Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Social Science and Research Methodology [View all]
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.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 1134 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
you're treating all factory workers as though they are sweatshop workers
La Lioness Priyanka
Nov 2012
#3
so where do you draw your conclusions from (about porn and violence)?
La Lioness Priyanka
Nov 2012
#5