The role of status in evaluating research: the case of data editing

Abstract Cleaning and editing apparently illogical, or seemingly incorrect, data is a ubiquitous research practice. But a lack of formal guidance in this realm of research may promote reliance on colleagues’ knowledge and on information from the situation at hand, such as status considerations. To investigate the extent to which status considerations influence sociological research practice, I conducted a survey-based experiment using hypothetical vignettes. A sample of sociologists was asked to respond to a hypothetical vignette depicting a researcher’s encounter with apparently messy data and a proposed editing strategy. The vignettes controlled for all variables except one—the status of the hypothetical researcher—and one vignette was randomly assigned to each sociologist. I find that status considerations are relevant to sociological research. Researchers judge the same data cleaning strategy more stringently when a graduate student, rather than a professor, proposes the strategy. Implications of these findings for the objectivity and universality of sociological research practice are discussed.

[1]  H. Birx,et al.  The Mismeasure of Man , 1981 .

[2]  Sarah A. Chickering,et al.  The Influence of Pastor Status and Sex on Evaluations of Sermons , 2001 .

[3]  R. Burt Toward a structural theory of action , 1982 .

[4]  Martha Foschi,et al.  Double Standards for Competence: Theory and Research , 2000 .

[5]  Andrew Abbott,et al.  Status and Status Strain in the Professions , 1981, American Journal of Sociology.

[6]  Guillermina Jasso,et al.  MARITAL COITAL FREQUENCY AND THE PASSAGE OF TIME: ESTIMATING THE SEPARATE EFFECTS OF SPOUSES' AGES AND MARITAL DURATION, BIRTH AND MARRIAGE COHORTS, AND PERIOD INFLUENCES* , 1985 .

[7]  R. Burt Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[8]  R. Merton Social Theory and Social Structure , 1958 .

[9]  A. Stinchcombe Disintegrated disciplines and the future of sociology , 1994 .

[10]  Effects of Researcher Status and University Status on the Evaluation of Scientific Articles , 1978 .

[11]  Barry Markovsky,et al.  Power and Influence: A Theoretical Bridge , 1997 .

[12]  J. Udry,et al.  Marital coital frequency: unnoticed outliers and unspecified interactions lead to erroneous conclusions. , 1986 .

[13]  S. Feinman A status theory of the evaluation of sex-role and age-role behavior , 1984 .

[14]  J. D. McCarthy,et al.  Social Position and Self-Evaluation: The Relative Importance of Race , 1972, American Journal of Sociology.

[15]  C. Ridgeway,et al.  Gender, Status, and Leadership , 2001 .

[16]  Stephen Cole,et al.  The Hierarchy of the Sciences? , 1983, American Journal of Sociology.

[17]  J. Berger,et al.  Paths of Relevance and the Induction of Status-Task Expectancies: A Research Note , 1982 .

[18]  B. Cohen,et al.  Status processes in enduring work groups. , 1991 .

[19]  M. Foschi,et al.  Gender and double standards in the assessment of job applicants , 1994 .

[20]  Diane F. Witmer,et al.  From paper-and-pencil to screen-and-keyboard , 1970 .

[21]  A. C. Kerckhoff Institutional Arrangements and Stratification Processes in Industrial Societies , 1995 .

[22]  Jonathan R. Cole,et al.  Fair Science: Women in the Scientific Community , 1987 .

[23]  Richard R. Peterson A re-evaluation of the economic consequences of divorce. , 1996 .

[24]  Joseph P. Martino,et al.  The subjective side of science : Mitroff, Ian I., Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1974, 329 pp., $11.50 , 1976 .

[25]  Martha Foschi,et al.  Status Generalization: New Theory and Research. , 1989 .

[26]  Fred Davidson Principles of statistical data handling , 1996 .

[27]  Erin E Leahey,et al.  Diversity in Everyday Research Practice , 2003 .

[28]  Lowell L. Hargens,et al.  Scientific Consensus and Academic Status Attainment Patterns. , 1982 .

[29]  R. Cordero,et al.  Favoritism, Bias, and Error in Performance Ratings of Scientists and Engineers: The Effects of Power, Status, and Numbers , 2001 .

[30]  Stephen Cole,et al.  Social Stratification in Science , 1974 .

[31]  The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America , 1986 .

[32]  Henry A. Walker,et al.  Status Characteristics and Performance Expectations: A Reformulation* , 2002 .

[33]  Guillermina Jasso,et al.  Probing the character of norms : A factorial survey analysis of the norms of political action , 1997 .

[34]  C. Gallois,et al.  Social Rules for Managing Attempted Interpersonal Domination in the Workplace: Influence of Status and Gender , 2001 .

[35]  Jonathan R. Cole,et al.  Fair Science: Women in the Scientific Community. , 1982 .

[36]  L. Margolin,et al.  Status Characteristics and Performance: An Assessment of their Effects on Acceptance of Influence , 1992 .

[37]  J. Hamilton,et al.  VIOLENCE AND VICTIMS The Contribution of Victimology to Forensic Psychiatry , 1987, The Lancet.

[38]  Jon Miller,et al.  Social-Psychological Implications of Weber's Model of Bureaucracy: Relations Among Expertise, Control, Authority, and Legitimacy , 1970 .

[39]  Chava Nachmias,et al.  Research Methods in the Social Sciences , 1976 .

[40]  S. Fuchs The Social Organization of Scientific Knowledge , 1986 .

[41]  M. Barber,et al.  Evaluations of Aggressive Women: The Effects of Gender, Socioeconomic Status, and Level of Aggression , 1999, Violence and Victims.

[42]  G. Jasso,et al.  Double standards in just earnings for male and female workers , 1997 .

[43]  N. Lin SOCIAL NETWORKS AND STATUS ATTAINMENT , 1999 .

[44]  Linda B. Bourque,et al.  Processing Data: The Survey Example , 1992 .

[45]  Equating characteristics and status-organizing processes , 2000 .

[46]  Edwin J. Dawson,et al.  It's Not What You Do, But Who You Are: Informal Social Control, Social Status, and Normative Seriousness in Organizations , 1997 .

[47]  W. Hagstrom The scientific community , 1966 .

[48]  Jerry G. Thursby,et al.  Replication in Empirical Economics: The Journal of Money, Credit and Banking Project , 1986 .

[49]  M. Foschi,et al.  Processing performance evaluations in homogeneous task groups: Feedback and gender effects , 2001 .

[50]  Erin E Leahey,et al.  Alphas and Asterisks: The Development of Statistical Significance Testing Standards in Sociology , 2005 .

[51]  Gary Alan Fine,et al.  A Second Chicago School? The Development of a Postwar American Sociology. , 1996 .

[52]  Jeffery Mullis Medical malpractice, social structure, and social control , 1995 .

[53]  T. Greenstein,et al.  The effects of differential evaluations on status generalization. , 1980 .

[54]  Jennifer L. Glanville,et al.  SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND CLASS IN STUDIES OF FERTILITY AND HEALTH IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES , 2001 .

[55]  Teresa A. Peck When women evaluate women, nothing succeeds like success: The differential effects of status upon evaluations of male and female professional ability , 1978 .

[56]  Martin Wetzels,et al.  From paper-and-pencil to screen-and-keyboard : studies on the effectiveness of internet-based marketing research , 2006 .