Researchers find oddities in high-profile gender studies(3 Posts)
This could be interesting as it pertains to research in gender studies. There is a link at the bottom of this blog post to the page of one of the people who noticed the "oddities" in the research papers.
Researchers find oddities in high-profile gender studies
Exclusive: Strange statistics, lack of collaborators, and ethical questions remain unaddressed
"Guéguen's large body of research is the kind of social psychology that demonstrates, and likely fuels, the Mars vs. Venus model of gender interactions."
Looks rather odd, certainly.
Just to add, from my knowledge of a uni Research Ethics Committee, and similar experiments in psychology, in a UK university BTW, ANY study with human participants has to go through an ethical review process, including post grad and undergrad student projects. And you are supposed to keep the data for umpteen years. If you were basing papers on undergrad students work, I would bloody well expect that the STUDENTS who did all the slog of collecting the data would at the very least be NAMED, and even if the supervisor wrote the paper, they would be incuded as authors, since in effect they DID the data gathering/experiment design/data analysis. If they DIDN'T do any of that, bloody weird student project (even for psychologists!). So, this rings a lot of bells for me. The statistical anomalies look like someone is possibly faking data (could be the students, for example, after all they might think -- we do all the work, we ask the questions and record the answers, and we don't even get a thankyou when he writes the paper! Why bother, we'll ask six people and say we asked sixty, he won't complain as long as he gets another paper out of it!). And even without those anomalies, the PROCEDURES seem well dodgy, in that even if the data etc is REAL, he is getting ALL the credit, and the people who actually did the collection and analysis are getting nothing (apart from passing that module and their degree).
Of course, the issue here is that his choice of news-worthy papers and issues mean that he is generating LOADS of publicity for his department/university. Unlike, say, those who want to do more unpopular research on detransitioners who apparently get kicked out of touch by uni ethics committees because it would make the uni look bad.................
This is not really about "gender studies" (i.e. Judith Butler, Queer Theory) but rather a tradition in social psychology of finding eye-catching results from very small samples. This tradition has been revealed to be either fraudulent (Diederek Staple) or based on statistical fallacies (Amy Cuddy's "power pose").
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.