doi: 10.18502/gespr.v1i1.7470
1 Three papers
Three similar tables in the three papers
These three tables in the three papers look similar. All figures are the same except for sample size(n=1,439) written in the title of Table 6.5(circled in red).
What data is analyzed in each paper
In the three papers, the author analyzed the data gained from the author's own conducted questionnaire survey as below.
In the paper A(Sim 2020a), 1439 samples of 6 countries of Gulf Cooperation Council(GCC) people were analyzed. The GCC consists of six countries: UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait.
On the other hand,the author insists that in the paper B(Sim 2020b) and the C(Sim 2021) the author analyezed the 161 people of UAE. In addition, you can see from their titles that the paper B and the C are about UAE.
However, the author made the three similar tables as the results of analyzing each data.
Citation relation
Each table does not cite each other.
How the author showed the sample size(n) in each table
In the paper B(Sim 2020b), the author made seven tables(Table 1-7). The author put observed sample size, or“n”in every table except for the“Table 5” discussed above.
In the paper C(Sim 2021), the author made four tables(Table 1-4). The author put the observed sample size or“n”in every table except for the“Table 3” discussed above.
2 Inconsistency of the number of female and male observations on the Paper A
The author wrote the total sample size and quota of gender etc et al in the Table 4.2 on P109 of the Paper A(Sim 2020a). It was explained the total number of GCC males was 67(circled in red).
On the other hand, the Table 5.3 of the Paper A provides an analysis of gender differences. The number of GCC males used in this analysis was 1462(circled in blue).
This is a larger number than the total number of 67 GCC males in the Table 4.2 on which the analysis was based.
3 Inconsistency of interview data analyses of the Paper A(Sim 2020a) and the Paper C(Sim 2021)
In the paper A and the C the author used the interview data of her own as well as the statistical data.
The four interviewees in the Paper C(Sim 2021) and the Paper A(Sim 2020a)
The author used the interview data of four UAE women interviewees(UW2, UW6, UW3, UW4) in the Paper C(see Table 1 in P50 of the Paper C).
All of them seem to be used as well in the Paper A according to the IDs of the interviewees in the Table4.4 of Paper A.
The same ID person(UW4) but different attributes in the Paper A and the Paper C
The attributes of the UAE female number 4 (UW4) in Paper A are, in order of ID, gender, nationality, current status, and major (arts or science), "UW4, Female, UAE, Unemployed (searching for a job), Psychology (L )" (Paper A, P 115).
On the other hand, the attribute of the person whose ID is UW4 appearing in Paper C is described as "UW4 2-year University Nutrition (S)" (Paper C, P50).
Thus, a person with the same ID, on the one hand, is unemployed (searching for a job), a psychology major (graduated university major.literature tarack), and on the other hand, a student, majoring in Nutrition (Science).
What statement the same ID person(UW4) made
This inconsistency of UW4's attributes between the Paper A and the C cannot be considered simply a misattribution of UW4's attributes in Paper C or a mistake with another person.
First, it can be considered the same person because the statements of UW4 in Paper A and Paper C are exactly the same, as follows.
“I have to go to university or...I'll waste my time.” (UW4) （the Paper A, P168）
“I have to go to university or...I’ll waste my time.” (UW4) （the Paper C, P50）
“Also, my country...is giving me everything I want and... I want to give back some of what they gave me. Because they are giving everything to us for free. By studying and being effective person in my community...I want to work. So, I can be a part of my community.” (UW4)（the Paper A, P169）
“Also, my country...is giving me everything I want and... I want to give back some of what they gave me. Because they are giving everything to us for free. By studying and being effective person in my community... I want to work. So, I can be a part of my community.” (UW4)（the Paper C, P53）
Thus, both are considered to be the same person because they make the same statement. However, in Paper A, UW4 is treated as unemployed (from a arts background) and in Paper C, UW4 is treated as a student (from a science background).
Furthermore, within Paper A, it is noted that UW4 graduated from university and is currently looking for a job (unemployed (job seeking)), as described below in the analysis section of the interview data.
Most of interview participants, regardless of nationality and college major, reported similar plans. UW4, a recent graduate who was in between jobs, also described her future plan: “I want to have a masters and a PhD… [but first] I want to save up some money so I can support yourself…so I want to work first’. [Then I will be] married and... working as well, working and... by then (after about 20 years from now on), I achieve... I [will have] my Master's and my PhD.” (UW4)（Paper A, P166）
On the other hand, within Paper C, in the analysis section of the interview data, it is stated that UW4 is a university student in the sciences as follows.
UW4, who attended an arts-stream high school and is now currently pursuing a science stream at her university, also said the following: “...If you are humanity track student and you get high ［grades］ in your final year... you can come into ［the science stream］. So I changed... to ［the arts stream because］... why should I make things difficult for me if I can get high marks in ［the arts stream... and still... go study the science stream at university?］ That’s what I thought that time.”（UW4）（Paper C, pp55-56）
Thus, when comparing the analysis portion of the interview data, UW4 was from a arts major (psychology) and was unemployed (searching for a job) in Paper A, while in Paper C he was a science major (nutrition) and was currently in university.
As the title suggests,the Paper C discusses the career perspectives of students in the science stream (Science stream or Scientific track) and the arts stream (Arts stream or Literature track). Whether the interviewee is a student or not, a student of science or arts(literature) is at the heart of the paper.
Related article is here
In the Table4.4 of Sim(2020a, p.50), KW1, KW2, KW2, KW3, KW4, KW5, KW6.
Two subjects named KW2 with different statuses in the table at the same time.
How come? Any data?
4 Sampling concerns
These studies used statistics to discuss a character of overall society in multiple countries (Sim 2020a) or a single country (Sim 2020b; 2021).
But the sampling is concerned.
Here are my concerns.
-
Non-negligible sample size difference in gender. Obtained sample data of females and males are very different in size (n=1778 vs n=67, respectively), which can be calculated from table 4.2 of paper A (Sim 2020a). Why is there such a difference? How can we make a comparative argument about gender from this data (e.g., table 5.3 of Sim(2020a))?
-
Non-negligible sample size difference in countries. Similarly, obtained sample data of countries are very different in size (see table 4.2 of Sim (2020a)). For example, females of Saudi Arabia (KSA) account for 67%, compared to 1.6% of Oman. This kind of heavy bias can be seen in all most all respects in table 4.2.
-
Combining data of multiple countries on Paper A (Sim 2020a). The author discusses GCC six countries together (e.g., Table 5.3 and 6.5 of Sim(2020a)). It is not appropriate to mix six countries to discuss a character of society because the social context differs from country to country. Is this related to a sample size problem like the issue that data of a single country was too small to make a result significant? Is it related to the issue of #1?
-
Representativeness of snowball sample and citation with concern. The author conducted a questionnaire survey (quantitative research) by snowball sampling method. In Sim (2021a, P98) the author explained the snowball sampling by citing Kirchherr & Charles (2018) and Dudovskiy (2018) and insisted that a snowball sampling can be used for his/her statistical research. But both papers oppose generalization with snowball sample as below. Using snowball sampling for a questionnaire survey should be prudent. As snowball sampling tends to be biased, most researchers do not consider the snowball sample to be a representative sample to describe a character of overall society. Since the scope of the paper is a sociological subject, careful consideration should be given to bias.
Related comment: https://pubpeer.com/publications/3FF17ABF75D18032052CF0ADA5CFD8#3
I checked the author's proceedings that analyzed the same data (Sim 2017, Sim 2018, Sim 2020b, Sim 2021).
Survey period and language used in the survey were inconsistent.
| paper | survey period | language used in the survey |
|---|---|---|
| Sim(2017) | January-July 2016 (P59) | English (P59) |
| Sim(2018) | January-July 2016 (P259) | Arabic (P259) |
| Sim(2020b) | January-October 2016 (P78) | Arabic (P78) |
| Sim(2021) | January-October 2016 (P49) | Arabic (P49) |
Could the author kindly explain the survey's detail?
A copy of the above doctoral dissertation is available from the following service provided by the National Diet Library.
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/11816100/1/1
"Request Remote Photoduplication service via the NDL Online".
The table 6.3 and the description in the text about the table do not match at all.
The figures in the table differ from those in the text.
Why is this?
On
Exclusive: Top-tier university in Japan investigating prof’s alleged misconduct
Tokyo’s Waseda University is investigating alleged misconduct by an assistant professor at the institution, Retraction Watch has learned.
The probe is focusing on at least three works by Woohyang Sim, of the Faculty of International Research and Education, including her 2020 doctoral dissertation, titled “What is Higher Education For? Educational Aspirations and Career Prospects of Women in the Arab Gulf.” Two of Sim’s published papers are also under scrutiny, according to a source familiar with the investigation.
I am currently undergoing a research ethic committee process and cooperating fully with the procedure. I have provided all raw data I possess and I am awaiting the committee’s final report.
Sim, who is listed as a “co-researcher” on a $13 million joint project between Waseda University and Qatar University, also wrote:
I would like to address the concerns raised about my work, acknowledging that I have identified a few inconsistencies resulting from careless mistakes. As a non-native speaker of English, I admit that I placed significant emphasis on accurately translating my work into a language in which I do not feel entirely comfortable. In the process of writing, driven by anxiety, I may have overlooked some crucial details that required more attention.
However, I want to assure that any mistakes in the paper were unintentional, and I did not intentionally fabricate or alter any information.
One of the papers that were flagged on PubPeer, “The Educational Aspirations of Saudi Arabian Youth: Implications for Creating a New Framework to Explain Saudi Arabian Society,” published in FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education in 2016, no longer resolves from its DOI.
The record of degree conferral date for dissertation A in the Waseda University Repository was changed from 2020-05-13 to 2020-04-28.
Data Destruction and Research Ethics Violations in Doctoral Dissertation A
About data of 24 interviewees on table4.4 of Sim(2020a, P115) #3 .
The author mentioned the destruction of data.
Why did the author need to destroy data?
Was it acceptable to destroy data intentionally against the obligation to preserve the data?
Was it permissible to explain to the interviewee that the data will be destroyed despite the obligation to preserve the data in the first place?
Further interview data inconsistencies were found.
The statements of one person(UW7) in the 2020 dissertation (paper A) were written as the statements of two separate persons(G1 and E1) in the 2018 paper.
Paper A: Sim, Woohyang, (2020a), What is Higher Education for? Educational Aspirations and Career Prospects of Women in the Arab Gulf, pp1-235.(doctoral thesis at Waseda University) date: submitted in Nov 2019, degree conferred in 13 May 2020., https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/11816100/1/1
The comparison of the questionnaire and the analysis in Paper A.
The author has included the questionnaire used in the quantitative survey as an appendix to the Paper A (doctoral dissertation, Sim 2020a), pp. 214-232.
A comparison of this questionnaire with the analysis conducted in Paper A finds several interesting points.
Q18 on p. 220 of the questionnaire is asked in a 4-point scale (i.e., Diploma, Bachelor, Master and Doctorate).
On the other hand, Figure 6.1 on p. 154, which analyzes the data obtained from this Q18, analyzes the data in the 5-point scale (i.e., High School, Diploma, Bachelor, Master and Doctorate).
How come?
-How many high school students are included in the data in Paper A?.
On p. 153 of Paper A, it is noted that the total number of high school students is 173.
On the other hand, Figure 6.1 on p. 154 of Paper A shows the percentage of "High School and below" as 12.9% of the 1604. Thus, the number of "High School and below" is 1604*12.9% = 206.916 ≈ 207.
These two numbers are different. Could the author kindly explain these numbers?
-The unnatural absence of missing value in figure 6.1, P154 of Paper A.
1604 is a sample size of the total GCC female of the study (see table 4.2). #2
Figure 6.1 shows n=1604.
This means whole 1604 respondents of the survey answered to Q18.
On the other hand, Table 6.5 on p. 162 shows a significant number of missing values occurred. #1
No non-answers (missing values, N/A) in the data of Q18?
Could the author check the data?
-Paper A appears to analyze what was not asked in the survey (questionnaire): Q31 of questionnaire and Table 5.4
The author has included the questionnaire used in the quantitative survey as an appendix to the Paper A, pp. 214-232.
The comparison of the questionnaire and the analysis of the data in Paper A shows inconsistency in the relationship between questionnaire and analysis.
This issue is also related to the issue that some questions cannot be answered by high school students.
Could the author kindly explain these things in detail?
-Questions of the Questionnaire and Answerability by high school students
The questionnaire includes many questions that high school students may not be able to answer. (red marked)
However, the data reportedly includes a significant number of high school students(see figure 6.1 ). #14
Also, can this questionnaire really be answered by all citizens over 15 years of age in Gulf countries? Seems to be focused on university students.
The questionnaire itsef and survery descriptions differ from paper to paper.
The author has included the questionnaire used in the quantitative survey as an appendix to the Paper A (doctoral dissertation, Sim 2020a), pp. 214-232.
The author's descriptions of the same survey appear to be inconsistent from paper to paper, or even within the same paper.
Different explanations are given for the questionnaire in terms of the number of questions, the number of parts, the names of the parts, and the location of the same questions.
Could the authors please provide a detailed explanation on this point?
the number of questions within Paper A differs
the number of questions in Paper A and Sim(2018) differs
Number of parts and names of parts in Paper A’s Questonnaire and Explanation differs
The same Questions’ locations in Paper A and Sim(2018) differ.
The description of the quantitative survey of GCC women appears to be inconsistent from paper to paper.
I have combined and organized #1, #6 and #16, re-checking the descriptions related to the quantitative survey.
It is noteworthy that the descriptions of the same survey differ in this way.
It is not clear how these inconsistent descriptions could be the result of a natural process of the survey.
Could the author please explain the process by which the survey was conducted?
Inconsistencies in quantitative survey for GCC female
| Papers and mainly mentioning pages | Survey period | The number of Questions | The number of parts | Name of parts | Question No. | Language used | age | GCC female sample size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sim(2017, p.59) | January-July 2016 | English | 15-47⁽⁶⁾ | 1604 | ||||
| Sim(2018a, p.259) | January-July 2016 | 34 | Inconsistent⁽⁴⁾ | Arabic | 15-61 | 1604 | ||
| Sim(2018b, p.8) | January-October 2016 | 4⁽¹⁾ | Inconsistent⁽¹⁾ | 15-47 | 1604 | |||
| Sim(2020a, p.214-232) Questionnaire | 41 | 5 | Inconsistent⁽²⁾ | Inconsistent⁽⁵⁾ | Arabic | |||
| Sim(2020a, p.95-103) Body | January-October 2016 | 33 | 4 | Inconsistent⁽³⁾ | Arabic | 15- ⁽⁷⁾ | 1604 | |
| Sim(2020b, p.78) | January-October 2016 | Arabic | 15-30⁽⁸⁾ | 161⁽⁸⁾ | ||||
| Sim(2021, p.49) | January-October 2016 | Arabic | 15-30⁽⁹⁾ | 161⁽⁹⁾ |
Footnote
(1) "Research Items", "(1) personal data, (2) educational awareness, (3) educational acts and (4) career awareness based on I-P-O model"
(2) questionnaire shows (1) "Personal data", (2)"Personal ability", (3)"University stage", (4)"Sense and awareness of responsibility", (5)"SES (Socio-Economic Status)"
(3) "four major parts","(1) personal data", "(2)educational awareness", "(3) life value", "(4) Career prospects"
(4) "Q18: expected years of education", "Q22: university-going purpose", "Q24: value awareness"
(5) "Q12: expected years of education", "Q16: university-going purpose", "Q18: value awareness"
(6) "Table2 Overview of Survey Subjects" in .p59.
(7) "Participants in this study were female citizens of the six Gulf countries who were over 15 years old." in p.107.
(8) "Table 2 Description of respondents" in p.80. The paper analyzed the161 UAE samples and it could be a subset of 1604 of six GCC countries. However some analysis in the paper could be based on 1604 sample size. #1
(9) "Table 1 Description of respondents" in p.50. The paper analyzed the161 UAE samples and it could be a subset of 1604 of six GCC countries. However some analysis in the paper could be based on 1604 sample size. #1
Reference
-
Sim (2017): Sim, Woohyang, (2017), Women's higher education, rethinking its meaning and role - on the subject of women's higher education in the Middle East Gulf countries, 69th Annual Meeting The Japan Society of Educational Sociology, The Abstracts of the Presentations 2017, pp58-59. https://perma.cc/FU4Z-K4PS , https://jses-web.jp/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/summary2017.pdf#page=97
-
Sim (2018a): Sim, Woohyang, (2018), The Functioning of Universities and Gender in the Middle East Gulf Countries: Focusing on Gender Differences in Educational Heat, Purpose of Education, and Value Consciousness. , 70th Annual Meeting The Japan Society of Educational Sociology, The Abstracts of the Presentations 2018, pp257-258. https://perma.cc/E53W-URU7 , https://jses-web.jp/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/summary2018.pdf#page=299
-
Sim (2018b): Sim, Woohyang, (2018), "What is Higher Education for? : A comparative study between United Arab Emirates and other Gulf countries”, Eighth Biannual Gulf Comparative Education Society Symposium, 2018.4.7. https://web.archive.org/web/20220317181838/http://gces.ae/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Woohyang-Sim.pdf
-
Paper A: Sim(2020a): Sim Woohyang, 2020, What is Higher Education for? Educational Aspirations and Career Prospects of Women in the Arab Gulf, pp1-235.(doctoral thesis at Waseda University) date: submitted in Nov 2019, degree conferred in 13 May 2020 https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/500001483409 , https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/11816100/1/1
-
Paper B: Sim(2020b): Sim Woohyang, 2020, For Love, Money and Status, or Personal Growth? A Survey of Young Emirati Women's Educational Aspirations, Gulf Education and Social Policy Review, 1: 73-90. date: received on Thu, 07 Nov 2019, accepted on Wed, 18 Dec 2019, and published on Wed, 29 Jul 2020 https://doi.org/10.18502/gespr.v1i1.7470 , http://web.archive.org/web/20230521083838/https://doi.org/10.18502/gespr.v1i1.7470
-
Paper C: Sim(2021): Sim Woohyang, 2021, Does What You Study Matter? Comparison of Career Aspirations Between Female Students in Arts and Science Streams in the UAE's Higher Educational Institutions, Waseda review of education,35(1): 47-58． date: published in Mar 2021 http://hdl.handle.net/2065/00074735 , http://web.archive.org/web/20230430191413/http://hdl.handle.net/2065/00074735
The description of the "INTERVIEW" survey of GCC subjects appears to be inconsistent from paper to paper.
I have summarized the inconsistencies in the description of the interview survey. Note that I have already summarized the inconsistencies in the questionnaire survey in #17.
Although a series of papers analyzed the data of the same statements and appear to use the data obtained by the same interview survey conducted in GCC six countries, there are discrepancies between their respective descriptions.
It is noteworthy that the descriptions of the interview survey differ from paper to paper in the way later described.
Could the author please explain the process by which the interview survey was conducted?
Survey period
*inconsisitent.
The total number of the subjects(N)
*inconsisitent.
The data used in "Sim(2021): Paper C" appear to be a UAE subset of the data for the six GCC countries used in the other papers.
(1) "Total of nine men and women of UAE nationality were interviewed"(p.49). Nine matches the total of UAE men and women who appeared in sim (2020a). Also, four women with the same ID also appear in the table of the list of persons surveyed on p.115 in Sim (2020a) analyzed in sim(2021c).
Gender breakdown
*inconsisitent.
Even within the same "Sim(2020a):Paper A," the description of the gender breakdown differs from place to place.
(2) "All of the interviewees were GCC national women who were currently or previously enrolled in higher education, out of 24 interviewees, more than half of these interviews were conducted via Skype."(p.104)
Breakdown of nationalities
*inconsisitent.
As described later, the survey was also conducted in Qatar, but the papers differ as to whether Qatari nationals were interviewed or not.
(3) The text on p. 59 states that the survey was also conducted in Qatar, but there are no Qatari nationals among the subjects.
(4) "Table 2 Description of respondents"(p.8). Since all the figures add up to 114.8%, it is not possible to calculate the real numbers.
(5) Qatari nationals subject to appear only here.
(6) ”All of the interviewees were GCC national women"(p.104)
(7) "There were also no Qatari women interviewed."(p.114)
(8) Yemen is not included in the six GCC countries. "graduate school student who was born and raised in the UAE"(p.175)
(9) "Total of nine men and women of UAE nationality were interviewed"(p.49). Nine matches the total of UAE men and women who appeared in sim (2020a). Also, four women with the same ID also appear in the table of the list of persons surveyed on P115 in Sim (2020a) analyzed in sim(2021c).
Sampling method
*Inconsistent.
Depending on the paper, it may be "Snowball Sampling" or "web-flyer requesting interview".
(10) "The interviewees were selected using snowball sampling."(p.104)
(11) "A total of 24 interview participants, 20 GCC national females, one of non-GCC national female and three of GCC national males who responded to a web-flyer requesting interview, later then assisted to generate additional participants."(p.113)
(12) "Moreover, the online survey and the web flyer requesting interviews provided full information about the study."(p79)
(13) "Total of nine men and women of UAE nationality were interviewed using the Snowball Sampling Method."(p.49)
Face-to-face or Skype
*consistent.
Survey conducted location
*consistent.
(14) "Interviews conducted in UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain."(p.59)
(15) "A semi-structured interview was conducted between October 2016 to May 2017 in the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait."(p.8)
(16) "semi-structured interviews were conducted from October 2016 to May 2017 in the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait."(p.103)
(17) "during my fieldwork in the UAE from October 2016 to May 2018" (p.49)
Educational background
*inconsistent.
(2) "All of the interviewees were GCC national women who were currently or previously enrolled in higher education, out of 24 interviewees, more than half of these interviews were conducted via Skype."(p.104)
(18) "Of the 24 interviewees used in analysis, 16 were college students, two graduate students and one high school student." (p.113)
(19) "UW1 Female UAE Student: 3-year secondary Literature course" (p.115, Table 4.4)
(20) "However, in this paper, four Emirati women,two each from arts stream and science stream1 , who are currently attending higher education institutions in the UAE, were analyzed."(p.49).
Current Status
*inconsistent.
(21) "interviews were with women of GCC nationality, aged 15 years and older in the labor force."(trans)(p.59)
(22) Percentage is supposed to be of 22 females, but calculation is impossible.
(23) (p50, table 2)
UW2 2-year University Public relations(A)
UW6 3-year University Humanity(A)
UW3 3-year University Engineering(S)
UW4 2-year University Nutrition(S)
age
*consistent.
Subject ID: UW4
*inconsisitent.
The subject whose ID in both papers was UW4 made the same statement. However, they were attributed differently in both papers. #2
(24) The statements of the person whose ID is UW4 in Sim(2020a) and Sim(2021) match perfectly. However, status and explanations differ. #2
-Subject with the ID of UW4 in Sim(2020a)
Current status: Unemployed(searching for a job)
Majour: Psychology(L) (p.115)
"a recent graduate who was in between jobs"(p.166)
-Subject with the ID of UW4 in Sim(2021)
Curent status: 2 year University
Majour: Nutrition(S)(p.50)
"now currently pursuing a science stream at her university"(p.55)
Subject ID: UW7, E1, G1
*inconsistent.
(25) The statements of one person(UW7) in Sim(2020a) were written as the statements of two separate persons(G1 and E1) in sim(2018b). #12
Overall discrepancies in description of the interview survey
Footnote
(1) "Total of nine men and women of UAE nationality were interviewed"(p.49). Nine matches the total of UAE men and women who appeared in sim (2020a). Also, four women with the same ID also appear in the table of the list of persons surveyed on p.115 in Sim (2020a) analyzed in sim(2021c).
(2) "All of the interviewees were GCC national women who were currently or previously enrolled in higher education, out of 24 interviewees, more than half of these interviews were conducted via Skype."(p.104)
(3) The text on p. 59 states that the survey was also conducted in Qatar, but there are no Qatari nationals among the subjects.
(4) "Table 2 Description of respondents"(p.8). Since all the figures add up to 114.8%, it is not possible to calculate the real numbers.
(5) Qatari nationals subject to appear only here.
(6) ”All of the interviewees were GCC national women"(p.104)
(7) "There were also no Qatari women interviewed."(p.114)
(8) Yemen is not included in the six GCC countries. "graduate school student who was born and raised in the UAE"(p.175)
(9) "Total of nine men and women of UAE nationality were interviewed"(p.49). Nine matches the total of UAE men and women who appeared in sim (2020a). Also, four women with the same ID also appear in the table of the list of persons surveyed on P115 in Sim (2020a) analyzed in sim(2021c).
(10) "The interviewees were selected using snowball sampling."(p.104)
(11) "A total of 24 interview participants, 20 GCC national females, one of non-GCC national female and three of GCC national males who responded to a web-flyer requesting interview, later then assisted to generate additional participants."(p.113)
(12) "Moreover, the online survey and the web flyer requesting interviews provided full information about the study."(p79)
(13) "Total of nine men and women of UAE nationality were interviewed using the Snowball Sampling Method."(p.49)
(14) "Interviews conducted in UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain."(p.59)
(15) "A semi-structured interview was conducted between October 2016 to May 2017 in the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait."(p.8)
(16) "semi-structured interviews were conducted from October 2016 to May 2017 in the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait."(p.103)
(17) "during my fieldwork in the UAE" (p.49)
(18) "Of the 24 interviewees used in analysis, 16 were college students, two graduate students and one high school student." (p.113)
(19) "UW1 Female UAE Student: 3-year secondary Literature course" (p.115, Table 4.4)
(20) "However, in this paper, four Emirati women,two each from arts stream and science stream1 , who are currently attending higher education institutions in the UAE, were analyzed."(p.49).
(21) "interviews were with women of GCC nationality, aged 15 years and older in the labor force."(trans)(p.59)
(22) Percentage is supposed to be of 22 females, but calculation is impossible.
(23) (p50, table 2)
UW2 2-year University Public relations(A)
UW6 3-year University Humanity(A)
UW3 3-year University Engineering(S)
UW4 2-year University Nutrition(S)
(24) The statements of the person whose ID is UW4 in Sim(2020a) and Sim(2021) match perfectly. However, status and explanations differ.
-Subject with the ID of UW4 in Sim(2020a)
Current status: Unemployed(searching for a job)
Majour: Psychology(L) (p.115)
"a recent graduate who was in between jobs"(p.166)
-Subject with the ID of UW4 in Sim(2021)
Curent status: 2 year University
Majour: Nutrition(S)(p.50)
"now currently pursuing a science stream at her university"(p.55)
(25) The statements of one person(UW7) in Sim(2020a) were written as the statements of two separate persons(G1 and E1) in sim(2018b). #12
Reference
-
Sim (2017): Sim, Woohyang, (2017), Women's higher education, rethinking its meaning and role - on the subject of women's higher education in the Middle East Gulf countries, 69th Annual Meeting The Japan Society of Educational Sociology, The Abstracts of the Presentations 2017, pp58-59. https://perma.cc/FU4Z-K4PS , https://jses-web.jp/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/summary2017.pdf#page=97
-
Sim (2018a): Sim, Woohyang, (2018), The Functioning of Universities and Gender in the Middle East Gulf Countries: Focusing on Gender Differences in Educational Heat, Purpose of Education, and Value Consciousness. , 70th Annual Meeting The Japan Society of Educational Sociology, The Abstracts of the Presentations 2018, pp257-258. https://perma.cc/E53W-URU7 , https://jses-web.jp/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/summary2018.pdf#page=299
-
Sim (2018b): Sim, Woohyang, (2018), "What is Higher Education for? : A comparative study between United Arab Emirates and other Gulf countries”, Eighth Biannual Gulf Comparative Education Society Symposium, 2018.4.7. https://web.archive.org/web/20220317181838/http://gces.ae/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Woohyang-Sim.pdf
-
Paper A: Sim(2020a): Sim Woohyang, 2020, What is Higher Education for? Educational Aspirations and Career Prospects of Women in the Arab Gulf, pp1-235.(doctoral thesis at Waseda University) date: submitted in Nov 2019, degree conferred in 13 May 2020 https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/500001483409 , https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/11816100/1/1
-
Paper B: Sim(2020b): Sim Woohyang, 2020, For Love, Money and Status, or Personal Growth? A Survey of Young Emirati Women's Educational Aspirations, Gulf Education and Social Policy Review, 1: 73-90. date: received on Thu, 07 Nov 2019, accepted on Wed, 18 Dec 2019, and published on Wed, 29 Jul 2020 https://doi.org/10.18502/gespr.v1i1.7470 , http://web.archive.org/web/20230521083838/https://doi.org/10.18502/gespr.v1i1.7470
-
Paper C: Sim(2021): Sim Woohyang, 2021, Does What You Study Matter? Comparison of Career Aspirations Between Female Students in Arts and Science Streams in the UAE's Higher Educational Institutions, Waseda review of education,35(1): 47-58． date: published in Mar 2021, http://hdl.handle.net/2065/00074735 , http://web.archive.org/web/20230430191413/http://hdl.handle.net/2065/00074735
Concerns on “Ethical Considerations” of Sim(2020a): paper A
This may be minor, but I wanted to know more about the meaning of this “Ethical Considerations” on P105 of Sim(2020a): paper A.
It appears to me that the interview survey asked for personal information of a certain content according to the “Interview Protocol” on pp233-235.
I wonder how the ethical approval was obtained (Could not find the certification number).
I would like to put aside for the moment that the same principal component analysis table is used for different samples in Sim(2020a: 162), Sim(2020b: 81) and Sim(2021: 51) (as pointed out in #1).
More importantly, when comparing the same three PCA table (#1) with the Table 4 in Sim(2018b:10), the principal component analysis appears to be different.
For example, below is the PCA table in Sim(2020b: 81) and Table 4 in Sim(2018b:10).
Why is this?
Both principal component analyses use the same data set (n=1604) and the same variables (the same 9 variables).
Furthermore, Varimax rotation is used in all PCA analyses.
Are there any different options used in the two analyses?
Are these analyses principal component analysis or factor analysis?
Fact-checking of explanations of the GCC countries' educational system in P48 of Sim(2020a)
Can the author kindly tell me from what source you came to that conclusion about the educational system of the GCC in P48 of Sim(2020a)?
A quick fact check should reveal that the GCC countries– Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates –have really various educational systems respectively, not the same educational system as the author described.
Let me supplement #22.
The age of compulsory education in the United Arab Emirates is up to 18 years old. The whole secondary education is compulsory. The law was amended in 2012.
Law on compulsory education
Aiming to bring the compulsory school-leaving age more in line with that of the advanced countries, the UAE Cabinet approved a law in July 2012. This law makes it compulsory for children to start schooling at the age of six and remain in school until they complete Grade 12 or reach the age of 18, whichever occurs first. The law also obligates guardians of children to follow up on their children's commitment and continuity in education in line with the academic calendar set by Ministry of Education.
Concerns on the sources for the "Table 2.7 Structure of K-12 Education in GCC countries" in P49 of Sim(2020a)
The table 2.7 on p. 49 in Sim(2020a), paper A describes the education systems of six GCC countries.
The table says "Source: Ministry of Education of each country, latest year of period available as of June 2018"(circled by a red square).
Could the author please elaborate on these sources?
I would like to check the specific sources.
An actual description of the education system by the Ministry of Education
It is unclear whether the author's descriptions in the table 2.7 match the actual descriptions of the education system by the ministry of educations in each country.
For example, the following is a comparison of the author's description of the United Arab Emirates and a description of the national education system in the two white papers A, B of the Ministry of Education of the United Arab Emirates.
Note that the UAE education system changed in 2018.
However, the author's description does not match either of the education systems before or after that time.
Some of the author's descriptions exactly match the information of commercial websites
The authors' descriptions of some country's education system in the table correspond exactly to the information (text) in some country's description in the education information websites below.
Saudi Arabia (1A, 1B) https://www.saudiarabiaeducation.info/K12/Saudi-Arabia-K-12-Education-System.html
United Arab Emirates (2A, 2B) https://www.uaeeducation.info/education-system
Kuwait (3A, 3B) https://www.kuwaiteducation.info/k12/kuwait-k-12-education-system.html
Qatar (5A, 5B) https://www.qatareducation.info/k12/qatar-k-12-education-system.html
These series of educational information websites called "World Education Network" were created for commercial use by a Indian private software company, Pragati Infosoft Pvt. Ltd.
They contain a series of country-specific educational information produced by this company with no guarantee of content and many inaccuracies.
Examples for Saudi Arabia (1A, 1B) and UAE (2A, 2B) are shown below.
Discussions
With respect to the author's table, some of the relationships can be seen in the figure below.
Can the author please tell the reader more about the source of table 2.7, i.e., the data on which the table is based, to facilitate a detailed understanding of the education system?
Concerns on the source of the table 6.3 in P159 of Sim(2020a)
In addition to the table and text not matching (as noted in #8), I was curious about the source of the data analyzed in the table 6.3 in P159 of Sim(2020a), paper A.
Could the author please provide the specific source of the data?
The table shows General Authority for Statistics (Saudi Arabia) as the source, but I was not sure if GASTAT provides the data to make this table.
I was unable to verify the reproducibility of the author's analysis of the table.
In particular, I focused on the following points.
The data on education provided by GASTAT seemed to be structured differently.
The "fellowship" class in the author's table is not present in the data provided, nor in the questionnaire ,i.e., survey code book.
The GASTAT data is obtained from the a survey conducted by the questionnaire based on "the Saudi Standard Classification of Educational Levels and Specialization" (It can be seen in P26 of ministry of education's material ). There is no "fellowship" in this classification.
To add to this, "fellowship" is a class used mainly in the medical field in Saudi Arabia, and not a general education survey class.
Could the author please check on the data on which the analysis of this table was based?
Note that considering the possibility that the author's table may have misidentified years, I reviewed the following GASTAT data over multiple years; however, I could not find the data used to create the analysis in the table.
https://www.stats.gov.sa/en/903
https://www.stats.gov.sa/en/page/42
An irrelevant text in an irrelevant place
This may be minor.
The text 'government universities"' remains in an irrelevant place (in the green square).
Shouldn't this analysis have included all university students in the survey, including those at private universities?
Why was this text left here?
Sample size inconsistency
This series of studies reportedly had 1604 GCC women as effective respondents.
This is confirmed by the fact that Table 4.2 (as mentioned in #2) on p. 109 of Sim (2020a), paper A provides a breakdown of the data obtained from author's quantitative survey.
Also, #17 covers the sample sizes mentioned in each paper.
While the sample sizes seemed consistent between papers, this new abstract (P20 in the proceeding) describes different sample size.
It states that 1633 respondents were analyzed.
This exceeds the 1604 of whole effective respondents mentioned in the other paper.
Why is this?
Concern on interview sampling method
As "Qualitative sociological researchers have often been criticized on the basis that their data-gathering methods in many instances are not clearly stated and explained" (Biernacki and Waldorf 1981:159), the inconsistency in "sampling method" commented in #19 is of particular concern to me.
Inconsistency of "sampling method" in interview survey posted in #19
I would like to know why sampling methods differ from paper to paper (they should be based on the same survey), even though "snowball sampling" and "web-flyer requesting interviews" are completely different things.
Snowball sampling (so named because the samples grow like a rolling snowball) or chain referral sampling is understood as follows.
In a "snowball sample" each respondent is asked to suggest other persons for inclusion in the research. These persons are then contacted to see if they wish to serve as research participants.
Snowball or chain referral sampling is a method that has been widely used in qualitative sociological research. The method yields a study sample through referrals made among people who share or know of others who possess some characteristics that are of research interest. (Biernacki and Waldorf 1981:141)
Those referred by the subject and those who applied to the web-flyer are different.
I would like to know in detail how the subjects (i.e., interviewees) were sampled.
Could the author show "referral chains of relationships among subjects" or "web-flyer" to clarify the data-gathering methods?
Skype interviews during over a year of fieldwork
The author has reportedly conducted interviews during over a year of fieldwork, as indicated in footnote 17 in #19, "during my fieldwork in the UAE from October 2016 to May 2018" (Sim 2021:Paper C, P49).
It is understandable that snowball sampling is often used in fieldwork.
I note that "most of the interviews were conducted over Skype" (Sim 2020a: Paper A, P104) as indicated in #19, "Face-to-Face or Skype".
Why did the author conduct the interviews not a face-to-face but via Skype during such a long period of fieldwork?
What was this fieldwork like?
Concerns on the total statement frequencies
The following table summarises the total statement frequencies of interviewees shown in table 4.4 on p. 115 (commented on in #3) of the paper A: Sim (2020a): .
The author wrote “Of the 24 interviewees used in analysis” in P113 of the paper A: Sim(2020a) and made the list of interviewees of table 4.4 in P115.
The author insisted that "interviews were conducted . . . in the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait" other than Saudi Arabia (the paper A: Sim(2020a), pp 104-105).
I have visually checked the number of times the interviewees with each subject ID’s data appeared in the paper A: Sim(2020a), so please point out any errors.
The following table shows several things.
-
Not a single statement (data) from the Omani and Bahraini interviewees appeared and was analyzed.
-
Of the 49 statement data made from a total of 22 interviewees, seven UAE men and women accounted for 33 (67.3%) of the data.
-
Sixteen of the 22 interview data were used in the analysis only two times or less, six of them including Omani and Bahraini zero times.
-
Despite the paper A: Sim(2020a) stating that the interviews were conducted also in Qatar and Sim (2018b) stating that Qataris were interviewed (see #19), there were no Qataris in the list of interviewees in Table 4.4 in P115 to begin with.
Note that I excluded two interviewees with the subject ID of KW2, which have the same ID despite different attributes (commented in on #4). Therefore, 22 out of 24 subject IDs were tabulated.
My concerns are below.
What were the interviews like in Bahrain and Oman, for which no data were available?
Is there any raw data available for interviews with people from other countries, in particular 6 people for whom no data were ever used?
What happened to the Qataris who were supposed to be interviewed?
The total statement frequencies counted by subject IDs and by countries
My calculations are below.
| the total statement frequencies | subject IDs of interviewees |
|---|---|
| 0 | KW3, KW5, OW1, BW1, BM1, UM1 |
| 1 | SAW4, KW6 |
| 2 | UW6, UW7, SAW2, SAW3, KW1, KW4, YW1, UM2 |
| 3 | UW5 |
| 4 | SAW1 |
| 5 | UW1, UW3 |
| 6 | UW4 |
| 7 | |
| 8 | UW2 |
According to the notes in the table 4.4 (posted in #3), the meaning of each ID is as follows.
UW (UAE national woman), SAW (Saudi Arabia national woman), KW (Kuwait national woman), OW (Oman national woman), BW (Bahrain national woman), YW (Yemen national woman), BM (Bahrain national man), UM (UAE national man)
Table 4.4 Description of interview participants on P115 of the paper A: Sim (2020a)
Concerns on the duplication of the subject IDs and the total number of interview data
I would like to add a few things about the two subjects whose IDs were KW2 in common, although they had the different attributes (as commented on in #4) in table 4.4(#28) in P115 of paper A: Sim (2020a).
-
The data of KW2's statements were actually shown and analysed three times in the paper. (Does this mean there is at least one person who falls under KW2?)
-
On the other hand, the data of the statement of KW3 was not shown. (zero time)
-
The attributes of KW3 were different from those of the two KW2s. (It is inconsistent to consider one of KW2 as KW3.)
-
The attributes of KW3 and KW4 matched perfectly. (Were they the same person?)
The author claims to have interviewed 24 people and to have recorded them as follows.
Table 4.4 on P50 of the paper A: Sim(2020a), the list of interviewees, has 24 subjects (#3, #28), and P104 states that the interviews were conducted with 24 interviewees and that there are 20 recordings and 4 notes from interviewees (#11).
On the other hand, the author mentioned data destruction (#11).
Could the author please check the interview data of 24 subjects?
Below are P104 and P106 of the paper A: Sim(2020a) cited from #11.
Concerns on the survey conducted periods
This series of studies is very interesting because of the large scale questionnaires (n=1604) and interviews (n=24) conducted. Sociological surveys across the six GCC countries are rare.
Let me discuss the overall survey.
In sociology, as in other areas, data and how data is obtained are important elements of a paper.
The discrepancy in the time period of the interview survey has already been pointed out in #19.
In addition to that, I am interested in the relationship between the time period of the questionnaire survey and the time period of the interview survey.
The survey design of this study had a strict time frame called "sequential explanatory design mixed-methods approach" which was explained on P94 of the paper A: Sim(2020a).
This means that the questionnaire survey was conducted first, followed by the interview survey.
The interview survey was supposed to be conducted later, based on the results of the analysis of the questionnaire survey.
Author's timeframe for the survey: Sequential exploratory design
According to the author's description, the data from the thousand-questionnaire survey was collected from January to October 2016, further analysed, and based on the information from the quantitative analysis, interviews were conducted abroad from October 2016 to May 2017.
The overall timeframe for the questionnaire survey and the interview survey are as follows.
”Quantitative data was obtained through an online survey distributing during the time period of January to October 2016”(the paper A, P95)
"Following the online questionnaire collection and analysis, semi-structured interviews were conducted from October 2016 to May 2017 in the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait." (the papaer A, P103)
Concerns on the timeframe of the surveys’ periods
Thousands of survey forms consisting of over a dozen questions were collected through October 2016. The raw quantitative data was immediately data cleaned and analyzed, and the results were used to start interviews in October 2016.
The dates and times of the individual interviews were not mentioned, could the author please provide the reader with the dates and times of each interview?
Typology of combinations of questionnaire survey and interview survey
For clarity, the following is a typology of the mixed-methods approach.
Questionnaire survey first, followed by interview survey (Research claimed to have been carried out by the author);
The definition of Sequential "Explanatory" Design is that the interview survey is conducted first, and the questionnaire survey is conducted later, based on the analysis of the interview survey.
Interview survey first, followed by questionnaire survey;
The definition of Sequential "Exploratory" Design is that the questionnaire survey is conducted first, and the interview survey is conducted later, based on the results of the analysis of the questionnaire survey.
Questionnaire survey and interview survey at the same time;
"Concurrent Triangulation Design" is defined as a design in which the questionnaire survey and the interview survey are conducted at the same time.
Concerns on the reason for using Skype and the locations of the interviews
To supplement #27: "Skype interviews during over a year of fieldwork".
From pp. 103-104 of the paper A: Sim (2020a) and some other articles commented on in #19, interviews were conducted in the five GCC countries (i.e., the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait), with the exception of Saudi Arabia.
-
In the case of Saudi Arabia, interviews were conducted via Skype due to the travel restrictions.
-
In the other five GCC countries, most of the interviews were conducted via Skype for ethical reasons.
I would like to know more about the latter reasons to gain a better understanding of the society being analysed in gender perspective.
Gender is involved in the central research question of this set of studies.
Are these societies in which face-to-face conversations between people of the same gender are also restricted during more than a year of field work?
What is meant by "interviews were conducted ... in the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait" on p103 of the paper A: Sim (2020a) and on elsewhere in other papers (#19).
Note that this survey was done before covid19.
pp 103-104 of the paper A: Sim (2020a)
Concerns on sampling method: snowball sampling or web-flyer requesting interview
The author described the interviewees as follows.
A total of 24 interview participants, 20 GCC national females, one of non-GCC national female and three of GCC national males who responded to a web-flyer requesting interview, later then assisted to generate additional participants.
(the paper A: Sim 2020a, P113) marked in yellow in the following image
So what the author did was to conduct interviews with “a total of 24 interview participants” “who responded to a web-flyer requesting interview”, right?
The meaning of “later then assisted to generate additional participants” is snowball sampling, right?
So, what did it mean by snowball sampling mentioned in each paper?
Further concerns on the qualitative study
1. Snowball sampling without identifiable private information of the subjects
It was unclear what was meant by not collecting personal data in interviews (commented on in #20).
What concerns me further is that subjects were collected through snowball sampling (i.e. referrals), yet it was stated in the paper A that no identifiable private information of the subjects was collected(#20).
How could referrals be made without identifiable private information?
2. Gender breakdown inconsistencies
Gender breakdown inconsistencies are already shown in #19.
Furthermore, in P104 of the paper A: Sim(2020a) the author wrote “All of the interviewees were GCC national women”. On the other hand, P113 mentions non-GCC nationals and men.
Why is there an inconsistency in this respect as well?
What was the qualitative research part of this study like in the end?
There seem to be several inconsistencies in the interview data itself (commented on in #3, #12 and #29).
The descriptions of the interview survey differ in several ways (comprehensively commented on in #19, specifically commented on in #4, #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32).
Furthermore, P113 of the paper A: Sim 2020a mentions that no identifiable private information was collected (#20) and data was destroyed (#11).
Finally, what was this qualitative study like?
It would be very welcome if the author could explain how the fieldwork and interviews were conducted.
- through what kind of snowball sampling (#19, #27, #31, #32)
- with what number of subjects (#19, #28, #4, #29)
- with what attributes of gender, nationality, educational background, current status (#19, #28, #32)
- in which countries (#19, #28, #29)
- during what period of time (#19, #30)
- why using Skype in most cases despite a fieldwork for over a year (#19, #31)
- how not to collect any identifiable private information and how the ethical approval was obtained (#20)
- why carried out the data destruction (#11)
Concerns on snapshots of the questionnaire in paper A: Sim(2020a)
My concern is on relationship between the questionnaire used in the quantitative survey and the data used in the analysis.
The whole questionnaire was posted on in #18.
A translation of the content of the questionnaire from Arabic to English is given in #15.
The questionnaire used in the quantitative survey for a number of authors' studies was shown in the Appendix A of Sim(2020a: 214-232): paper A.
This is a snapshot of the online survey's screen of SurveyMonkey, the online survey service chosen by the author for this study(Sim 2020a: 99)
Why did the following occur?
The unnatural shape of the section break after Q30 on P227
The Grey line above Q35 on P230
Misalignment between Q31 and Q32 on P228
Language discrepancies in P214 and P232
Cutting and pasting objects in the PDF of Paper A
I have checked the archived PDF of Paper A at the National Diet Library.
Photocopy was received by post(thanks to #7), but PDF had to be seen in person.
Anyone can check the archived PDF by going to the NDL.
The images given here were scanned printouts of the PDF.
However, the questionnaire in the archived PDF of Paper A were all made digitally; snapshots were digitally cut and pasted.
The concerns raised above about the "section break", "grey line" and "misalignment" seen in the questionnaire relate to the way objects were created in the PDF of Paper A.
Each image on each page of the paper A's questionnaire mentioned above consists of several objects that have been cut and pasted together.
Below is an illustration of how objects were cut and pasted in the questionnaire page of the PDF of Paper A.
Why was this necessary instead of pasting the screenshots of the questionnaire directly onto the page?
Could the author share the original pages of the questionnaire of the survey monkey's website (possibly in html or pdf format)?
Further discussion on quantative data
My main concern is as follows.
What is the relationship between the questionnaire included by the author in Appendix A of Paper A and the data used in the analyses in the study series?
Some concerns have been raised about the data analysed and the questionnaire (e.g. #13, #14, #15, #16, #17).
- The questionnaire asked on a 4-point scale, but the data is on a 5-point scale. #13
- Hundreds of high school students are included in the data. #14
- What is not asked in the questionnaire is analysed. #15
- The questionnaire consists of questions about studies, grades and life "at university" that high school students cannot answer. #15
- The content of the questionnaire and the explanation of its structure changed each time. #16
Concerns on the sources for the "Table 2.11 First university and total number of universities in the GCC" on p.58 of the Paper A: Sim(2020a)
The concerns raised in #24(table 2.7 on p. 49) and #25(the table 6.3 on p. 159) on the source of the data are very interesting.
I have checked the the Table 2.11 on p. 58 of Paper A: Sim(2020a) in the same way.
The Table 2.11 says "Source: the Ministry of Education of each country and the website of each university" (circled in red).
What is written in Table 2.11 does not correspond to the stated source and is inaccurate or different from the historical fact.
Could the author please clarify these sources?
Four of "the website of each university" does not correspond to the author's table of "the establishment date of the first university"**
- University of Bahrain (1968)
The University of Bahrain did not exist in 1968.
- Qatar University (1973)
Qatar University did not exist in 1973.
- King Saud University (1957)
King Saud University is not the first higher education institution in Saudi Arabia.
- United Arab Emirates University (1976)
United Arab Emirates University is not the first higher education institution in the UAE.
The former two of "the website of each university" does not corresponds to the authour's table of "the establishment date of the First University"
- University of Bahrain (1968)
The University of Bahrain did not exist in 1968.
The university was established in 1986(according to the university's website ) through the merger of two predecessor institutions. 1968 refers to one of the predecessor institutions.
- Qatar University (1973)
Qatar University did not exist in 1973.
The university was established in 1977(according to the university's website). 1973 is related to the predecessor institution.
The later two of the establishment date of the "First University" are incorrect
- King Saud University (1957)
Umm Al-Qura University is the the first higher education institution, formerly a college later a university, in Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi Ministry of Education also publishes a list of public universities and the year they were founded, with King Saud University being the third oldest.
- United Arab Emirates University (1976)
Another higher education institution in the UAE, the Zayed II Military College, was founded in 1972.
If non-university higher education institutions are to be included in the author's table, as may be the case in Bahrain and Qatar, this college was established earlier than the United Arab Emirates University.
Concern on the reproducibility of the Total number of university and college
How was the "Total number of universities and colleges"(circled in green) derived from the indicated sources?
Considering the case of Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Ministry of Education provides " University Education Statistics" and lists of state universities, private universities and colleges, and technical colleges.
It is no clear that the data in the author's table can be formulated from the data of the Saudi Ministry of Education and from the data of other countries.
Could the author please tell me how the data is tabulated, including universities not in Saudi Arabia?
Also, since the paper was submitted in 2019, why is the data from the official statistics of 2015 used?
Unnatural "*" in the table.
KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and UAE (United Arab Emirates) are marked with an asterisk "*" (circled in blue).
The asterisks are not explained in the table or in the text.
Where did this asterisk come from?
Can the author explain the source of the data "Source: the Ministry of Education of each country and the website of each university"?
Altered from the original chart and changed definition of labour force in Paper A: Sim(2020a)
The author argues that women in GCC countries are not working despite their willingness to work. The concept of the labour force population is used before this conclusion.
The classification of the labour force or not labour force population is a classification of economically active or inactive, not a classifier of willingness to work or not.
An original chart from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta discussing willingness to work has been rewritten by the author and made into the author's Figure 3.3 as an unnatural labour force chart.
The labour force data of the GCC countries (table 3.4) used by the author does not mention willingness to work or not.
Thus, the author's Figure 3.3 and Table 3.4 contradict each other.
Also, the alteration failed in the author's Figure 3.3 and there is also a contradiction within Figure 3.3.
The author provides in the figure 3.3 an explanation of the labour force as a concept used in the following analysis.
However, the author's figure 3.3 "Labor force status map" on P74 of the paper A: Sim(2020a) does not make sense because of the change from the original chart.
The figure 3.3 is sourced from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, but has been altered from the original chart (circled in red).
As a result of the change, the figure 3.3 does not make sense and apparently causes contradiction(green arrow).
"Not in labour force but wants a job" (underlined in blue) is placed below "Labour force economically active" (circled in red circle on the left), which doesn’t make sense.
Actually, author's figure 3.3 does not explain the definition of labor force.
"Want a job" and "don't want a job" do not equate to "in labor force" and "not in labor force".
"Want a job" can be included both in labour force and not in labour force.
This is clear from the presence of "Not in labour force but wants a job" in the original chart, and the fact that such statistics do exist.
The original chart simply explains the classification of the population of "Want a job" and "Don't Want a Job", and labour utilization. This original chart was prepared to explain a "Zpop ratio", a new measure introduced by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. This is not a definition of labour force as the source states Zpop ratio is different from labour force.
The author has created Figure 3.3 by swapping this original chart to make it look like a labour force population chart and the definition of the labour force is switched.
Why did the author altered the original chart?
The author discusses women's willingness to work in the GCC countries using the switched concept of the labour force, which is an important assumption of this paper.
Texts marked with yellow marker do not make sense.
To analyse women's willingness to work in the GCC countries, the author uses labour force data instead of data on willingness to work.
Why was the original chart on the willingness to work altered into the author's unnatural labour force chart?
It would be great to hear from the author.
Another altered chart, Figure 2 in P78 of paper B: Sim(2020b)
The same changes as in #36 has made to the original chart to make Figure 2 In P78 of Paper B: Sim(2020b) as an unnatural labor force chart.
This is not a labour force either.
Misuses of the “public domain” in Paper B: Sim(2020b)
This may be minor.
Of further interest is that the Figure 2 is labelled "In the public domain" (circled in blue).
The Public domain (i.e. CC0) refers to the state of being free from copyright and other intellectual property rights.
The original chart from which the author's Figure 2 was reproduced is copyrighted and not in the public domain.
In fact proper citation will not cause problems. However, it is not fair to claim in one’s article that someone else's work is in the public domain.
It causes a false understanding of the intellectual property rights of others.
Other charts within Paper B: Sim(2020b) have the same problem.
In addition to Figure 2, Table 1 and Figure 1 also mention "In the public domain".
As these charts are not in the public domain, this author's labels in Paper B: Sim(2020b) are a statement that should be corrected.
Note: license policy for the date used for the Figure 2, the Table 1 and Figure 1 of Paper B: Sim(2020b) are stated here, here and here by the rights holders . They are not in the public domain.
Why did the author declare the public domain for the intellectual property of others?
The GESPR journal, in which Paper B: Sim(2020b) was published, is a peer-reviewed journal. As this issue is a rights issue rather than a research content, it seems that the journal should deal with the issue appropriately.
New presentations
The author (沈雨香: Dr Woohyang Chloe Sim, 早稻田大學: Waseda University) has recently made presentations as described below.
On the other hand, the author stated in the interview with Retraction Watch, as commented on in #9, that the study was incorrect.
It is considered a scientific attitude and commendable for researchers to admit mistakes. I really appreciate the author. I respect the author's acknowledgement of his mistake and his willingness to take this research further.
It would be good for the development of science if the author continues with new publications and explains what exactly is wrong and where he is correcting it.
Can the author please clarify the relationship between the new presentations and the previous study and what has been revised? Especially the latter, because it was in Japanese, I could not understand the content very well.
The followings are the two new presentations the author made after making the comment described in #9.
Higher Education and Women in the State of Qatar by Woohyang Sim
On Session VIII-17 (A Gender Perspective on Secularization and Modernization) On Saturday, November 4 at 11:00 am, Archived 2023 The Middle East Studies Association's 57th annual meeting
Higher Education and Women in the State of Qatar by Woohyang Sim
The modern school system is one of the most firmly rooted western-imported institutions in the Arab world. In particular, the Gulf countries have been investing heavily in the expansion and development of western-style modern school education system, especially higher education directly related to labor market. As a result, higher education institutions in the Gulf countries are now the most modern places in these countries including facilities, faculties, subjects, and norms. Interestingly, the Arab Gulf women's successes are most pronounced in education. Qatar, in particular, has the largest gap in the tertiary education enrollment rate favoring women over men, with over 63% for women compared to 11% for men, according to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2021. This presentation explores how this modern higher education system was successfully implemented, adapting to Qatari society, and how Qatari people perceive and value higher education. In particular, this paper will use statistical data from Qatar University and the results of questionnaire survey on Qataris perceptions of education. It aims to explore how modernization takes root in this country, using women’s representation in higher education as a lens.
附属校出身の学生はなぜ「引け目」を持つのか ―学生インタビューによる検討― 〇武藤浩子（早稲田大学）〇沈雨香（早稲田大学）木村康彦（千葉大学） 山本桃子（東京国立博物館）藤本啓寛（早稲田大学）濱中淳子（早稲田大学）吉田文（早稲田大学）, 日本教育社會學學會 第75屆, The 75th JSES Annual Meeting, 2023 年 9 月 9 日（星期六） 10 日（星期日）
According to the author's affliation Waseda University, "沈雨香" appears to be the Chinese character form of Dr Woohyang Chloe Sim. Furthermore, according to records by the National Diet Library commented on in #7, both appear to be the same person from Waseda University. Therefore, the following presentation was given in Japanese by the same author.
A machine translation of this presentation (PDF link below can be used) shows that it is an interview survey of university students from the perspective of career paths, which appears to be a previous study and research.
Paper A, i.e. the doctoral dissertation: Sim(2020a)
Paper A, i.e. the doctoral dissertation, can be read here.
This doctoral dissertation: Sim(2020a) is the central achievement of the author's series of studies, which can be read to properly examine and discuss a series of concerns. It is considered the most important literature.
DL
[Moderator: do you have a specific reason to link to the thesis?]
#39 (Dear Moderator)
Paper A: Sim(2020a): Sim, Woohyang. (2020a). What is Higher Education for? Educational Aspirations and Career Prospects of Women in the Arab Gulf. pp1-235.(Publication No. Kou6108)[Doctoral dissertation, Waseda University]. date: submitted in Nov 2019, degree confirmed in 13 May 2020, Reference, File
Comments referring to Sim(2020a): paper A
The paper A (i.e. Waseda University Ph.D. thesis or Sim2020a) was referred to in the following 35 comments so far. Most of the comments discussed this Ph.D. thesis, as it is the centrepiece of the author's series of studies.
#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36
Unnatural average in Sim(2020a): paper A
I would also like to add my concern on the author's series of studies. Here is table 6.5 on page 155 of paper A.
The overall mean does not lie in the middle between the means of the respective groups (circled in red). For example, the overall mean (AVG.) of the "GCC female total" is 18.87. However, the means of the "Literature stream" and the "Scientific stream" are 18.83 and 18.85 respectively. Therefore, the overall mean is not in the middle of the means of the respective groups. This problem also arises for "KSA female" and "UAE female". Is the treatment of missing values incorrect? Why has this come about?
There is a great deal of interest in how the work has been assessed by the examiners and judged to be worthy of a PhD, as evidenced by the comments submitted so far.
Press coverage of this case: MyNewsJapan 2023/12/05
Following the coverage of the case by Retraction Watch on /2023/05/18 #9, a Japanese news site continues to report on the matter.
Specific details about the theses are given in the source. The information provided by the source should be carefully considered in considerable detail.
Source: MyNewsJapan, 2023/12/05 12:24
The following is a machine translation of part of the report.
Research Misconduct at Waseda University. Graduate School of Education, Assistant Professor Sim Woohyang's doctoral dissertation full of allegations was awarded a degree. Collusion with her supervisor and thesis examiner, Professor Aya Yoshida?
Katuhisa Miyake 2023/12/05 12:24
Questions of fairness have been raised over the dissertation of Assistant Professor Woohyang Sim (Education), who is affiliated with Waseda University's School of International Studies and is participating as a researcher in a joint research project between the university and Qatar University, for which she received her doctoral degree in 2020. The main theme of the thesis, the tabulation and analysis table of the questionnaire survey, was found to be questionable in terms of fairness, as it closely resembled the table of another thesis written on a different theme with different content. Similar questions were found in other parts of the paper, and could easily have been detected even without specialist knowledge, but for some reason there was no indication that this had been an issue during the paper's review. The person responsible for the review was Professor Aya Yoshida, Sim's supervisor. She is a "major figure in the humanities" who has served as president of the Japan Society of Educational Sociology and is currently chairman of the Science Council of Japan. Professor Yoshida is believed to have been in close contact with Sim for about 10 years since she was an undergraduate student, and it is believed that the sloppy review of his thesis was carried out against the backdrop of a familiar relationship between teacher and student.
Digest.
Table of allegations.
'One country survey' and 'six countries survey' with same results?
Also inconsistent with the table in the paper published in 2021.
Coincidence or fabrication?
One person's statement is two people's statement?
Why the doctoral dissertation in question has not been published online?
Why the dissertation review did not look through a number of questions
University refuses to be interviewed, perhaps under investigation for research misconduct
Table of allegations
The suspected dissertation misconduct is attributed to Assistant Professor Sim Woohyang of Waseda University's School of International Studies. She is also a researcher sent on behalf of Waseda University to the Qatar Chair, a research project set up in collaboration between Qatar University and Waseda University (planned for 10 years from 2019).
According to Waseda University's website, the project's budget amounts to USD 13 million (approximately USD 2 billion at the current rate), with both universities putting up USD 6.5 million each.
Sim became an assistant professor in April 2021. According to Waseda University regulations, applicants for assistant professor positions must have a doctoral degree, and Sim received her doctoral degree in 2020, the year before.
Her dissertation - "What is higher education for? Educational aspirations and career prospects of women in the Middle East Gulf" . Allegations of misconduct surrounding this 'doctoral thesis' are the subject of this report.
Press coverage of this case: Yomiuri Shimbun 2023/12/08
The Japanese newspaper, Yomiuri Shimbun, has also reported on this case.
Source: The Yomiuri Shimbun, 2023/12/08 15:00
Some of the newspaper report is written out below(machine translation). Specific details about the theses are given in the source. The information provided by sources should be carefully considered in considerable detail.
Waseda University assistant professor, falsified doctoral dissertation and other misconduct ... principal researcher in a joint project with Qatar University.
2023/12/08 15:00
On 8 December, an interview with a person concerned revealed that there had been misconduct, including falsification, in a doctoral thesis written by a female assistant professor in the School of International Liberal Studies at Waseda University.
Two other theses were also found to have been falsified or self-plagiarised. The Academic Research Ethics Committee of Waseda University pointed out that this could not have happened if basic precautions had been taken. On the other hand, she was a graduate student at the time of writing, and the committee added that "it must be said that a heavier responsibility (than that of the female assistant professor) is imposed" on her supervisor and the degree review system.
In 2019, Waseda University began a 10-year joint project with Qatar University to deepen understanding of the Islamic region, providing services and facilities worth USD 6.5 million (approximately JPY 930 million). Two Qatar University faculty members and this female assistant professor are key members of the project.
https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/kyoiku/kyoiku/news/20231208-OYT1T50137/
The "PhD Thesis Evaluation Report" (i.e. Yoshida et al. 2020) on Dr Sim's PhD thesis (i.e. Paper A: Sim 2020a)
The "PhD Thesis Evaluation Report" (i.e. Yoshida et al. 2020) for Dr Sim's PhD thesis (i.e. Paper A: Sim 2020a) #39 is provided here and the English version can be found at:
Above, Yoshida et al. (2020) evaluated Dr Sim Woohyang's doctoral dissertation(i.e. Paper A: Sim 2020a), and explained the contents of the survey for her series of studies discussed here.
Professor Yoshida, Aya appears to be the supervisor and the examiner of Dr Sim, Woohyang.
A comparison of the "PhD Thesis Evaluation Report" (i.e. Yoshida et al. 2020) with Dr Sim's series of studies provides a deeper insight into the concerns raised on her research.
I will contribute some of what I have learnt by comparing the Yoshida et al. (2020) and the Ph.D. thesis of Dr Sim.
The age of the respondents in the questionnaire survey differs between in Yoshida et al. (2020) and in Sim (2020a): PaperA.
The age of respondents in Dr Sim's questionnaire survey differs between in Yoshida et al. (2020) and in the doctoral thesis(Sim 2020a).
According to Yoshida et al. (2020), the age of the respondents is between 15 and 30 years, whereas according to PaperA: Sim (2020a), it is 15 years and older (in fact, there are respondents aged 36 and older).
Which is correct?
This issue is of further interest.
As noted in #17, in Sim (2018a, p. 259) the age of the respondent in some cases was 15-61 and in Sim(2018b, p.8) it was 15-47.
Why do the judge (supervisor) and the author say different things and which is correct?
The survey period of the interview differs between in Yoshida et al. (2020), in Sim (2020a): Paper A and in Sim (2021): Paper C.
Concerns about the content of the interview survey were noted in #19, #4, #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32, #32, etc.
The survey period of the interview differs between in PhD Thesis Evaluation Report (Yoshida et al. 2020) and in the Dr Sim's doctoral thesis(Sim 2020a: Paper A).
According to Yoshida et al. (2020), the period of the interview survery was between January 2016 and May 2017, whereas according to Sim (2020a): PaperA, it was October 2016 to May 2017.
Which is correct?
This issue is of further interest.
As mentioned in #19, In Sim (2021): Paper C the interview survey period was October 2016 - May 2018.
Thus, the period of the interview surveys differs from one to the other.
To add to this issue, as mentioned in #30, in Dr Sim's study, setting a strict survey period for the questionnaires and interviews should have been important in terms of research design. If the period of the survey changes, the meaning of the entire study should change. The survey period for this study should be important.
Why do the reviewer (supervisor) i.e. Dr Yoshida and the author i.e. Dr Sim say different things and which is correct?
The description of the number of university students in the UAE differs between in the PhD Thesis Evaluation Report, i.e. Yoshida et al. (2020) and in the doctoral dissertation, i.e. Sim (2020a) or Paper A
The first paragraph of P5 in the "PhD Thesis Evaluation Report" (Yoshida et al. 2020) states that there are 11,166 male and 31,962 female students in higher education institutions in the UAE, for a total of 43,128 students.
Yoshida et al. (2020) may be contrary to the facts: there are hundreds of thousands of university students in the UAE, nearly 300,000 by 2019 and over 150,000 even in 2016. This is easily confirmed by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, and the number of university students is also reported by GULF NEWS.
To begin with, the UAE is a country with a population of around 9 million and a high university enrolment rate, as claimed in the paper. The explanation by Yoshida et al. (2020) that there are only tens of thousands of university students, and the entire paragraph that follows, is necessary to be verified.
It is noteworthy that Sim (2020a), i.e. PaperA or her doctoral dissertation, gives a different explanation for this than Yoshida et al. (2020);
Yoshida et al. (2020) discuss the number of university students in the UAE as a whole, while Sim (2020a), seems to limit its discussion to government universities among UAE university students.
Why do the reviewer (supervisor) i.e. Dr Yoshida and the author i.e. Dr Sim say different things and which is correct?
I don't know why Dr Yoshida and Dr Sim say different things. My guess is that Sim (2020a), i.e. Paper A may be correct, not Yoshida et al. (2020), although I could not find the specific source of the data used by Sim (2020a), i.e. PaperA to verify this.
Dr Yoshida and Dr Sim, could you please provide a specific source for this table?
The number of questions in the questionnaire differs between in the PhD Thesis Evaluation Report, i.e. Yoshida et al. (2020) and in the doctoral dissertation, i.e. Sim (2020a) or Paper A
Concerns on the questionnairey for Dr Sim's quantitative survey were noted in #15, #16, #34, etc.
The number of questions in the questionnaire differs between in PhD Thesis Evaluation Report (Yoshida et al. 2020) and in the Dr Sim's doctoral thesis(Sim 2020a: Paper A).
The number of questions of which the questionnaire is composed is 41 according to Yoshida et al. (2020, P6, Paragraph 4), but 33 according to Sim (2020a, P99).
Which is correct?
This issue is of further interest.
As noted in #17, the number of questions, the number of parts and the content of the parts in the questionnaire vary significantly from paper to paper.
The table below is extracted from the table in #17, only the parts related to questionnaire inconsistencies, with the addition of Yoshida et al. (2020). See #17 for the original full table, including notes.
| Papers and mainly mentioning pages | The number of Questions | The number of parts | Name of parts | Question No. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sim(2018a, p.259) | 34 | Inconsistent⁽⁴⁾ | ||
| Sim(2018b, p.8) | 4⁽¹⁾ | Inconsistent⁽¹⁾ | ||
| Sim(2020a, p.214-232) Questionnaire | 41 | 5 | Inconsistent⁽²⁾ | Inconsistent⁽⁵⁾ |
| Sim(2020a, p.95-103) Body | 33 | 4 | Inconsistent⁽³⁾ | |
| Yoshida et al.(2020, p.6) | 41 |
Even in terms of the number of questions, the number of questions is explained differently, sometimes 33, sometimes 34, sometimes 41.
Why do the reviewer (supervisor) i.e. Dr Yoshida and the author i.e. Dr Sim say different things and which is correct?
Why did the reviewer (supervisor) not mention this, even though there are many different explanations in the questionnaire? How did the reviewer (supervisor) describe the number of questions as 41, when the number of questions is explained differently even in the doctoral dissertation?
The breakdown of the interviewees differs between in the PhD Thesis Evaluation Report, i.e. Yoshida et al. (2020) and in the doctoral dissertation, i.e. Sim (2020a) or Paper A
Dr Sim states in her doctoral dissertation(Sim 2020a: Paper A) that she conducted interviews, but various concerns have been raised about the interviews (e.g. #19 and #33).
The PhD Thesis Evaluation Report (Yoshida et al. 2020) and Dr Sim's doctoral thesis(Sim 2020a: Paper A) are still inconsistent.
According to Yoshida et al. (2020, P6, Paragraph 3), the 24 interviewees varied to include men and non-GCC nationalities, while according to Sim (2020a, P104), 24 were all women of GCC nationality.
How come?
This issue is of further interest.
As already noted in #19 above, the attributes of the subjects in Dr Sim's interview survey vary considerably in their description; the total number of subjects changes from 22 to 24, the gender breakdown changes from all women to men included (with varying numbers of them), and the nationalities also change. Moreover, there are even subjects with different attributes of overlapping ID in the doctoral thesis (#29).
Why do the reviewer (supervisor), i.e. Dr Yoshida, and the author, i.e. Dr Sim, say different things and which is correct?
Why did the reviewer (supervisor) not mention this, when there are many different explanations for the interviewees? How did the reviewer (supervisor) describe the breakdown of interviewees when there are different explanations for the the interviewees and the interviewees with the overlapping ID appear even in the doctoral dissertation?
Unnatural numbers and misused definitions of labor force in the PhD Thesis Evaluation Report, i.e. Yoshida, Aya et al. (2020) and in the doctoral dissertation, i.e. Sim (2020a) or Paper A
Three Concerns on labor force. I am concerned about how the doctoral dissertation review was conducted.
1. Contradictory content of Yoshida, Aya et al. (2020)
The following two paragraphs from the PhD Thesis Evaluation Report (Yoshida, Aya et al., 2020) for Dr. Sim's doctoral dissertation (Sim, 2020a) appear to be contradictory.
Why don't women participate in the labor market? The analysis of the data shows, first of all, that these women are highly motivated to work after completing their higher education, and they are also very confident in their ability to achieve this goal. (Yoshida et al., 2020, p6, paragraph 5; emphasis added)
With regard to labor participation, the unemployment rate in the sense of job-seeking unemployment, i.e., those who want to work but are unable to do so, is around 5% at most, and there does not seem to be any structural obstacle that prevents people from enabling [sic] the labor. However, in all GCC countries, there are more girls who are not willing to work than those who are working, with a ratio of 1:2. (Yoshida et al., 2020, p5, paragraph 2; emphasis added)
If read literally, taking into account the high percentage of women going to university as written in the paper, "Women are highly motivated to work" in the first paragraph contradicts the statement that there are more girls who are not willing to work in the second paragraph.
2. The discussion of Yoshida et al. (2020) is based on the table with unnatural numbers in Sim (2020a).
The second paragraph above from Yoshida et al. (2020) is a summary of table 3.4 on p. 75 of Dr. Sim's doctoral dissertation (Sim, 2020a, the table pointed out in #36), which shows the ratio of "Employed(I)", "Unemployed(II)" and "Out of Labor Force(III)". Dr. Yoshida wrote the second paragraph by comparing the persentages of I and III for women in each country.
By definition, sum of the "Employed(I)", "Unemployed(II)" and "Out of Labor Force(III)" must be 100%. 100% minus the percentage of the "Labor Force"(i.e., sum of the "Employed(I)" and "Unemployed(II)") is the percentage of the "Out of Labor Force". In other words, "Out of Labor Force" is a residual concept.
In Dr. Sim's Table 3.4, the percentage of the "Labor Force" (sum of column I + II) plus the percentage of the "Out of Labor Force" (column III) exceeds 100% (shown in the additional new column highlighted in red).
Also, the amount exceeding 100% (the white figure in the additional new column) is exactly the same as the figure for "Unemployed" (column II).
Could the author please check the source?
3. The concept of labor force is misused in Yoshida et al. (2020).
To begin with, according to the definition of labor force (the definition of labor force is given later in the appendix), the concept of labor force does not classify labor's willingness to work . Statistics on labor force do not indicate the willingness of workers to work.
The following errors are found in Dr Yoshida's disucussion. The classifications of willingness to work such as "Want a job" and "don't want a job" are not the same as the classifications of "in labor force" and "out of labor force". "Want a job" can be included both "in labor force" and "out of labor force". For example, those who have a disability or long-term illness and are unable to work are classified as "out of labor force" even if they are willing to work. Dr. Yoshida's discussion of the women's willingness to work in the GCC countries missuses the concept of labor force.
Therefore, I am also concerned about the description in the second paragraph below (Yoshida et al., 2020, p6, paragraph 5; emphasis added) about labor force.
With regard to labor participation, the unemployment rate in the sense of job-seeking unemployment, i.e., those who want to work but are unable to do so, is around 5% at most, and there does not seem to be any structural obstacle that prevents people from enabling [sic] the labor. However, in all GCC countries, there are more girls who are not willing to work than those who are working, with a ratio of 1:2. (Yoshida et al., 2020, p5, paragraph 2; emphasis added; repeated)
Even if Dr.Sim's table 3.4 is indeed correct (although, as noted above, the numbers are probably wrong), this table quite literally shows that the ratio of women "Employed" to those "Out of Labor Force" is 1:2. It does not show "there are more girls who are not willing to work than those who are working, with a ratio of 1:2," as Dr. Yoshida explains.
Put differently, Dr. Sim did not present in her doctoral dissertation the kind of data that Dr. Yoshida refers to.
In the first place, it is strange to compare "(who are) not willing to work" with "who are working". The opposite of "working" is "not working. The opposite of "willing to work" is "not willing to work. In Professor Yoshida's explanation, such understandings of the statistics are strange to begin with, since the categories being compared are not mutually exclusive, but overlapping.
This argument is the basic premise of Dr. Sim's series of studies on the GCC society and is relevant to the research topic of Dr. Sim's dissertation. It seems to me that it needs careful consideration.
Appendix: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of labor force
The concept of labor force is an economic indicator, not a concept for the purposes used by the author.
For clarity, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of labor force is provided below. As you can see, labor force and out of labor force are not simply classified based solely on the will of the worker, and out of labor force includes those who want to work.
The source of the figures below is from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of labor force.
Press coverage of this case: MyNewsJapan 2023/12/28
A Japanese news site continues to report on the matter.
Related press coverage articles were posted in #41, #42, #9.
Specific details about the report are given in the source. The information provided by the source should be carefully considered in considerable detail.
Source: MyNewsJapan, 2023/12/28 13:56 , Archived.
The following is a machine translation of part of the report.
MIYAKE,Katuhisa, MyNewsJapan 2023/12/28 13:56
The Academic Research Ethics Committee of Waseda University conducted an investigation into allegations of fraud in a doctoral dissertation at the Graduate School of Education of Waseda University. The author, Assistant Professor Woohyang Sim, is currently on the faculty of the School of International Liberal Studies at Waseda University. The final report found that the most serious type of research misconduct, "specific fraud" (falsification), as defined by the MEXT Guidelines (Guidelines for Dealing with Misconduct in Research Activities). The final report, which was submitted to the president of the university on November 28, 2023, acknowledged the misuse of research funds. The author confirmed this report, but Waseda University continued to give false explanations such as "under investigation" in response to interviews for more than a month.
Digest
Yomiuri Shimbun's follow-up article
"Under investigation" was a lie
Obtained the investigation report
Doctoral dissertation full of falsehoods
Interviews also falsified
Out of "24 people" surveyed, only "7" had original data
Customary practice of giving gifts worth tens of thousands of dollars to the supervisor?
Customary practice of giving gifts worth tens of thousands of dollars to the supervisor?
What is difficult to understand is the attitude of the university. Why doesn't the university publicize the "fraud recognition"? Not only does the university not disclose it, but it lies about it, saying that it is "under investigation."
It is possible that this is due to the problem at Waseda University of how to avoid responsibility of supervisor, Prof. Yoshida Aya. It should be obvious to anyone that Professor Yoshida is responsible for having Dr. Sim's flawed dissertation full of problems submitted as a doctoral thesis and having it examined and awarded a degree. In fact, the investigative report also points out in a harsh tone the following:
Considering that the subject of the investigation was a graduate student at the time and in a position to receive instruction, it is inevitable that the subject of the investigation lacked knowledge of basic social research techniques. Therefore, it must be said that the supervisor who was in a position to guide the subject of the investigation and the degree review system of the graduate school in question are more responsible than the subject of the investigation.
(From the investigation report)
Professor Yoshida holds the important position of the president of the first section of the Science Council of Japan. She is, so to speak, a "representative scholar in the humanities." Is it possible that the university is stalling for time and devising a plan to avoid extending its responsibility to Professor Yoshida?
While I was thinking about this, I obtained a few photos. They seem to have been posted on Facebook and circulated widely. Dr. Sim is handing a gift to Professor Yoshida at what appears to be a restaurant. Professor Yoshida accepts the gift with a big smile on her face. The gift appears to be a bag from the popular brand Longchamp. According to the official website, the price is around 10,000 to 20,000 yen. It is not an expensive brand that costs hundreds of thousands or millions of yen, but it seems strange that a student would give a gift worth tens of thousands of yen to a faculty member. If such a practice exists, it would be unhealthy.
Professor Yoshida Aya (left) receives a gift of a branded bag from Dr. Sim.
For reference, the Waseda University service regulations stipulate the following
Article 9. Faculty members shall not, without just cause, take advantage of their positions in the course of their duties to receive benefits in the form of money, goods, or other gifts on their own behalf.
One wonders whether Professor Yoshida's act of "accepting a brand name bag" does not violate the service regulations. Furthermore, if there was collusion through the exchange of such things as money, goods, or other gifts in the background of the dissertation examination, it would be a problem that affects the very foundation of the university's credibility.
Attach files by dragging & dropping,
selecting them, or pasting
from the clipboard.
Uploading your files…
We don’t support that file type.
with
a PNG, GIF, or JPG.
Yowza, that’s a big file.
with
a file smaller than 1MB.
This file is empty.
with
a file that’s not empty.
Something went really wrong, and we can’t process that file.