Not 'news' to anyone here, I know, but scary article about motherhood and academia

But bad, by definition, you can't know whether the mothers who didn't go on in academia would have fit the same pattern the mothers who did go on in academia did.

I phrased my OP badly.

I really did only me = I really did only mean

I am very sorry I didn't phrase my OP better.

I really did me only what I said - we need to question what unconscious biases researches will have.

I would be sceptical of a study of (say) aboriginal AUS populations that was carried out entirely by white immigrants to Australia. As I think we all would? And of course, the earliest surveys will have been by white immigrants. And we learn to correct assumptions. But it is not possible to correct every single unconscious assumption, because try as we may, we won't recognize all of them. I know I don't.

My aunt told me about an interesting example a year or so ago. In my area of the country, people did a survey of working-class children to see how well-nourished they were. The survey asked what they had for dinner (the main meal). The children said, not much. The surveyors tried to question their assumptions and though, hmm, maybe over here, lunch is the main meal. So they asked that, and again the children said, we don't have much for lunch.

It didn't occur to them that round here, the main meal of the day is tea.

So they wrote up their report saying that these children were severely malnourished and it was going to result in all sorts of health issues down the line.

It's easy for us to see the flaws, but I think we can see why the researchers didn't, too. Ideally, you want researchers from as broad a spectrum of backgrounds as possible. So, I do feel it's valid to suggest we question research when we know a certain group isn't represented.

Hopefully, this may also motivated women who're mothers to see their perspective is something researchers are crying out for.

Cross-post.

Erm, I think you will find if you read my post properly, I'm not 'trying' to say anything. You read it wrongly.

All I suggested was that we should be sceptical of the bias in research, given the social status of the researchers.

This is hardly a revolutionary statement. It does not mean 'research by non-mothers is invalid'.

trills, I have just clarified that I never said that.

If you had read my post, you would have seen I never said that.

I am not a mother. My research is valid.

I simply think it'd be nice to have more women with children in academia.

bad - oh, I'm being sarcastic, but I mean the sort of stuff Simon Baron-Cohen does, which acknowledges he's talking about spectrums but rather undercuts the good intentions with the labels he uses.

I do think the media has a lot to do with it, but still, I think it would be good if more mothers were researching.

I also know a lot of female researchers. No, their interests didn't change (why would they?). But the point is that women with children are less likely to continue in academia. So looking at the ones who are still there is hardly the point, is it - because we don't know what the ones who ended up giving up on academia would have done.

I didn't say it would be more valid, trills.

I said we might do well to be sceptical. Scepticism doesn't imply you dismiss the research out of hand, but that you think about its bias.

I think gender and procreation are most likely to affect the kind of research you do. I should probably have said this in my OP. But, I mean, I read about the sort of research people do, and very naturally, it is often informed by their own lives.

I'm not having a go at men or childless women, btw - I am a childless woman and a researcher - I just feel impoverished in not having enough colleagues who are women with children, TBH. I feel the spectrum of different perspectives I'd get from women with children would be valuable.