Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 06:32:39 AM
Doesn't have enough to do? It sounds like this is what she does. This study isn't outside the scope of sociology, certainly not for a sociologist whose areas of specialization include "Social Inequalities - Gender, Race, and Ethnicity," "Sociology of Childhood and Youth," and "Sociology of Sexuality."

#1) Because they have a sociology department. http://www.fsu.edu/~soc/

#2) It sounds like Dr. McCabe has a research faculty position. Professors whose research is fully supported by external funding often have different duties at Universities and will teach few courses. The FSU website has her teaching two grad courses and three undergrad courses so she is probably teaching three courses a semester. While that's not a huge teaching load it will keep one busy and certainly eat into ones time for research.

So how does she find the time? She, like many research scientists working at Universities, probably goes into overdrive during the breaks in the academic calendar.

I guess Tele Tubby grant money was all used up, so she settled for Pooh? ::)

Am I the only one that sees the stupidity in this?
Its a freakin cartoon character.
What next, studying the sociopathic qualities of Bugs Bunny?

Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 06:42:47 AM
Am I the only one that sees the stupidity in this?
Its a freakin cartoon character.
What next, studying the sociopathic qualities of Bugs Bunny?

Exactly what do you think "this" represents? I'm genuinely curious if you read what the article had to say about the study, and what the PI had to say about her work.

Her study wasn't about the gender of Winnie the Pooh. It seems like an informatics study about gender disparity in children's literature. You can still argue that the work isn't worth funding or isn't worth doing but given that her study was about children's literature it isn't stupid at all for there to be cartoon characters involved.

Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 07:22:33 AM
Exactly what do you think "this" represents? I'm genuinely curious if you read what the article had to say about the study, and what the PI had to say about her work.

Her study wasn't about the gender of Winnie the Pooh. It seems like an informatics study about gender disparity in children's literature. You can still argue that the work isn't worth funding or isn't worth doing but given that her study was about children's literature it isn't stupid at all for there to be cartoon characters involved.

No, the point is, sometimes a tree is just a tree.
Bark, leaves, and wood. Not a sentient being, just a tree.

Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 07:38:25 AM
No, the point is, sometimes a tree is just a tree.
Bark, leaves, and wood. Not a sentient being, just a tree.

That's your point? A retreat into analogy?

I'm no longer curious as to whether you read the article linked in the OP.

Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 07:41:58 AM
That's your point? A retreat into analogy?

I'm no longer curious as to whether you read the article linked in the OP.

Nope, didn't need to.
Sometimes people read way to much into things, which was the point of the analogy.

But I'll read it and see if I can figure out your point.

OK, read it, and my analogy stands!
The woman is seeing something that is irrelevant, and trying to give it relevance.

Seriously, what does it matter if there are more male characters in children books?
Do parents not have the sense to pick what they want their children to read?

Did this woman look at every book published since 1900 for children, or just the better written and more popular ones.

Bottom line, I smell an agenda, despite her claims to the contrary.

Where did ya go Grey? This is just getting started, looks like an interesting subject to delve into.

Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 08:11:39 AM
Where did ya go Grey?

Don't be absurd.

Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 08:18:37 AM
Don't be absurd.

Huh? I was serious, I find this an interesting subject in how we both view it differently.

Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 08:00:11 AM
OK, read it, and my analogy stands!
The woman is seeing something that is irrelevant, and trying to give it relevance.

Seriously, what does it matter if there are more male characters in children books?
Do parents not have the sense to pick what they want their children to read?

Did this woman look at every book published since 1900 for children, or just the better written and more popular ones.

Bottom line, I smell an agenda, despite her claims to the contrary.

Whether her study is relevant or not is very debatable. She's asking a question that is relevant to the field of gender studies in sociology. I say "very debatable" because I think the issue would quickly become one of the relevancy of sociology itself.

One of us would have to read her paper to answer your questions about the research, but methodology is certainly vital to judging conclusions.

You seem to be railing against non-existent government control that one could imagine coming from some tyrannical do-gooder enacting as a result of taking this research to an illogical extreme and making unrelated value judgements about what is right and wrong for children, but its being directed at the scientist that states a reasonable scientific goal: to observe and report to make others aware.

What is the reason for your suspicion of a hidden agenda? Just general pessimism?

Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 08:23:17 AM
Huh? I was serious, I find this an interesting subject in how we both view it differently.

I know.

What struck me as absurd is the assumption that I'd always be available to quickly respond to your posts.

Reality beckons from time to time. I'm grilling breakfast this Friday morning.

Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 08:32:39 AM
Whether her study is relevant or not is very debatable. She's asking a question that is relevant to the field of gender studies in sociology. I say "very debatable" because I think the issue would quickly become one of the relevancy of sociology itself.

One of us would have to read her paper to answer your questions about the research, but methodology is certainly vital to judging conclusions.

You seem to be railing against non-existent government control that one could imagine coming from some tyrannical do-gooder enacting as a result of taking this research to an illogical extreme and making unrelated value judgements about what is right and wrong for children, but its being directed at the scientist that states a reasonable scientific goal: to observe and report to make others aware.

What is the reason for your suspicion of a hidden agenda? Just general pessimism?

Thank you for the well thought out post.

I guess where we differ is her idea that there is a need for balance of gender books.
Do children not lean toward what interests them?
Like girls love Nancy Drew, or my Friend Flica, Little Women and boys toward the Hardy Boys and and comic books.
But the point is, it is blatantly she sees an issue where none ever existed, till she created one.

Oh, and I too am in the middle of cooking my second breakfast, so sorry for the delay. :D

Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 08:58:57 AM
Thank you for the well thought out post.

I guess where we differ is her idea that there is a need for balance of gender books.

I don't see where she states that there is such a need. She says that there is a disparity and that it matters.

I guess I can see how such a need could be seen as the next logical inference, but I'm granting her the benefit of the doubt that her research stops short of attempting to make subjective distinctions about policy.

That's just conjecture anyway. Her words indicate to me that she's attempting to follow a model of empiricism, making observations and asking questions. I for one think that questions about why we are the way we are are worth asking.

Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 09:15:11 AM
I don't see where she states that there is such a need. She says that there is a disparity and that it matters.

I guess I can see how such a need could be seen as the next logical inference, but I'm granting her the benefit of the doubt that her research stops short of attempting to make subjective distinctions about policy.

That's just conjecture anyway. Her words indicate to me that she's attempting to follow a model of empiricism, making observations and asking questions. I for one think that questions about why we are the way we are are worth asking.

Impiricism? Only in true science, in her case, agenda driven research.
If this were truly for research purposes, what would be the need, what would it matter?

To truly get an answer, 1600, 2000, 10,000 books is not enough, one would need to study every book written with the family in mind to truly get an idea of a balance of characters.
But this woman specifically chose a certain number of books, that hardly qualifies as research, more like a term paper.
Two thousand books is less than 1% of all books written for the family/children since 1900.
I'd like to see her criteria for selecting such a small sampling.

Yeah, I still smell agenda.

Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 09:25:33 AM
Impiricism? Only in true science, in her case, agenda driven research.
If this were truly for research purposes, what would be the need, what would it matter?

To truly get an answer, 1600, 2000, 10,000 books is not enough, one would need to study every book written with the family in mind to truly get an idea of a balance of characters.
But this woman specifically chose a certain number of books, that hardly qualifies as research, more like a term paper.
Two thousand books is less than 1% of all books written for the family/children since 1900.
I'd like to see her criteria for selecting such a small sampling.

Yeah, I still smell agenda.

How many children's books have been published since 1900? I agree that it seems reasonable to assume that 1600 represents a small sampling, but if they're the 1600 most popular (measured by some consistent metric) than it may represent a numerically small but still significant sampling.

The justification for her sampling size could also as easily be a matter of logistics as much as agenda. Really, surveying 1600 books is larger in scope than a "term paper."