You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Is There An Association between Gender and Methods in Sociological Research?
Linda Grant, Kathryn B. Ward and Xue Lan Rong
American Sociological Review
Vol. 52, No. 6 (Dec., 1987), pp. 856-862
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095839
Page Count: 7
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Social research, Men, Gender studies, Feminism, Womens rights, Gender roles, Research methods, Scholarly publishing, Authors, Women
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Feminist scholars have proposed that two types of links exist between research methods and gender. Female scholars have been thought to be more likely than males to choose qualitative methods because such methods are compatible with relational and emotional skills stereotypically associated with women. Qualitative approaches also have been thought to be especially appropriate for study of gender issues and women's experiences and to be an effective strategy for correcting androcentric biases in construction of social theory. We examine articles in 10 sociology journals in 1974-83. Most articles have been quantitative, but female authors have used qualitative methods more often than males. Writing about gender increased rather than decreased the likelihood of having used quantitative methods for both women and men. We suggest that papers focusing on gender and also using qualitative methods represented double nonconformity and hence were unlikely candidates for publication in mainstream journals.
American Sociological Review © 1987 American Sociological Association