Chris, Do you have any specific suggestions?
Cheers, Vincent Patrick -------------------------- Chris Browne wrote: > This touches on one of the major problems with the boys ed movement. i.e. small > sample, big generalisation research. I have been saying since I joined this forum > that we need to be questioning seriously some of the research around multiple > intelligences and education, brain based theories of differences in learning caused > by gender as two major areas of influence in our schools that have a very shaky > reserch underpinning. > The three camps of sociology, psychology and physiology are busy spitting at each > other whilst major programs of educational change are being pushed without serious > question. MIllions of government funding is going to programs of action research in > schools that really aren't going to embed long term because the research behind much > of it is thin. > The gender profiling argument going on in this forum recently is typical of this > overall problem. > Can we try to make some productive progress in the mainstream areas of boys > education? > Chris > Ferrel Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > [The Chronicle of Higher Education] > From the issue dated September 3, 2004 > > > http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i02/02b01101.htm > > > Men Are From Earth, and So Are Women. It's Faulty Research That Sets Them > Apart. > By ROSALIND C. BARNETT and CARYL RIVERS > > Are American college professors unwittingly misleading their students by > teaching widely accepted ideas about men and women that are scientifically > unsubstantiated? > > Why is the dominant narrative about the sexes one of difference, even > though it receives little support from carefully designed peer-reviewed > studies? > > One reason is that findings from a handful of small studies with > nonrepresentative samples have often reported wildly overgeneralized but > headline-grabbing findings about gender differences. Those findings have > then been picked up by the news media -- and found their way back into the > academy, where they are taught as fact. At the same time, research that > tends to debunk popular ideas is often ignored by the news media. > > Even worse, many researchers have taken untested hypotheses at face value > and used them to plan their studies. Many have also relied exclusively on > statistical tests that are designed to find difference, without using > tests that would show the degree of overlap between men and women. As a > result, findings often suggest -- erroneously -- that the sexes are > categorically different with respect to some specific variable or other. > > Yet in the latest edition of its publications manual, the American > Psychological Association explicitly asks researchers to consider and > report the degree of overlap in statistical studies. For good reason: Even > if the mean difference between groups being compared is statistically > significant, it may be of trivial consequence if the distributions show a > high degree of overlap. Indeed, most studies that do report the size of > effects indicate that the differences between the sexes are trivial or > slight on a host of personality traits and cognitive and social behaviors. > > Because of such serious and pervasive problems, we believe that college > students get a distorted picture about the sexes, one that overstates > differences while minimizing the more accurate picture -- that of enormous > overlap and similarity. > > It is easy to understand why college professors might spread myths about > gender differences. Many of the original studies on which such findings > were based have been embraced by both the academy and the wider culture. > As Martha T. Mednick, an emerita professor of psychology at Howard > University, pointed out in an article some years ago, popular ideas that > are intuitively appealing, even if inadequately documented, all too often > take on lives of their own. They may have shaky research foundations; they > may be largely disproved by later -- and better -- studies. But bandwagon > concepts that have become unhitched from research moorings are rampant in > academe, particularly in the classroom. For example: > > Women are inherently more caring and more "relational" than men. > > The chief architect of this essentialist idea is Carol Gilligan, the > longtime Harvard University psychologist who is now at New York > University. In the early 1980s, she laid out a new narrative for women's > lives that theorized that women have a unique, caring nature not shared by > men. Her ideas have revolutionized the psychology of women and revamped > curricula to an unprecedented degree, some observers say. Certainly, > almost every student in women's studies and the psychology of women is > familiar with Gilligan. But how many are aware of the critics of her > theories about women's moral development and the relational self? > > Many scholarly reviews of Gilligan's research contend that it does not > back up her claims, that she simply created an intriguing hypothesis that > needs testing. But the relational self has become near-sacred writ, cited > in textbooks, classrooms, and the news media. > > Anne Alonso, a Harvard psychology professor and director of the Center for > Psychoanalytic Studies at Massachusetts General Hospital, told us recently > that she is dismayed by the lightning speed at which Gilligan's ideas, > based on slender evidence, have been absorbed into psychotherapy. Usually > new theories go through a long and rigorous process of publication in > peer-reviewed journals before they are accepted by the field. "None of > this work has been published in such journals. It's hard to take seriously > a whole corpus of work that hasn't been peer-reviewed," Alonso said. The > idea of a relational self, she charged, is simply an "idea du jour," one > that she called "penis scorn." > > Men don't value personal relations. > > According to essentialist theorists, men are uncomfortable with any kind > of communication that has to do with personal conflicts. They avoid > talking about their problems. They avoid responding too deeply to other > people's problems, instead giving advice, changing the subject, making a > joke, or giving no response. Unlike women, they don't react to troubles > talk by empathizing with others and expressing sympathy. These ideas are > often cited in textbooks and in popular manuals, like those written by > John Gray, a therapist, and Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at > Georgetown University. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, we are > told. They just don't understand each other. But systematic research does > not support those ideas. > > An important article, "The Myth of Gender Cultures: Similarities Outweigh > Differences in Men's and Women's Provision of and Responses to Supportive > Communication," was published this year in Sex Roles: A Journal of > Research. Erina L. MacGeorge, of Purdue University, and her colleagues at > the University of Pennsylvania find no support for the idea that women and > men constitute different "communication cultures." Their article, based on > three studies that used questionnaires and interviews, sampled 738 people > -- 417 women and 321 men. > > In fact, the authors find, the sexes are very much alike in the way they > communicate: "Both men and women view the provision of support as a > central element of close personal relationships; both value the supportive > communication skills of their friends, lovers, and family members; both > make similar judgments about what counts as sensitive, helpful support; > and both respond quite similarly to various support efforts." > > Yet, MacGeorge and her colleagues point out, we still read in textbooks > that: > > * "Men's and women's communication styles are startlingly dissimilar" > -- The Interpersonal Communication Reader, edited by Joseph A. DeVito > (Allyn and Bacon, 2002). > > * "American men and women come from different sociolinguistic > subcultures, having learned to do different things with words in a > conversation" -- a chapter by Daniel N. Maltz and Ruth A. Borker in > Language and Social Identity (Cambridge University Press, 1982), edited by > John J. Gumperz. > > * "Husbands and wives, especially in Western societies, come from two > different cultures with different learned behaviors and communication > styles" -- a chapter by Carol J.S. Bruess and Judy C. Pearson in Gendered > Relationships (Mayfield, 1996), edited by Julia T. Wood. > > Gender differences in mate selection are pervasive and well established. > > Evolutionary psychologists like David M. Buss, a professor at the > University of Texas at Austin, tell us in such books as The Evolution of > Desire: Strategies of Human Mating (Basic Books, 1994) that men and women > differ widely with respect to the traits they look for in a potential > mate. Men, such writers claim, lust after pretty, young, presumably > fertile women. Pop culture revels in this notion: Men want young and > beautiful mates. There is, it is presumed, a universal female type beloved > by men -- young, unlined, with features that are close to those of an > infant -- that signals fertility. If there were a universal male > preference for beautiful young women, it would have to be based on a > strong correlation between beauty and reproductive success. Sure, Richard > Gere chose Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman because of her beauty and youth. > But would those qualities have assured enhanced fertility? > > The answer, according to empirical research, seems to be no. Having a > pretty face as a young adult has no relationship to the number of children > a woman produces or to her health across the life span. Among married > women, physical attractiveness is unrelated to the number of children they > produce. If beauty has little to do with reproductive success, why would > nature insist that men select for it? It seems more likely that having a > young beauty on his arm indicates, instead, that a man is living up to > certain cultural and social norms. > > According to some who take what we call an ultra-Darwinist stance, there > is no mystery about whom women prefer as a mate: The man with resources to > feed and protect her future children. The combination of wealth, status, > and power (which usually implies an older man) makes "an attractive > package in the eyes of the average woman," as Robert Wright, a journalist > and author of The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology > (Pantheon, 1994), sums up the argument. > > But those who believe that gender roles are shaped at least as much by > culture and environment as by biology point out that women's preference > for older good providers fits perfectly with the rise of the industrial > state. That system, which often called for a male breadwinner and a female > working at home, arose in the United States in the 1830s, was dominant > until the 1970s, and then declined. > > If that is correct, then we should see a declining preference for older > men who are good providers, particularly among women with resources. In > fact, a study by Alice Eagley, a psychologist at Northwestern University, > and Wendy Wood, of Duke University, suggests that as gender equality in > society has increased, women have expressed less of a preference for older > men with greater earning potential. The researchers have found that when > women have access to their own resources, they do not look for age in > mates, but prefer qualities like empathy, understanding, and the ability > to bond with children. The desire for an older "provider" is evidently not > in women's genes. Terri D. Fisher, a psychologist at Ohio State > University, told a reporter last year that whenever she teaches her > college students the ultra-Darwinian take on the power of youth and > beauty, the young men smile and nod and the young women look appalled. > > For girls, self-esteem plummets at early adolescence. > > Girls face an inevitable crisis of self-esteem as they approach > adolescence. They are in danger of losing their voices, drowning, and > facing a devastating dip in self-regard that boys don't experience. This > is the picture that Carol Gilligan presented on the basis of her research > at the Emma Willard School, a private girls' school in Troy, N.Y. While > Gilligan did not refer to genes in her analysis of girls' vulnerability, > she did cite both the "wall of Western culture" and deep early childhood > socialization as reasons. > > Her theme was echoed in 1994 by the clinical psychologist Mary Pipher's > surprise best seller, Reviving Ophelia (Putnam, 1994), which spent three > years on The New York Times best-seller list. Drawing on case studies > rather than systematic research, Pipher observed how naturally outgoing, > confident girls get worn down by sexist cultural expectations. Gilligan's > and Pipher's ideas have also been supported by a widely cited study in > 1990 by the American Association of University Women. That report, > published in 1991, claimed that teenage girls experience a "free-fall in > self-esteem from which some will never recover." > > The idea that girls have low self-esteem has by now become part of the > academic canon as well as fodder for the popular media. But is it true? > No. > > Critics have found many faults with the influential AAUW study. When > children were asked about their self-confidence and academic plans, the > report said 60 percent of girls and 67 percent of boys in elementary > school responded, "I am happy the way I am." But by high school, the > percentage of girls happy with themselves fell to 29 percent. Could it be > that 71 percent of the country's teenage girls were low in self-esteem? > Not necessarily. The AAUW counted as happy only those girls who checked > "always true" to the question about happiness. Girls who said they were > "sometimes" happy with themselves or "sort of" happy with themselves were > counted as unhappy. > > A sophisticated look at the self-esteem data is far more reassuring than > the headlines. A new analysis of all of the AAUW data, and a meta-analysis > of hundreds of studies, done by Janet Hyde, a psychologist at the > University of Wisconsin at Madison, showed no huge gap between boys and > girls. Indeed, Hyde found that the self-esteem scores of boys and girls > were virtually identical. In particular there was no plunge in scores for > girls during the early teen years -- the supposed basis for the idea that > girls "lost their voices" in that period. Parents, understandably > concerned about noxious, hypersexual media images, may gaze in horror at > those images while underestimating the resilience of their daughters, who > are able to thrive in spite of them. > > Boys have a mathematics gene, or at least a biological tendency to excel > in math, that girls do not possess. > > Do boys have a mathematics gene -- or at least a biological tendency to > excel in math -- that girls lack, as a popular stereotype has it? Suffice > it to say that, despite being discouraged from pursuing math at almost > every level of school, girls and women today are managing to perform in > math at high levels. > > Do data support arguments for hard-wired gender differences? No. In 2001 > Erin Leahey and Guang Guo, then a graduate student and an assistant > professor of sociology, respectively, at the University of North Carolina > at Chapel Hill, looked at some 20,000 math scores of children ages 4 to 18 > and found no differences of any magnitude, even in areas that are > supposedly male domains, such as reasoning skills and geometry. > > The bandwagon concepts that we have discussed here are strongly held and > dangerous. Even though they have been seriously challenged, they continue > to be taught by authority figures in the classroom. These ideas are > embedded in the curricula of courses in child and adolescent development, > moral development, education, moral philosophy, feminist pedagogy, > evolutionary psychology, gender studies, and the psychology of women. > > Few students have the ability to investigate the accuracy of the claims on > their own. And since these ideas resonate with the cultural zeitgeist, > students would have little reason to do so in any case. The essentialist > perspective has so colored the dialogue about the sexes that there is > scant room for any narrative other than difference. > > Obviously the difference rhetoric can create harm for both men and women. > Men are taught to believe that they are deficient in caring and empathy, > while women are led to believe that they are inherently unsuited for > competition, leadership, and technological professions. Given how little > empirical support exists for essentialist ideas, it's crucial that > professors broaden the dialogue, challenging the conventional wisdom and > encouraging their students to do so as well. > > Rosalind C. Barnett is a senior scientist at Brandeis University, and > Caryl Rivers is a professor of journalism at Boston University. Their book > Same Difference: How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our > Children, and Our Jobs has just been published by Basic Books. > > http://chronicle.com > Section: The Chronicle Review > Volume 51, Issue 2, Page B11 > Front page | Career Network | Search | Site map | Help > Copyright 2004 by The Chronicle of Higher Education > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/pyIolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boysed/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
