Last week facilitated an illuminating conversation due to my previous ignorance of the topic. In many ways, the discussion points were both familiar and unfamiliar. The articles critiqued the shortcomings of data being used to reveal gender equality rates. This was familiar for me; as a historian, I am accustomed to questioning evidence and deconstructing an argument that utilizes controversial data. In the case of our class discussion, it was fascinating to see the ways in which data can be manipulated to make a country appear more equal than it is. I also loved looking at possible solutions to rectify the problems encountered by sociologists, only to realize that many of the solutions suggested in class (including my own) do not adequately address what determines when a country’s gender gap is legitimate. Interpreting data and trying to find a universal model that can determine gender inequality – to the standards of the UN – seems like a gargantuan task.

The articles were unfamiliar not just because the topic looked at contemporary events rather than historical patterns over time, but also because the analysis heavily focused on data points and their inconsistencies. Although the style of writing (Abstract – Conclusion) was much different compared to the narrative story-telling focus of many histories, I really appreciated the articles as an example of the difference between a social science project and a humanities project. This certainly asks the question; how can we intersect the two? Certainly, they do not need to be mutually exclusive. But by intertwining the two, the next question becomes who are you writing this for? And would interpret it still be analyzed as a serious body of scholarship (compared to other social science works)?

Bryan Paradis