The Value Gap: A School Psychologist’s Perspective on Rausch et al.(2023)

Jeffery Braden
{"title":"The Value Gap: A School Psychologist’s Perspective on Rausch et al.(2023)","authors":"Jeffery Braden","doi":"10.58408/issn.2992-9253.2023.01.01.00000009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rausch et al. describe an empirical effort to test a number of hypotheses put forward by Lukianoff and Haidt (2018) regarding the values of contemporary (Gen Z) vs. previous generations of undergraduates. My review of their work focuses primarily on the methodologies Rausch et al. employ in executing their research. Strengths of their study include: the empirical replication and extension of prior claims; a priori specification of hypotheses and the methodology to test them; and the insight that prior claims may confound gender and generational status. Weaknesses include: the use of an untested (and unknown) scale to measure their dependent variable; the unfortunate and erroneous classification of majors into “hard” science vs. social science categories; a confound between graduate student status and generational status; and the number and interdependence of the statistical tests they use to test their hypotheses. All of the methodological weaknesses I identify (with the exception of their measurement of academic values) could be strengthened through changes to their procedures and analyses. Overall, their insight that Lukianoff and Haidt’s attribution of value differences to generational status may be confounded with gender is worthy of further research.","PeriodicalId":180485,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58408/issn.2992-9253.2023.01.01.00000009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rausch et al. describe an empirical effort to test a number of hypotheses put forward by Lukianoff and Haidt (2018) regarding the values of contemporary (Gen Z) vs. previous generations of undergraduates. My review of their work focuses primarily on the methodologies Rausch et al. employ in executing their research. Strengths of their study include: the empirical replication and extension of prior claims; a priori specification of hypotheses and the methodology to test them; and the insight that prior claims may confound gender and generational status. Weaknesses include: the use of an untested (and unknown) scale to measure their dependent variable; the unfortunate and erroneous classification of majors into “hard” science vs. social science categories; a confound between graduate student status and generational status; and the number and interdependence of the statistical tests they use to test their hypotheses. All of the methodological weaknesses I identify (with the exception of their measurement of academic values) could be strengthened through changes to their procedures and analyses. Overall, their insight that Lukianoff and Haidt’s attribution of value differences to generational status may be confounded with gender is worthy of further research.
价值差距:一位学校心理学家对劳施等人(2023)的看法
Rausch 等人描述了他们为检验 Lukianoff 和 Haidt(2018 年)提出的有关当代(Z 世代)与上一代大学生价值观的若干假设所做的实证努力。我对他们工作的回顾主要集中在 Rausch 等人在执行研究时所采用的方法上。他们研究的优点包括:对先前的主张进行了实证复制和扩展;先验地提出了假设和检验假设的方法;洞察到先前的主张可能会混淆性别和世代状况。不足之处包括:使用了未经测试的(和未知的)量表来测量因变量;不幸和错误地将专业分为 "硬 "科学和社会科学两类;研究生身份和代际身份之间的混淆;以及他们用来测试假设的统计测试的数量和相互依赖性。我所指出的所有方法上的不足之处(除了他们对学术价值的衡量之外)都可以通过改变他们的程序和分析方法来加强。总之,他们关于卢基亚诺夫和海特将价值观差异归因于代际地位可能与性别混淆的见解值得进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信