Search

Online probability-based panels often apply two or more data collection modes to cover both the online and offline populations with the aim of obtaining results that are more representative of the population of interest. This study used such a panel to investigate how necessary it is, from the coverage error standpoint, to include the offline population by mixing modes in online panel survey research. This study evaluated the problem from three different perspectives: undercoverage bias, bias related to survey item topics and vari­able characteristics, and accuracy of online-only samples relative to nationally representa­tive benchmarks. The results indicated that attitudinal, behavioral, and factual differences between the online and offline populations in Australia are, on average, minor. This means that, considering that survey research commonly includes a relatively low proportion of the offline population, survey estimates would not be significantly affected if probability-based panels did not mix modes and instead were online only, for the majority of topics. The benchmarking analysis showed that mixing the online mode with the offline mode did not improve the average accuracy of estimates relative to nationally representative bench­marks. Based on these findings, it is argued that other online panels should study this issue from different perspectives using the approaches proposed in this paper. There might also be an argument for (temporarily) excluding the offline population in probability-based on­line panel research in particular country contexts as this might have practical implications., methods, data, analyses, Online First

This study seeks to examine the impact of participation in a COVID-19 survey on wellbeing

There is a growing movement across the world to make better use of wellbeing measures to guide policy. This stems from the realisation that reliance on economic indicators, such as income, GDP, and unemployment, may not be adequately capturing the aspects of life that people value. But how should we be measuring wellbeing or quality of life? A mounting body of research over the past two decades has highlighted the value of participatory wellbeing frameworks, which are created by consulting with the target population and asking the question “What does wellbeing mean for you?”. However, up to now there is very little consolidated understanding of the work conducted in this space. This systematic review seeks to fill this gap, identifying 130 participatory wellbeing studies which span every region of the world and all life stages. The review identifies a wide range of theories, methods, and participatory techniques that have been utilised to develop participatory wellbeing frameworks which can be replicated for similar studies going forward. By thematically analysing understandings of wellbeing into 30 overarching areas, the findings show that communities and population groups throughout the world have wide-ranging and diverse conceptualisations of wellbeing. In sum, we highlight that while there are some similarities in what wellbeing means to people from different population groups, nuances exist within every group. Given this diverse understanding of wellbeing throughout the world, it is vital that research, policy and development initiatives take this into account. Doing so will help support policy and programs to address the aspects of life that are important to individuals, and subsequently improve the lives of people throughout the world in a more meaningful way.

Indigenous people tend to live in different parts of Australian towns and cities than the non-Indigenous population. This is due to a combination of historic and contemporary government policies, the agency of Indigenous people, and the constraints placed on residential location by the interaction of the housing and labour markets. This study traces the trajectory of Indigenous residential segregation in 60 Australian towns and cities, using census data from 1976 to 2016. Segregation is measured using the index of dissimilarity and the threshold method. Indigenous residential segregation has been declining steadily since 1976 nationally. However, there has been a great deal of variation in segregation trajectories among towns and cities. In Sydney and Melbourne, segregation remained relatively high over the study period. The level of segregation in 1976 appears to be related to the geographical remoteness of the town, with remote towns generally having lower levels of segregation in 1976. Segregation has been decreasing most rapidly in regional towns in New South Wales and Queensland. Finally, this study has found a long-run increase in the proportion of Indigenous residents living in highly Indigenous neighbourhoods, consistent with the increasingly close settlement of Indigenous people in Australian towns and cities. This trend is at odds with the apparent decrease in segregation found when segregation is measured using the index of dissimilarity. Detailed case studies may be required that examine how concrete historical geographies and policy legacies combine with contemporary housing markets to produce the configuration of segregation that we see today.

At the national level there is a gap between the socio-economic circumstances of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Some readers may imagine that this gap can be explained by the poor circumstances of the minority of the Indigenous population who live in remote areas (25.4 per cent). The author dispels this hypothesis. Using the principal components analysis approach he examines the socio -economic circumstances of Indigenous Australians in urban areas (that is cities and large regional towns). He finds that in all cases Indigenous Australians in urban areas are worse off than are non-Indigenous Australians. Copyright. Monash University and the author/s

International literature clearly demonstrates the potential for gender-based inequalities to constrain development processes. In the United Nations Development Programme Gender-related Development Index, Australia ranks in the top five across 177 countries, suggesting that the loss of human development due to gender inequality is minor. However, such analysis has not been systematically applied to the Indigenous Australian population, at least in a quantitative sense. Using the 2006 Australian Census, this paper provides an analysis across three dimensions of socioeconomic disparity: Indigeneity, gender, and geography. This paper also explores the development of a similar gender-related index as a tool to enable a relative ranking of the performance of Indigenous males and females at the regional level across a set of socioeconomic outcomes. The initial findings suggest that although there is a substantial development gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, the development loss from gender-related inequality for Indigenous Australians is relatively small. Higher life expectancy and education attainment for Indigenous females balances out their slightly lower earnings to a large extent. At the regional level, Indigenous females tend to fare better than Indigenous males for the set of indicators chosen; and, this is particularly true in capital cities.

SupplementaryMaterial for Trends in Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Multidomain Well-Being: Decomposing Persistent, Maturation, and Period Effects in Emerging Adulthood by Philip D. Parker, Gawaian Bodkin-Andrews, Rhiannon B. Parker, and Nicholas Biddle in Emerging Adulthood

SupplementaryMaterial for Trends in Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Multidomain Well-Being: Decomposing Persistent, Maturation, and Period Effects in Emerging Adulthood by Philip D. Parker, Gawaian Bodkin-Andrews, Rhiannon B. Parker, and Nicholas Biddle in Emerging Adulthood

SupplementaryMaterial for Trends in Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Multidomain Well-Being: Decomposing Persistent, Maturation, and Period Effects in Emerging Adulthood by Philip D. Parker, Gawaian Bodkin-Andrews, Rhiannon B. Parker, and Nicholas Biddle in Emerging Adulthood