We thank HRDQ for selecting our manuscript as the featured article in this issue. We also thank Dr. Doris Adams for her thoughtful and provocative reflections. Adams correctly notes that the article could have benefited from a richer consideration of the social context, such as the relevant legislative changes occurring during the study period. What was going on in "the economy . . . of the world," however, seems too far beyond the scope of our paper. Fortunately, many contextual issues pertaining to women's increased labor market participation in general and to education and training in particular are covered elsewhere. In regard to labor market conditions, for example, our article cites related sources for the interested reader. We concur with the merits of a historical sociological perspective on women's relationship with the workplace. However, our purpose was much more modest and our focus more specific in light of our interest in identifying proximate factors associated with job training. As a result, we let the related literature guide our research questions. To the extent that others, like Adams, identify additional, related areas that our research addresses or fails to address, the knowledge base of women's job training experiences will be expanded.
Adams cites a major limitation of the study-our model did "not include significant individual and institutional influences on women's income." She mentions occupational sex segregation, which, we concur, is an important factor. As noted in the article, however, we had no comparable data on men, and the occupation-related variables in the data file were not such that they could be reliably mapped by sex differences. Adams cites related research and she summarizes related issues. Her implication that further study in the areas of organization characteristics and sex is warranted by our study's limitationsin part imposed by the data files we used-is well taken.
Adams raised several issues in regard to the effects of early childbearing and marriage on labor force participation and training. She correctly notes that time out of the labor force (OLF) was not part of this study. Again, this is a limitation of the data file. The OLF experience of respondents was not captured in a manner that completely paralleled that of weeks worked. In most survey years, the related question referred to the number of weeks OLE but in others