What was the gender difference in job related training between 1997 and 2002 - Article Example

What was the gender difference in job related training between 1997 and 2002? The research paper written by Peters(2004) presented the results of the 2003 Adult Education and Training Survey and published in the Human Resources and Skills Development of Statistics Canada. As explicitly indicated by the author, the objectives of the research were to “measure participation in job-related education and training, to provide a socio-demographic profile of individuals who participated in these activities, to profile the type, duration, locationand other characteristics of the training activities, and to identify the barriers to, andoutcomes of, training activities” (Peters 5).

The report was structured in four categories: the demographic trends in formal, job related training; informal training or self-directed learning; training and unmet training needs or wants; and long-term patterns in formal training participation.The gender difference in job related training between 1997 and 2002 showed that participation rates for both male and female participants in formal, job related training increased from 1997 to 2002. As clearly revealed, the authors disclosed that:“The overall increase in participation was balanced across men and women aseach group experienced about a 22% rise in participation over the period.

Amongmen, the participation rate rose from 27% in 1997 to 33% in 2002 while amongwomen participation rose from 31% to 37%” (Peters 7). These results indicate the balanced increase in participation rates for the period under study. Both genders exhibited a 6% increase in participation rates from 1997 to 2002.There were no reported gender differences in informal or self-directed training.With regards to training and unmet training needs or wants, gender differences eminently revealed that “the proportions are relatively similar for women and men: among trainingparticipants, 39% of women and 34% of men reported having unmet training needs/wants.

These proportions dropped to 24% and 22% respectively for non-participants” (Peters 19). These figures manifest that training and unmet training needs or wants were higher for women than men by 5% (for participants) versus a difference of 2% for non-participants, where women still exceeded men’s unmet training needs or wants. In the aspect of long-term patterns in formal training participation, the report indicated that “males comprised a higher proportion of long-term non-trainees than did females(54% were men and 46% were female” (Peters 23).

On the other hand of the continuum, the patterns for long-term trainees, the results disclosed that there are equal portions of men and women in the group. The author’s findings in terms of gender differences in job related training revealed that both men and women exhibited increased participation in formal, job related training from 1997 to 2002; where more women manifested more unmet training needs or wants than men. Finally, in terms of long term patterns in formal training participation, men exhibited higher proportions of non-trainees than their counterpart.

As Peters (2004) averred, the results would assist in future research that aims to “understand if the training objectives of workers are met by the training they participate in, how formal training combines with informal training in the skill-development process and a wealth of other issues” (25).Works CitedPeters, V. Working and training: First results of the 2003 Adult Education and Training Survey.Research Paper. Ottawa: Human Resources and Skills Development Statistics Canada, 2004.