Determining the missing values in the jbsoc10_cc variable.
I see in the jbsoc10_cc variable note it says: "SOC 2010 codes are [-9] missing for jobs that were already held in Wave 1 or 2 and (re-)confirmed in later waves." How does one go about replacing these missing values with the actual values. For example, one individual may have a category that is constant for all waves in the jbsoc*00*_cc variable but missing for all waves of the jbsoc*10*_cc variable. I am uncertain as there is not a perfect mapping from SOC 2000 to SOC 2010 codes. So the statement in the variable note only indicates that this individual has the same job in waves 1 and 2 as he does in future waves. What that job is, is still uncertain? Sorry if I have misunderstood something, a clarification would be a great help!
Updated by Gundi Knies over 1 year ago
- Status changed from New to Feedback
- Assignee set to Cameron Harries
- % Done changed from 0 to 50
we use dependent interviewing (DI) to minimise spurious changes in occupations, so instead of asking for a new description of the current job every wave we ask whether the job is still the same as last time interviewed. If it is still the same, the previous occupational code is fed forward. When a new classification scheme is introduced, such as SOC 2010 in w3, there are no values from the previous wave that could be fed forward, hence we see the data gap [-9] in W3 (or later) for those cases who continue to have the same job as they had before. 'Before' in this context may actually refer to a job the respondent held in the BHPS already (DI started in BHPS W15). Plucking this data gap requires resource-intensive coding of the freetext data. We are also not aware of any crosswalks to impute SOC 2010 from the existing SOC 2000 and/or SOC 1990 codes. At present, SOC 2000 is the most complete across the long run of Understanding Society data.
On behalf of Understanding Society User Support