Study: You may be more racist than you think

[KSigkid]

Glad I wasn't the only one who thought this study was stating the obvious.

[DrPhil]

I'm a social scientist so this is "obvious" to me but this is news to the average layperson that I talk to and my average student. There will be a "wow" factor for some, some will be angered because they think this study is telling them they aren't as nice or as progressive as they thought they were, and the rest will be like "DUH."

That's what I find amusing.

These types of studies are to keep the dialogue going and to use updated methods to either debunk or reinforce the things that many consider to be "conventional wisdom." Conventional wisdom is rarely so and we need qual and quant studies to tell us whether we're completely wrong about our assumptions.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I'm a social scientist so this is "obvious" to me but this is news to the average layperson that I talk to and my average student. There will be a "wow" factor for some, some will be angered because they think this study is telling them they aren't as nice or as progressive as they thought they were, and the rest will be like "DUH."

That's what I find amusing.

These types of studies are to keep the dialogue going and to use updated methods to either debunk or reinforce the things that many consider to be "conventional wisdom." Conventional wisdom is rarely so and we need qual and quant studies to tell us whether we're completely wrong about our assumptions.

I guess my reaction to the study, as well as my reactions to other similar studies, show why it's a good thing I pursued the law, and not the social sciences, as a career path.

ETA: Although I would be missing something if I didn't acknowledge that this type of study can be used in a number of legal avenues, from jury selection to scholarly writing on the law.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I guess my reaction to the study, as well as my reactions to other similar studies, show why it's a good thing I pursued the law, and not the social sciences, as a career path.

I think you abuse commas like I do.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

ETA: Although I would be missing something if I didn't acknowledge that this type of study can be used in a number of legal avenues, from jury selection to scholarly writing on the law.

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

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I think you abuse commas like I do.

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

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

These types of studies are to keep the dialogue going and to use updated methods to either debunk or reinforce the things that many consider to be "conventional wisdom." Conventional wisdom is rarely so and we need qual and quant studies to tell us whether we're completely wrong about our assumptions.

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?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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...

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?

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

and worse, no one seems to be using this information to address the subtleties of the -isms.

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

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

What are they really doing to get this information to the lay people in a way that doesn't turn them off?

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.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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?

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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.

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.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

But, if they're looking to actually do something with the information, that's not really being accomplished....

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

We aren't miracle workers.