample size and procedure of selection). This study has some limitations: (1) Figure 1 and comments related to this figure need to be clearer (sum of percentage = 100) page 13; (2) information on parents’ survival status and their migration status. Non-coresidence due to migration may have a different effect on children education compared to non-coresidece due to parents’ death. (2) the cross-sectional approach used: we do not whether the difference found is due to the current living arrangement regardless of approach or to the change in living arrangement (instability theory). Indeed, a child may move from biparental household to a vertical or lateral or vertical and lateral household due to parental divorce, death of one parent or migration of one parent. These last limitations could be considered as future areas of investigation.