Commentary on: The gendering of organizational research methods – evidence of gender patterns in qualitative research

Commentary on: “The gendering of organizational research methods – evidence of gender patterns in qualitative research”

Article Type: Commentary From: Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Volume 6, Issue 1.

Introduction

The provocative question that this paper addresses is “Does gender influence choice of research design so that females are more likely to choose qualitative methods?” It is relatively easy to see why the authors (Donde Ashmos Plowman and Anne D. Smith) might have had a hunch that this could be the case. It may be because men and women researchers are seen as different. But is this simply a stereotype?

The stereotype of the male and female researcher

Though the author(s) do not argue this, there may be a stereotype at work where female researchers are seen to be different to male researchers; this stereotype can be found in the literature on research methods. Male researchers have been perceived as adopting “the methods of the male-stream” (Griffin, 1986)involved in quantitative research that produces “hard data” ensuring objectivity, neutrality, precision in quantification, rigor and allowing valid predictions. Conversely women are portrayed as being drawn to the “softer”qualitative methods. Indeed some researchers have argued that women have an especial affinity for qualitative methods because these approaches embody qualities stereotypically associated with feminine social roles: empathy,evocation of emotion, establishment of rapport and relatively intense,egalitarian relationships with informants (Bernard, 1985; Stanley and Wise,1983). However, qualitative methods can be seen as more subjective, less“robust”. Further, objectivity and rationality are seen as masculine traits where as subjectivity and personal experience are feminine ones (Kelly, 1978). As women are seen as lesser in much research on perception of gender (Pheterson et al., 1971; Deaux and Taynor, 1973; Heilman, 2001) and techniques associated with men are accorded greater prestige and worth (Grant et al.,1987), it is not surprising that women and “weaker” research methods may be linked. The problem with arguments such as this which polarize men and women and emphasise difference between them is that women are stereotyped as “lesser” and these arguments legitimize social inequality. This polarization the sexes is also found in statements such as the following – a women who thinks“scientifically or objectively is thinking ‘like a man'; conversely a man pursuing a non-rational argument is arguing ‘like a woman'” (Keller, 1985, p. 77). Stereotypes such as these should be resisted and we must be wary of unwarranted scientific justifications of male pre-eminence and privilege,particularly those that discredit qualitative research.

Responding with some further questions

My response to the author's provocative question would be to pose these three question “Why should gender influence research design?” If as Peplau and Conrad(1989) argue all methods can be feminist methods, and quantitative methods are the preferred choice for both genders and articles about gender and sex roles are actually more likely to use quantitative methods (Grant and Ward, 1991;Grant et al., 1987) why would one argue that qualitative research is favored by females? And why would not male qualitative researchers also have empathy, evocation of emotion, establishment of rapport and relatively intense and egalitarian relationships with informants? My own choice of qualitative research methods is motivated by a wish to gain an in-depth understanding, to go behind the numbers that demonstrate women's disadvantage in organizations (e.g. unequal proportions of women in senior management or inequity in pay) to examine the social processes that lead to it and maintain it. This means asking how the inequity has developed, what maintains it and whose interests are served by inequity. That can require a mixture of research methods. The methods of traditional science and quantification are not adequate in themselves, in my view, and can be complemented by descriptive qualitative research. While I might argue for the benefits of qualitative research there may have been a systematic association being made between gender and methods.

Has there been a systematic association between gender and methods?

On page 1 the authors argue that “we do not speak of gender as a factor that influences the tools we use to study”. However, the question of whether or not there is a systematic association between gender and methods has been investigated before, for example in sociology (Mackie, 1985; Grant et al.,1987) and in psychology (Carlson, 1972). The paper on which I am commenting systematically reviews Organization and Management journals examining three mainstream North American highly regarded journals published between 1986 and 2008 (AMJ, ASQ, Organization Science) and another British-based journal (JMS) from its inception in 1990-2008. The research in this paper chooses a quantitative research method, counting the numbers of qualitative papers and authors. Only 22 percent of the published empirical articles in this study of the four journals were described as qualitative. For each journal more than twice (2.5:1) the number of males than females were authors and the overall proportion of female authors for qualitative research as compared to non-qualitative research was significantly higher. Further female qualitative researchers tended to be at earlier career stages than the males. There appears then to be an association between gender and methods.

Why the systematic association?

The reasons behind the figures are not researched but the authors do discuss what they might be. They discuss how the results may have come about because males and females may process information differently but then males and females are drawn to qualitative research. Alternatively women may have a different way of “knowing”. However, as noted, we should beware of stereotypes that draw on male and female difference, though we do need to clarify the psychological,biological and social cultural determinants of male and female behavior. A third and final explanation is that successful female authors who have published qualitative research in these top journals became “virtual mentors” to those women who followed. But is this equally the case for men? Perhaps these results tell us more about the bias in the journals as well as that women are more likely to be found concentrated at the bottom of academic organizational hierarchies.

Questions for further research

The authors are also keen to know what might explain why women might be more likely to be involved in qualitative studies. The paper touches on other provocative questions such as do male academics receive more help than female ones (Gersick et al., 2000). This would be an interesting question for further research.

There are other interesting research questions that may form the focus of further research and which lie behind the author's quantitative research in the more qualitative research questions, such as why individuals might be drawn to qualitative rather than quantitative research method (e.g. do they dislike numbers or statistics), whether top-quality journals are biased against qualitative methods, or as the paper acknowledges, why it is such a struggle to publish qualitative research (Pratt, 2008). It is easy to argue that one reason for the bias in favor of quantitative research could be because a finding or a result is more likely to be accepted as a fact if it is quantified (expressed in numbers) than if it is not. For example, there is little or no scientific evidence to support the well known “fact” that on man in ten is homosexual yet most of us are happy to accept uncritically such simplified, reductionist and incorrect statements so long as they contain at least one number (Black, 1994;Greenhalgh and Taylor, 1997).

Some final thoughts

If we accept that women are more likely to use qualitative methods, one reason not discussed in the paper may be because feminists have questioned the scientific method as being the best tool for capturing the human experience in general and women's experiences in particular (Harding, 1986; Oakley, 1988;Peplau and Conrad, 1989). All research is value laden (Myrdal, 1969). Science is influenced by the values and beliefs of its practitioners and since scientists have been predominantly white-middle-class males, it is not surprising that the scientific method, which is taught as the method and practice of objectivity is replete with andocentric and sexist biases (Denmark et al., 1988;McHugh et al., 1986). These biases have gone largely undetected and the scientific method continues to be seen as an objective exercise (Campbell,1995). Yet science is not objective and value free and objectivity is a value in itself. Further it could be argued that the standard of objectivity serves to separate the detached and knowing observer from the individuals subject to analysis, thus reinforcing the power of the researcher. Some researchers (both men and women) may aim to reduce unequal power relations and so may choose qualitative methods. We should avoid the equation that female equals feminist and male equals non-feminist (Peplau and Conrad, 1989).

It would be safer to argue that it is not gender that determines choice of qualitative or quantitative methods. Both genders use both methods. The type of research question posed, or other factors (Yin, 1994) will determine methods;the paper acknowledges this. It may be that quantitative research, due to its assumed objectivity and rigor may not need to be justified as much as qualitative methods. We need to continue to question the dominant intellectual tradition that is inclined to treat quantitative research as having objectivity,rigor and other attributes that qualitative research methods are seen to lack. We especially need to be wary of stereotypes which undermine the credibility of qualitative research.

Fiona WilsonBusiness School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

About the author

Fiona Wilson is Professor of Organizational Behavior and currently Head of Management at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. She has also been employed at the University of St Andrews, Bradford Management Centre and Manchester Business School. Her current interests are focussed mainly on gender relations at work and disadvantage. Fiona Wilson can be contacted at:f.m.wilson@glasgow.ac.uk