question by gender. Part Three contains the cleaned,23 verbatim comments provided by staff to that question, organised by gender in groupings that are broadly positive, neutral and negative. A code-frame was developed for each question and all responses were coded accordingly. The responses were then grouped into three main groupings: responses that indicated gender equity in practice – often comments about the particular aspect under discussion being fair responses that were neutral in relation to gender equity responses that indicated some form of gender inequity or lack of fairness in relation to the issue under discussion. Once coded, the information was analysed by gender. Once ‘cleaned’, the verbatim comments were presented to the committee according to the three groupings, so that they could see like comments grouped together. Parts One and Two of Question 31 are attached at Appendix Six. Parts One and Two of Questions 64, 69, 92 and 100 are included in the supplementary papers.
Collation and analysis of the data The preliminary analysis of the PEEAT data, survey results, and information from the Relevant institutional data paper enabled the committee to develop a list of issues in which the differences between men and women were considered to be important in three areas: pay representation and distribution areas of concern other than pay or representation and distribution. The thresholds for determining what was significant were provided by the Pay and Employment Equity Unit in the Department of Labour, which drew on international benchmarks to establish a guideline for percentage differences between men and women that make statistical sense that the difference we are looking at is associated with gender. For pay, this difference was 5%,24 with the caveat that in some situations, it may also be important to understand pay differences between 3% and 5%. The threshold at which to further examine differences in representation and distribution was given at 20% (e.g., if 65% of senior management are men and 35% are women). A rough guide for considering survey responses was given as a 10% difference between the responses of men and women. 23
Cleaning the data involved removing any obviously identifiable information (such as names) and other information, such as detailed stories, which might have been known to members of the committee. The reworded comments are preceded by one of the three words: details deleted (some text deleted), moderated (summarizing part of comment but leaving bulk of it in respondent’s own words), reworded (where it is completed reworded and the issue is summarized). 24 The United Kingdom Equal Opportunities Commission said this level of variation merits further consideration in equal pay reviews. It is important to recognise that the review covers every employee – it is not a sample. Tests of statistical significance therefore are generally not relevant or appropriate. Every observed male/female difference is there, and it is valid to consider the reasons for it. In the UK and other jurisdictions, as in New Zealand, comparisons between jobs done by one man and one woman can be used in equal pay cases.