Some of us are reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The point Allen addresses on page 188 about a white male professor who told a black woman graduate student that she was “inarticulate” and that he “could not understand” her speech ties well with Freire’s idea. He thinks this is one of the many strategies the powerful use to oppress the disenfranchised groups. On the other hand Allen talks about the need for minority groups to get constructive criticisms from others. So how does one differentiate genuine lack of clarity from that which is meant to dehumanize?
2. Firestone and Harris (2003) used a large N-size and came up with some statistically significant variation between men and women’s position on issues of personal and environmental sexual harassment in the US military. Some perceptual variation/similarities across time are also interesting. Despite the scientific nature of the study, I have a feeling that the study method they preferred (which might be dictated by the type of available data) has limited their potential to dig deeper and bring to surface information of critical relevance. For example, the authors indicate “findings from small group studies consistently show that those with more organizational power are more likely to harass,” (p.45) while “on the other hand larger representative samples indicate that coworkers were more often responsible for harassment than were supervisors,” (p.45). Where does this difference come from? I think for the study of a sensitive case like sexual harassment, a mixed research approach might have helped to juxtapose the data generated in various ways and make critical reflections. The fact that the writers of this article used a story from Washington Post in concluding their story might indicate the need for mixed approach. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment