APPROACH AND METHOD

This study presents a secondary analysis of such existing data as Statistics Canada and the Censuses of Canada. A variety of analyses by other writers were taken into consideration. However, most data used in this study were derived from Statistics Canada because an analysis of trends from 1976 to 1985 necessitated the comparison of identical measures at these two points in time, a condition that is met by few data bases other than those of Statistics Canada.

Comparisons

Whenever possible, data comparisons were made between the position of women in 1975 and 1985. Where this was not possible, the nearest years were compared. For example, the most recent statistical tables available from Employment and Immigration Canada on the Programs funded under the National Training Act are for 1983/84, and the earliest complete records are for 1977 / 78.

In some cases, where very fine demographic detail is required, the only longitudinal data available are that of the Censuses of Canada. Thus, some comparisons are of 1971 and 1981, the Census years. When studying income, these Census data refer to the previous year, and thus are comparisons between 1970 and 1980. While not optimal, Census comparisons do give an indication of trends through at least part of the Decade for Women.

Where appropriate, the status of women is compared to that of men. This has been done in one of three ways:

1. Data for women and men are presented side by side for comparison. This is done in cases where the absolute level as well as the comparative level for each is of interest. An example would be the education levels in the population, where it is necessary to examine the level of education of women per se, as well as comparing it to that of men.
   
   
2. Data for women are presented as a percentage of the total data for women and men. This is done where the absolute rates are not of primary importance, and the main interest is in the proportion of women in the area. An example of this type of analysis is found in examining graduate enrollment in various subject areas. Here, the focus is not on the percentage of the population who obtain, for example, a graduate engineering degree, but on women's share of these graduate credentials.
   
   
3. Data for women are presented as a percentage of data for men. This analysis is confined to earnings and income. For example, the total amount earned by men and women together is not relevant, and in fact, fluctuates from year to year. However, unlike university spaces which can be thought of as being assigned to a man or a woman, it is possible for women's income to increase, but not necessarily at the expense of men's income. Thus, rather than examining the dollars earned, or the percentage of all income that accrues to women, a more typical analysis is the one used here: assessment of women's earnings or income as a percentage of men's with the ideal point being 100% (i.e., the point at which women's earnings/income are the same as men's).

The status of women is not compared to that of men in all cases. In particular, when looking at the age, marital status, residence etc. of women who have low educational attainment or low income,* the analysis is not done as a comparative assessment of the Decade. Rather, the purpose of the analysis is to determine areas of greatest need in status in future years.

Finally, a few FIGURES and TABLES have unique formats benefit a particular analysis. These are noted individually as they occur.

* The "demographics" of disadvantage.