If studies use very new techniques and measures, it would be more interesting if they were to provide an explanation of what they did that was different. However, whenever I read these things, they all do much of the same thing...and worse, no one seems to be using this information to address the subtleties of the -isms. What are they really doing to get this information to the lay people in a way that doesn't turn them off?

totally off topic, but that made me think of the Pace picante sauce commercials

/tangent

thank you!!! LOL

NEW YORK CITY????


....get a rope!

I think you abuse commas like I do. :)

Yes, such positivism makes the world go 'round whether people like it or not. :)

I do (along with ellipses) - I also have a tendency to speak in parallel sentence structure, which is a whole other subject...

I doubt that you are reading these studies from the abstract to the discussion. I read enough articles so I'm not taking the time to read the full study that CNN is citing. Have you?

This is a vague critique, which should be ironic to you. :)

Not all researchers consider it their responsibility to do this beyond the research and teaching that they do.

However, CNN is arguably a mainstream source that reported this info to anyone who cares to access it. The problem is that most people will take CNN's story and stop there. We have the internet that has a wealth of info--some of it false--that people can access and hopefully inspire them to learn more.

There are also "public" specialties of fields. There are people who focus on going into the community and holding seminars, putting out books to be read by the masses, and doing articles in mainstream magazines. This requires different language use for certain research goals and different references. Some consider this "dumbing down" and it can be rather condescending and insulting, as well as nerve wrecking for the researcher at times.

When I can access the full studies including all the statistical data, I like to read them. Sometimes, different sites will actually give you the background and research of the study which is very convenient for those of us who care to read on.

But, I'm talking about making these things accessible and understandable to the general public. I find that results of studies are presented, but there's not a lot of information about how they came to the conclusions they did. I also find that the people who will accept the study anyway are the ones who are interested in reading; whereas people who either don't understand or don't agree, probably won't read the articles anyway.

If the point is to put more information out into the world, they're certainly doing their job. But, if they're looking to actually do something with the information, that's not really being accomplished...which is why I'm wondering why people do all these studies in the first place simply reinforcing what all the studies before them showed as well.

I'm not opposed to them in the least. I think they're a great starting point.

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of studies. I'll chalk it up to your experience with the studies that you have read without knowing whether these were refereed journals, whether you actually read the full studies, how many studies you are basing your statements on, etc.

My experiences have been different. 98% of the hundreds of studies that I have read are in line with the standard which is to provide an abstract to give a brief overview, lit review to explain the background, detailed methods and results, and a discussion/conclusions/implications to wrap it up. That's also the going rate when we write a research article to submit to most refereed journals.

That depends on where you are looking and what you are expecting.

We aren't miracle workers. :)

I am "BIASED" towards people who can spell the word correctly.
:p:cool:

My thoughts exactly! :p

I'd be interested to see this study repeated with two minorities, like maybe a Hispanic and a black individual instead of a black and a white.

We actually had a discussion about this in one of my classes last year. Someone mentioned that it is easier to use a white person and a black person in those studies because one will always be viewed as the "good" person while the other will be viewed as the "bad" person.

If you were to use a black & a Hispanic person, many people would view them as a "bad" person vs. a "bad" person.

If you were to use a white & an Asian person, people would view it as a "good" person vs. a "good" person.

I don't know how logical that is, but many people in the class agreed with this person's ideas. But then this is the same class where a girl claimed all the people in the military are only there because they are uneducated & couldn't do better for themselves (didn't go over well, since we are in a military town and most of us only live here cause our parents were in the military)--and people agreed with her too.

Good point.

Especially when you consider cultural assimilation when people of other races come to the US.

I'm sorry, I'm not willing to risk my personal safety correcting the behavior or pointing out the behavior of someone who is acting like an AH. There are some crazy-a$$ people out there.

I think this researcher is totally missing the point.

i always wonder about this too.

To build on epchick's post, a big reason why blacks and whites are used in most studies of race and ethnic relations is because blacks have long been the largest racial minority group in the U.S. To get a comparable sample size of other minorities generally requires oversampling unless the research goal is to examine Asians and Hispanics but not to compare these groups to the larger groups of "black" and "white."

People of Hispanic origin have increased in population however this includes a large population of black (race) Hispanics (ethnicity/culture), white Hispanics, and Hispanics who identify with more than one race. So for studies that are secondary analyses of census data and other datasets or for researchers who collect their own data, the 2-category system is most applicable and accurate.

Lastly, there is a rich historical interaction between people of European and African descent in the U.S. and a few other societies. Often only matched or surpassed by the history of peoples of "Native American" descent in the Americas and people of European descent.