Martin and Barnard (2013) employ the grounded theory approach to explore females’ experiences in male-dominated professions. The use of the approach is evident as the researchers used unstructured interviews to collect data. The data were transcribed, and later initial codes were developed. After that, the axial coding was implemented. The researchers identified recurrent themes in each interview and compared the interviews as well as field notes and memos. The theory was developed on the basis of these themes.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
Martin and Barnard (2013) focused on discriminatory practices in male-dominated professions and coping strategies used by females to overcome such issues. The data collection procedure involved unstructured interviews with five females working in a male-dominated environment. The researchers played an active role in the process as they carried out the interviews and transcribed the data.
In terms of the grounded theory approach, the researchers try to identify themes that recurrently appear in the participants’ accounts. These themes are used to develop a theory. In this study, the researchers manage to develop a sound theory concerning major obstacles females meet in a male-dominated working environment and the coping strategies they used. They note that gender stereotypes and discrimination are major challenges, and the utilization of femininity, adoption of some male characteristics, intrinsic motivation as well as mentorship are central coping strategies.
The researchers aimed at identifying central challenges females face and coping strategies they use to address the issues. The grounded theory approach is appropriate to meet the researcher’s goals. One of the major merits of the approach is the ability to identify recurrent themes, which are the answer to the researchers’ questions. It is possible to enhance the study with the help of the mixed method approach. It could be effective to test the theory by implementing a survey among females employed at several companies.
The gender stereotypes in the workplace were the focus of the discussion. Qualitative and quantitative studies exploring issues related to gender stereotypes in the working environment were analyzed. Some studies were based on the experimental while others were based on quasi-experimental approaches. Thus, qualitative studies identified particular challenges women face, discriminatory practices and stereotypes that exist, and so on. Quantitative studies revealed the extent to which these trends affect people’s lives as well as the way different trends and opinions correlate.
The qualitative methodology allowed researchers to identify some persistent trends and opinions while quantitative methods provided quantifiable evidence to support some theories. The strength of the qualitative research method is its depth and focus. However, its major limitation is the inability to generalize the findings to wide populations. The strength of the quantitative method is that it provides particular numerical data to support or refute a hypothesis.
These data are generalizable which is another advantage. Nonetheless, the quantitative method can often provide too general data that cannot be applicable in all situations. For instance, such instrument as tests or surveys limit participants answers to particular options, and their ideas may remain concealed.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
It is difficult to identify the most appropriate approach as each of them is beneficial in its own way. When it comes to gender issues, it is almost impossible to state that only one of the methods can be effective. Both approaches are applicable and can reveal different facets of the problem. Researchers should employ both methods to address issues related to gender stereotyping in the workplace and at home. It is vital to identify people’s ideas on the matter and reveal various trends existing in the society. It is also essential to identify the extent to which these trends affect people’s behavior. Numerical data can provide the necessary evidence to support the data obtained from qualitative studies.
Ethics is important in three domains that include academic writing, participants’ treatment, and research conduct. Each of these aspects is crucial for psychology as well as any other field. It is possible to note that ethics ensures the validity of the research. Thus, academic writing should be ethical as such issues as plagiarism or violations of copyright policies decreases the validity of the study (Leedy & Ormrod, 2012). Unethical treatment of the participants can lead to distorted data as participants may be afraid to share their true opinions if their confidentiality is not ensured (Iphofen, 2016). It is also crucial to make sure that the research is conducted with a focus on such ethical values as integrity, openness, objectivity.
People involved in the sphere of psychology have to pay a lot of attention to ethical issues. Working with people may lead to various issues related to ethics. Thus, clients often face various challenges and the development of rapport is crucial as the practitioner may help a client who trusts him/her. Confidentiality is one of the most burning issues related to this area as people are reluctant to share if they suspect that their secrets can be revealed.
At that, even the development of family relations depends on the ability to make ethical decisions. Again, unethical behavior destroys the trust that is essential. Thus, ethical behavior is of a paramount importance of any individual.
It is possible to note that the three ethical contexts mentioned above contribute significantly to scientific merit. One of the major ways this contribution is manifested is the ensured validity of the research. Ethical conduct in all the three domains helps the researcher to collect relevant data and come to valid conclusions that are likely to be proved during further studies.
Iphofen, R. (2016). Ethical decision making in social research: A practical guide. New York, NY: Springer.
Leedy, P.D., & Ormrod, J.E. (2012). Practical research: Planning and Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Martin, P., & Barnard, A. (2013). The experience of women in male-dominated occupations: A constructivist grounded theory inquiry. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 39(2), 1-12. Web.