Where it turns out that the method does not break the glass ceiling…

IF 0.9 Q3 SOCIOLOGY
S. Duchesne, Ahmed Fouad El Haddad, X. Itçaina, Viviane Le Hay
{"title":"Where it turns out that the method does not break the glass ceiling…","authors":"S. Duchesne, Ahmed Fouad El Haddad, X. Itçaina, Viviane Le Hay","doi":"10.1177/07591063231184240a","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We are delighted to publish two more articles in the “the design of my research” section in which colleagues with prestigious reputations agree to look back over various stages of their careers and to reflect on the place and role survey methods have played in them. This time it is Paul M. Sniderman, known for his work on prejudice, who has greatly contributed to the development of an experimental approach to opinion; and Pierre Lascoumes, a sociologist of law and public action, who at one point in his career was called on to supervise a collective project on the representations of probity. We are very grateful to these colleagues for having accepted our invitation, each in their own way, and for offering us the fruits of their reflections, while observing how difficult it is to anticipate the way in which each of them will interpret the proposal we are making. There is no need here for inclusive writing as we are struggling to find female colleagues available for the adventure. Nonna Mayer kindly agreed to take part early on, as did Christine Musselin, and we thank them. However, this means there are only two testimonies from women for every ten contributions from men. Seeing this, we had the idea of having a quick look at the overall publications in BMS over the last five years and we were surprised to see the overall ratio was also very unbalanced, especially when removing from the count the contributions to the two guest issues on children and gender, both of which mostly contained articles (co-)authored by women. We do not have the means here to put these observations into perspective with the kind of articles published in general social science journals. All we can say is this result surprised us. We had indeed felt that since methods are not a particularly renowned field in our disciplines, they should be more easily open to women’s work. Apparently this is not the case. We are interested in the issue and will certainly return to it in a future editorial. In addition, we will double our efforts to convince women colleagues to contribute to this section. For now, we hope you will enjoy the two new contributions by Paul Sniderman and Pierre Lascoumes, whom we thank again. This issue also includes two ‘implementation’ articles, both of which focus on data collection. The first, written by Sven Stadtmüller in collaboration with several colleagues from GESIS in Mannheim, examines the efficiency of mixed-mode selfadministered surveys, focusing in particular on how different incentive systems and mode choice designs influence response rates, net sample composition and survey costs, depending in particular on the age of respondents. The second, also co-authored, with Anica Bowe as corresponding author, presents the NGO BECO’s Equity Audit tool, designed to measure racial diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace. The tool is assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The","PeriodicalId":38437,"journal":{"name":"BMS-Bulletin of Sociological Methodology-Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMS-Bulletin of Sociological Methodology-Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07591063231184240a","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We are delighted to publish two more articles in the “the design of my research” section in which colleagues with prestigious reputations agree to look back over various stages of their careers and to reflect on the place and role survey methods have played in them. This time it is Paul M. Sniderman, known for his work on prejudice, who has greatly contributed to the development of an experimental approach to opinion; and Pierre Lascoumes, a sociologist of law and public action, who at one point in his career was called on to supervise a collective project on the representations of probity. We are very grateful to these colleagues for having accepted our invitation, each in their own way, and for offering us the fruits of their reflections, while observing how difficult it is to anticipate the way in which each of them will interpret the proposal we are making. There is no need here for inclusive writing as we are struggling to find female colleagues available for the adventure. Nonna Mayer kindly agreed to take part early on, as did Christine Musselin, and we thank them. However, this means there are only two testimonies from women for every ten contributions from men. Seeing this, we had the idea of having a quick look at the overall publications in BMS over the last five years and we were surprised to see the overall ratio was also very unbalanced, especially when removing from the count the contributions to the two guest issues on children and gender, both of which mostly contained articles (co-)authored by women. We do not have the means here to put these observations into perspective with the kind of articles published in general social science journals. All we can say is this result surprised us. We had indeed felt that since methods are not a particularly renowned field in our disciplines, they should be more easily open to women’s work. Apparently this is not the case. We are interested in the issue and will certainly return to it in a future editorial. In addition, we will double our efforts to convince women colleagues to contribute to this section. For now, we hope you will enjoy the two new contributions by Paul Sniderman and Pierre Lascoumes, whom we thank again. This issue also includes two ‘implementation’ articles, both of which focus on data collection. The first, written by Sven Stadtmüller in collaboration with several colleagues from GESIS in Mannheim, examines the efficiency of mixed-mode selfadministered surveys, focusing in particular on how different incentive systems and mode choice designs influence response rates, net sample composition and survey costs, depending in particular on the age of respondents. The second, also co-authored, with Anica Bowe as corresponding author, presents the NGO BECO’s Equity Audit tool, designed to measure racial diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace. The tool is assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The
事实证明,这种方法并没有打破玻璃天花板……
我们很高兴在“我的研究设计”部分再发表两篇文章,在这两篇文章中,享有盛誉的同事们同意回顾他们职业生涯的各个阶段,并反思调查方法在其中所起的作用和地位。这一次,以研究偏见而闻名的保罗·m·斯奈德曼(Paul M. Sniderman)为研究意见的实验方法的发展做出了巨大贡献;以及研究法律和公共行为的社会学家皮埃尔·拉斯库梅斯(Pierre Lascoumes),在他的职业生涯中,他曾一度被要求监督一个关于诚信表现的集体项目。我们非常感谢这些同事以各自的方式接受了我们的邀请,并向我们提供了他们的思考成果,同时注意到预测他们每个人将以何种方式解释我们正在提出的建议是多么困难。这里不需要包容性的写作,因为我们正在努力寻找可以参加这次冒险的女同事。Nonna Mayer很早就同意参加,Christine Musselin也同意参加,我们感谢他们。然而,这意味着每十个男性的贡献中只有两个来自女性的证词。看到这一点,我们想到快速浏览一下BMS过去五年的总体出版物,我们惊讶地发现,总体比例也非常不平衡,特别是当我们把关于儿童和性别的两期客座杂志的贡献从统计中删除时,这两期杂志的文章大多是由女性(共同)撰写的。在这里,我们没有办法用发表在一般社会科学期刊上的文章来看待这些观察结果。我们只能说这个结果让我们大吃一惊。我们确实认为,由于方法在我们的学科中不是一个特别著名的领域,因此应该更容易向妇女开放。显然情况并非如此。我们对这个问题很感兴趣,一定会在以后的社论中再讨论这个问题。此外,我们将加倍努力说服女同事为这一节作出贡献。现在,我们希望你们能喜欢保罗·斯奈德曼和皮埃尔·拉斯库梅斯的两个新贡献,我们再次感谢他们。本期还包括两篇“实施”文章,均侧重于数据收集。第一份报告由Sven stadtm ller与曼海姆GESIS的几位同事合作撰写,研究了混合模式自我管理调查的效率,特别关注不同的激励制度和模式选择设计如何影响回复率、净样本组成和调查成本,特别是取决于受访者的年龄。第二份报告也是由安妮卡·鲍(Anica Bowe)作为通讯作者共同撰写的,介绍了非政府组织BECO的公平审计工具,旨在衡量工作场所的种族多样性、公平和包容性。对该工具进行定量和定性评估。的
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信