Premium
Racial, Gender, and Professional Diversification in the Forest Service: A Rejoinder
Author(s) -
Mohai Paul,
Thomas Jennifer C.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
policy studies journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 69
eISSN - 1541-0072
pISSN - 0190-292X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1541-0072.1997.tb00005.x
Subject(s) - diversification (marketing strategy) , citation , library science , sociology , natural resource , gray (unit) , political science , management , law , business , economics , computer science , marketing , medicine , radiology
We appreciate Christopher Simon's catching our error. Of course, he is right that we should have divided by the 1983 rather than the 1992 numbers in computing the percentage changes between those two years. Tables 3 and 4 produced by him contain the correct percentages. We regret any confusion that our eiTor caused. Christopher Simon is correct that the percentage changes we indicated in Tables 1 and 2 are, for the most part, greater than what we had reported. However, this fact does not appear to contradict nor change appreciably our principal findings and conclusions. We pointed out in our paper (Thomas & Mohai, 1995, p. 302) that: "Figure 2 [which was not affected by our miscalculations] shows that the percentage of women in the agency as a whole increased from 30.0% in 1983 to 40.3% in 1992." We also acknowledged (Thomas & Mohai, 1995, p. 302) that "[wjomen in the Forest Service made gains in nearly every job category" and that "[t]he average grade of women increased significantly during the decade." However, even when the corrected percentages in Tables 1 and 2 are taken into account, this does not change our finding (Thomas & Mohai, 1995, p. 303) that: "Despite these changes, the percentages of women in each category relative to each other stayed about the same (Figure 3)." Note that this latter finding was based on examination of the relative percentages of women in each of the job categories displayed in Figure 3, which were not affected by the miscalculations in Table 1 and are correct. We went on to say (Thomas & Mohai, 1995, p. 303):