HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Social Science and Resear...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:06 PM

Social Science and Research Methodology

1. No study is perfect especially not in the social sciences

2. All peer reviewed studies have to have limitations published.

Let's look at some 'feministy' articles on women in management

Here is Heilman's really famous work on the lack of fit model. A link to the study http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/Lyness.pdf

When interpreting these data and drawing conclusions, care
should be taken to consider the limitations of the study. Although
our use of archival organizational data is a strength of the research,
an accompanying limitation is that we cannot rule out the possibility
that the differences in performance ratings were based on

real performance differences, not on biased assessments. The idea
that women in line positions are in fact lower performers seems
unlikely, however, given that our data show that in order to
advance, women managers generally had to perform better than
their male counterparts. Moreover, although our data presented a
unique opportunity to learn about ratings and promotion decisions
concerning upper-level men and women managers, they are from
a single organization, and that may limit generalizability of our
results
....
Another limitation was the somewhat
short 2-year time period for measuring promotions, suggesting
that our study provided a relatively conservative test of predictions
about promotions.

Finally, more complete information
about promotion candidacies and the types of jobs involved would
have allowed us to better explore effects of gender by job type
interactions in predicting promotion decisions.


Another study by Heilman, Why Are Women Penalized for Success at Male Tasks? : The Implied Communality Deficit

There are limitations of the present research that should be noted. First, the use of paper-and-pencil stimulus materials in these three studies, although it allowed us to test the role of prescriptive stereotypes in a controlled manner, limits the degree to which conclusions can be drawn about how people react to successful women in actual work situations. There is no question that participation in the research session lacked the richness and intricacies of involvement in an actual organizational setting and in true-life relationships and that the questions we address in this study need to be explored further in a field setting where work relationships are of consequence and more textured information about coworkers is readily available. Moreover, because our participants were put into the role of potential subordinates, it is important to determine whether there are similar reactions on the part of those who are organizationally senior to the successful female manager. In addition, although many of the undergraduate participants were soon to be entry-level employees themselves and although assessment of the participant pool indicated that 91% of them had worked for more than a 1-year period (with an average of 3.4 years), they still might not have had the organizational experience that would ensure that their responses were representative of people in work settings. Therefore, it is also important to test out these ideas using a sample of working people. Thus, although we have demonstrated that the penalties women incur for being successful in male-dominated areas can, under some circumstances, be mitigated by communality information, specification of when, for whom, and under what conditions this occurs remains to be determined.



There will never be a perfect study in the social sciences, that will change your mind. There will always be methodology issues, issues with random sampling, ecological validity, sample sizes etc. However it always better to start with some data than to start with a set of stereotypes and assumptions.

If you never want to admit to misogyny in the workplace and subtle biases, no study can make you admit it. If you never want to see that women are not necessarily damaged goods because they are sex workers, no study will convince you of it.

I thought this was worth its own thread since picking apart research methodology could be applied in multiple scenarios.




7 replies, 740 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Social Science and Research Methodology (Original post)
La Lioness Priyanka Nov 2012 OP
La Lioness Priyanka Nov 2012 #1
redqueen Nov 2012 #2
La Lioness Priyanka Nov 2012 #3
redqueen Nov 2012 #4
La Lioness Priyanka Nov 2012 #5
redqueen Nov 2012 #6
La Lioness Priyanka Nov 2012 #7

Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:09 PM

1. A great article in mother jones

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=2

Our individual responses to the conclusions that science reaches, however, are quite another matter. Ironically, in part because researchers employ so much nuance and strive to disclose all remaining sources of uncertainty, scientific evidence is highly susceptible to selective reading and misinterpretation. Giving ideologues or partisans scientific data that's relevant to their beliefs is like unleashing them in the motivated-reasoning equivalent of a candy store.

Sure enough, a large number of psychological studies have shown that people respond to scientific or technical evidence in ways that justify their preexisting beliefs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:29 PM

2. Let us suppose the workers being studied are farm workers

and that no attempt is made to discern how many respondents are migrant laborers and how many work in factory farms governed by OSHA and how many work as needed for family farmers as short-term hired hands.

How usable would the results of that kind of study be, do you think?




Oh, and this?
women are not necessarily damaged goods because they are sex workers


Nice job slaying that strawman argument.

Why is it necessary to make up things to respond to instead of addressing actual statements? (Rhetorical, of course.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:50 PM

3. you're treating all factory workers as though they are sweatshop workers

then getting outraged when someone says "factory workers are usually as happy as the rest of the popultion"

i think most reasonable people understand that this does not mean EVERY single factory worker is happy because that is not the conclusion of this study. as a group they are no less happy, there will obviously be individual variance in happiness and self esteem

this variance may come from different sources, including working conditions, so factory workers with a good boss may enjoy their work more than those with bad bosses

however, the conclusion in none of this is that all factory workers are unhappy and were damaged goods before they joint factory work


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:21 PM

4. Again with the strawman?

No, I'm not assuming they're all migrant workers, who would be more likely to be desperate for money.

But if a study is published which claims to prove that farm workers are no more desperate for money than the general population, I would expect that responses from the different types of workers would be accounted for.

If not, the results are flatly inconclusive as regards the point of the study. Full stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:21 PM

5. so where do you draw your conclusions from (about porn and violence)?

or the hypothesis that those in porn are damaged goods?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:47 PM

6. Damaged goods?! Are you fucking kidding me?!

This is beyond the pale.

This has gone from run of the mill strawman argument bullshit to fucking offensive as hell, intentional, misrepresentation.

I have NEVER and I WOULD NEVER refer to ANY WOMAN by that DISGUSTING phrase.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:02 PM

7. LOL, maybe you need to read the article before throwing a fit

the large part of this research is denying the damaged hypothesis theory proposed by catherine mckinnon and other feminist theorists.

maybe you should read stuff before making knee jerk arguments

so when i say "porn stars no more damaged that the rest of us" it is referring mostly to the damaged goods hypothesis that this study is stating may not be true




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread