Home / Article Review / Quantitative Analysis, Article Review Example

Quantitative Analysis, Article Review Example

Pages: 16

Words: 4321

Introduction

It seems natural to assume that religiosity is counter to gender egalitarianism in Islamic culture. In this article, “A Research Note on Islam and Gender Egalitarianism: An Examination of Egyptian and Saudi Arabian Youth Attitudes,” Jaime Kucinskas studies the nature of the relationship between these two variables and hypothesizes that the more liberal nature of Egypt will lead its people to be more inclined toward gender egalitarianism than those in the more traditional Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that both countries are considered to be misogynistic in nature.

Her study focuses on the self-judged religiosity and gender egalitarianism from respondent youths from those countries. The methods suffer from gaps in the methodology as well as problematic citation of outdated sources. In addition, there are no varied viewpoints to balance out the discussion. For these reasons, it seems fair to judge that the quantitative research in this article does not support the conclusions as well as it could with better methods and research.

Methodology and Results

The variables of religiosity and gender egalitarianism are quantified by using a numerical system corresponding to the answers provided by respondents. The research focuses on a four-point Likert scale to determine the self-assessed religiosity of respondents, the participation in organized religious activity of respondents, and the orthodoxy of respondent beliefs. For gender egalitarianism, the four-point Likert scale was applied as well.

Self assessed religiosity is quantified as either a score between one and zero, depending on the response concerning personal religious beliefs. Those respondents who claim to be religious are assigned a score of one while those who claim to be nonreligious or atheist are assigned a score of zero. This is a straightforward question, an it focuses on the respondent’s own view of his or her religious stance.

For organized practice of religious faith, respondents answered two questions. The first question is about participation in Sallah, the Islamic practice of daily prayer. If the respondent claimed to observe Sallah, he or she was given a score of one, with a negative response gaining a score of zero. The second part of the question was concerned with mosque attendance, with respondents scoring a one for attending mosque weekly, and a zero for not attending mosque weekly.

The measure of orthodoxy was calculated using four questions designed to measure orthodoxy, including questions about adherence to the tenants of Islam, the choice between science and religion when the two are in conflict, the tampering with religious practices, and the willingness to compromise with the beliefs of others. The researcher used Cronbach’s Alpha to assign an overall score of .77 to all respondents

The researcher likewise measured gender egalitarianism on a four-point Likert scale with respondents rating four statements on a scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree with a score of 1 to 4, with 1 corresponding to a response of “strongly agree.” The questions had to do with the preference of males in receiving education, the preference of males to become politicians, the preference of men for hiring in jobs when they are scarce, and the requirement for wives to obey their husbands.

Unsurprisingly, the Kucinskas’ hypotheses were confirmed, and the research showed that Egyptian gender egalitarian attitudes are higher than those in Saudi Arabia, while religiosity negatively correlates with gender egalitarianism. Males who did not attend mosque were found to be more gender egalitarian than females who attended regularly. The results were just as the researchers had expected and hypothesized.

Gaps in the Research

The article reviews the subjects of gender egalitarianism and religiosity in order to evaluate the quantitative difference in attitudes on gender egalitarianism as they relate to those subjects in Saudi Arabia in contrast with Egypt. The gaps seem to exist in the variables that were examined. In addition to the relationship with religiosity, gender egalitarianism could be examined against additional cultural contexts. In addition, the separations between the variables in religiosity are not designed to be as well defined as they could be. Finally, the differences between religiosity in Egypt and Saudi Arabia were not examined. These gaps lead to questions about the nature of the validity of the findings of the research. While the conclusion seems to fit the data, it seems as though the research and quantitative values are flawed in these ways.

While the religiosity value is extremely important in the culture, there are obviously additional aspects of the culture that could be examined in terms of understanding gender egalitarianism among youth in Islamic culture. Since the purpose of the article is to examine the youth attitudes on egalitarian in Islamic culture. While the aspect of religiosity is extremely important in this culture, it seems limiting to focus on it to the exclusion of all other cultural influences. For example, the availability of technology and knowledge of the western world would seem to influence the nature of gender egalitarianism in youth. While it is true that the study takes education in to consideration, it seems that this variable is less important than technology in nation in which education is controlled by a theocratic government. For this reason, it seems that a gap exists in the level of analysis that was implemented in the study. The respondents’ levels of religiosity are important, but this article aims to gauge these attitudes for the youth in these countries, and focusing exclusively on religiosity seems to put limitations on the findings.

Further, in examining the religiosity of the respondents, the study seems to oversimplify the issue. Religiosity seems to necessarily encompass a wide range of beliefs. Evaluation of a respondent’s religiosity in the paper was evaluated by means of personal belief and participation in Salah. There is no differentiation between those who respond as being non-religious or atheist in comparison to those who claim to be religious in terms of their personal evaluations on the orthodoxy scale. It seems that religiosity could be further explored to examine the orthodoxy among those who self-identified as religious.

This issue leads directly in to the final issue of the lack of evaluations on the quantitative differences between the religious interpretations in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Religious orthodoxy, in particular, is related to interpretation of scripture. Those who respond as highly orthodox on religion from Saudi Arabia may have vastly different interpretations of key scriptures, despite being Sunni regions. A researcher needs only to think about the vast differences between Protestant denominations within the United States to have an idea of the differences that can occur based on separate areas. The gap here is the assumption that two Sunni Muslims would have exactly the same views despite regional differences. The researcher has not made a quantitative distinction between the two orthodoxies.

Despite these gaps, the research still seems to be solid. There are enough similarities between the cultures that the reader can assume that the findings are sound enough to be used for consideration. However, understanding the gaps leads researchers to properly evaluate the conclusions that are drawn in order to understand the research further.

Research for the Study

The article makes a number of claims about the nature of gender egalitarianism in the Islamic world. Though there is no literature review, the introduction does a good job of setting up a general overview of the state of gender egalitarianism in Islam. However, the research seems to be focused on somewhat out-of-date articles. The points also utilize a large number of sources to back them up. While they are broad points, the utilization of so many sources is clumsy. Additionally, the sources are dated as far back as 2000, which is problematic in itself, but especially problematic considering the nature of the Islamic world and the shifting geopolitical realities for that culture. In all, the germinal research in this study is used to backup claims about the nature of the feminist movement in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This is problematic because these sources are out of date and too many are used to back up a single point.

In the introduction for the article, Kucinskas makes the point that the fundamentalists in Islam are typically not supportive of feminist movements. This claim leads in to the orthodoxy aspect that is evaluated in the study. However, this particular claim is backed up by three sources, the latest of which is dated in 2005. Additionally, the claims that feminist movements have been mobilizing in the past few years and gaining ground in civic life in Egypt are both points that are backed up by multiple sources. This would make it difficult to examine her research, and lead to a great deal of work for someone who tried to do so. In addition, these points are well-known enough that such extensive support seems unnecessary.

Though the works are largely outdated, they seem to be legitimate sources from well respected sources such as the UN Research Institution for Social Development.

However, Kucinskas uses these sources mostly just to make broad points and generalizations about the culture instead of expanding on how they inform the subject at hand. Kucinskas is brief and gives a mere overview of the state of gender egalitarianism and culture in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This is, presumably, because of the nature of the Middle East and the common knowledge about its politics and social structure. Kucinskas lets the sources do the talking for her, and uses multiple sources to validate her points. Since the sources are credible and the points are considered common knowledge, it seems that they are put to good use in the article.

Kucinskas seems to neglect balancing the discussion in any way. She includes social aspects of the study in terms of education, but remains focused on the relationship between religiosity and gender egalitarianism. All of her studies sited as well as her hypotheses focus on the relationship between these two variables.

Evaluation Questions

Chapter 2 Evaluating Titles

Is the title sufficiently specific?

The title is sufficiently specific. The reader is told that the study concerns gender egalitarianism, thought it makes no specific mention of the independent variable of religiosity, only reference to Islam.

Is the title reasonably concise?

The title is somewhat long, referring to itself as a research note.

Are the primary variables referred to in the title?

The independent variable of religiosity is not specifically mentioned, though the reader is informed that the study will be about Islamic culture in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

When there are many variables, are the types of variable referred to?

The title mentions gender egalitarianism in Islam, but does not make specific mention of religiosity.

Does the title identify the types of individuals who participated?

Yes, the title refers to Islamic youth in Egypt and Saudi Arabia

If a study is strongly tied to a theory, is the name of the specific theory mentioned in the title?

This study is not tied to a specific theory.

Has the author avoided describing results in the title?

The author has avoided mentioning results in the title.

If there is a main title and a subtitle, do both provide important information about the research?

There is a main title and subtitle. The main title refers to the culture and dependent variable “Notes on Islam and Gender Egalitarianism,” while the subtitle references the subjects “An Examination of Egyptian and Saudi Arabian Youth Attitudes.”

If the title implies causality, does the method of research justify it?

The title does not imply causality.

Is the title free of jargon and acronyms that might be unknown to the audience for the research project?

The title is free of jargon and is straightforward.

Are any highly unique or very important characteristics of the study referred to in the title?

There are no unique characteristics of the study. As a straightforward examination of religiosity and its effect on the gender egalitarian attitudes of the youth in that culture, the title fits well.

Overall, is the title effective and appropriate?

Yes, the title is effective and appropriate.

Chapter 3 Evaluating Abstracts

Is the purpose of the study referred to or least clearly implied?

The purpose of the study is implied to be to provide information on the relationship between religiosity and gender egalitarianism. There is no purpose defined beyond that.

Does the abstract mention highlights of the research methodology?

The abstract does not mention methodology other than the respondents and the titles of measure.

Has the researcher omitted the titles of measures (except when these are the focus of the research)?

The researcher mentions the titles of measures, specifically, orthodoxy and gender egalitarianism.

Are the highlights of the results described?

The highlights of the results are described, as well as the overall findings of the study.

If the study is strongly tied to a theory, is the theory mentioned in the abstract?

The study is not strongly tied to a theory.

Has the researcher avoided making vague references to implications and future research directions?

The researcher has avoided making reference to implications.

Overall, is the abstract effective and appropriate?

Overall, the abstract works well because it tells the reader all that he or she will need to know without being overly specific.

Chapter 4 Evaluating Introductions and Literature Reviews

Does the researcher begin by identifying a specific problem area?

The researcher does not explicitly state the problem, but it is implied that gender egalitarianism is a positive aspect of a society, and that the religiosity is negatively affecting that aspect and, therefore, a negative impact on the culture.

Does the researcher establish the importance of the problem area?

The researcher implies the importance of gender egalitarianism in society.

Are any underlying theories adequately described?

There are not any underlying theories described.

Does the Introduction move from topic to topic instead of from citation to citation?

The introduction moves from topic to topic, from gender egalitarianism, to Egypt, to Saudi Arabia, using citations to make points.

Are very long Introductions broken into subsections, each with its own subheading?

The introduction is broken in to sections like Egypt and Saudi Arabia specifically.

Has the researcher provided adequate conceptual definitions of key terms?

The researcher fails to explain religiosity and gender egalitarianism in the introduction, instead explaining them only during the methodology section in the questions asked to respondents.

Has the researcher cited sources for “factual” statements?

Yes, the researcher cited a number of sources.

Do the specific research purposes, questions, or hypothesis logically flow from the introduction material?

Yes, the research purposes and hypotheses flow from the explanations of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the nature of the feminist movement in those countries.

Overall, is the Introduction effective and appropriate?

Overall, the introduction is effective an appropriate. However, it suffers by failing to describe the key variables and aspects of the study itself, leaving those to be discovered later.

Chapter 5 A Closer Look at Evaluating Literature Reviews

Has the researcher avoided citing a large number of sources for a single point?

The researcher did not provide a literature review, but provided a number of sources for the points made in the introductions. Many sources are used to support single points.

Is the literature review critical?

The literature is largely uncritical.

Is current research cited?

Some of the research mentioned dates back as far as 2000 and is, therefore, not very current.

Has the researcher distinguished between opinions and research findings?

The researcher has made distinctions by backing up points made in the introduction with research.

Has the researcher noted any gaps in the literature?

No gaps are noted.

Has the researcher interpreted research literature in light of the inherent limits of empirical research?

The researcher has made note of the need to study these questions further, but does not make specific mention of limitations.

Has the researcher avoided the overuse of direct quotations from the literature?

The researcher has not used any direct quotations.

Overall, is the literature review portion of the Introduction appropriate?

The literature review was not included, but the introduction includes plenty of research.

Chapter 6 Evaluating Samples When Researchers Generalize

The researcher did not generalize in this study, and the methods of sampling were not described.

Was random sampling used?
If random sampling was used, was it stratified?
If some potential participants refuse to participate, is the rate of participation reasonably high?
If the response rate is low, did the researcher make multiple attempts to contact potential participants?
Is there reason to believe that the participants and nonparticipants are similar on relevant variables?
If a sample is not random, is it at least drawn from the target group for the generalization?
If a sample is not random, was it drawn from diverse sources?
If a sample is not random, does the researcher explicitly discuss the limitations?
Has the author described relevant demographics of the sample?
Is the overall size of the sample adequate?
Is the number of participants in each subgroup sufficiently large?
Has informed consent been obtained?
Overall, is the sample appropriate for generalizing?

Chapter 7 Evaluating Samples When Researchers Do Not Generalize

Has the researcher described the sample/ population in sufficient detail?

The researcher details the sample population as being representative of the youth in several cities in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. There is nothing further mentioned about the sample, so it is not sufficiently detailed.

For a pilot study or developmental test of a theory, has the researcher used a sample of adequate size?

The research was conducted on 766 Saudi Arabian youth and 724 Egyptian youth. Though the researcher does not give any statistics on the population of the countries, the size seems to be large enough to be representative.

Even if the purpose is not to generalize to a population, has the researcher used a sample of adequate size?

The size seems adequate.

Is the sample size adequate in terms of its orientation (quantitative versus qualitative)?

The sample size is adequate for quantitative orientation.

If a purposive sample has been studied, has it been clearly identified and described?

The sampling has not been identified and described.

If a population has been studied, has it been clearly identified and described?

The population has been described as youth between 18 and 25 from cities in Egypt and Saudia Arabia.

Has informed consent been obtained?

It is not mentioned.

Overall, is the description of the sample adequate?

The description is not adequate. The reader is not told anything about sampling.

Chapter 8 Evaluating Instrumentation

Have the actual items and questions (or at least a sample of them) been provided?

The questions have been provided for both variables.

Are any specialized response formats, settings, and/ or restrictions described in detail?

There are no specialized response formats, settings or restrictions described.

When appropriate, are multiple methods used to collect data/ information on each variable?

Multiple methods do not seem to be appropriate in this study.

For published instruments, have sources where additional information can be obtained been cited?

Additional information has not been provided for published instruments.

When delving into sensitive matters, is there reason to believe that accurate data were obtained?

We can believe that responses are accurate because they are subjective.

Have steps been taken to keep the instrumentation from influencing an overt behaviors that were observed?

There is no mention of these steps being taken.

If the collection and coding of observations involves subjectivity, is there evidence of interobserver reliability?

There is no collection or coding of observations involved. The survey was taken by answering questions.

If an instrument is designed to measure a single unitary trait, does it have adequate internal consistency?

The internal consistency seems to be adequate.

For stable traits, is there evidence of temporal stability?

There is no evidence of temporal stability.

When appropriate, is there evidence of content validity?

Content Validity is not appropriate.

When appropriate, is there evidence of empirical validity?

Empirical Validity is not appropriate.

Do the researchers discuss obvious limitations of their instrumentation?

There is no discussion of limitations.

Overall, is the instrumentation adequate?

The instrumentation seems to be adequate by focusing on subjective responses to questions about the variables. Since the study focuses on attitudes, this seems to be an appropriate gauge of those attitudes.

Chapter 9 Evaluating Experimental Procedures

If two or more groups were compared, were the participants assigned at random to the groups?

There were not random groups, the study focuses on two groups of different nationalities that were assigned as appropriate.

If two or more comparison groups were not formed at random, is there evidence that they were initially equal in important ways?

There is evidence that the groups were equal in terms of age and background.

If only a single participant or a single group is used, have the treatments been alternated?

Multiple groups were used.

Are the treatments described in sufficient detail?

The questions are described in detail.

If the treatments were administered by individuals other than the researcher, were those individuals properly trained?

The treatments were administered on a paper questionnaire and administration was not necessary..

If the treatments were administered by individuals other than the researcher, were they monitored?

The questions were administered with no need for monitoring.

If each treatment group had a different person administering a treatment, did the researcher try to eliminate “the personal effect”?

The treatments were conducted on paper.

If treatments were self-administered, did the researcher check on treatment compliance?

It is not mentioned, but not necessary in the case of a questionnaire.

Except for differences in the treatments, were all other conditions the same in the compliance?

All conditions were in compliance.

When appropriate, have the researchers considered possible “demand characteristics”?

It was not appropriate to consider demand statistics.

Is the setting for the experiment “natural”?

There is no mention of the setting.

Has the researcher distinguished between random selection and random assignment?

There was no need for random assignment and no mention of random selection.

Has the researcher considered attrition?

The researcher does not mention attrition.

Has the researcher used ethical and politically acceptable treatments?

The treatments are ethical and politically acceptable.

Overall, was the experiment properly conducted?

Overall, the questionnaire was appropriately delivered.

Chapter 10 Evaluating Analysis and Results Sections: Quantitative Research

When percentages are reported, are the underlying numbers of cases also reported?

No, the corresponding numbers are not reported.

Are means reported only for approximately symmetrical distributions?

Yes, the main tool is Cronbach’s Alpha.

If any differences are statistically significant and small, have the researchers noted that they are small?

No, the researcher has failed to note any level of significance in the quantitative distribution.

Is the Results section a cohesive essay?

Yes, the Results section is cohesive and in essay format.

Does the researcher refer back to the research hypothesis, purposes, or questions originally stated in the Introduction?

Yes, the researcher refers back to the hypothesis in the results section, and its relation to the results.

Have the researchers presented descriptive statistics before presenting the results of inferential tests?

No, the reader is left to assume that the tests are indicative of religiosity without a good background on the matter.

Overall, is the presentation of the results comprehensible?

Overall, the presentation is comprehensible and easy to understand.

Overall, is the presentation of the results adequate?

The presentation is adequate, though discussion of further topics and possible alternatives to the findings would be welcome.

Chapter 12 Evaluating Discussion Sections

In long articles, do the researchers briefly summarize the purpose and results at the beginning of the Discussion?

The long introduction and Results sections are summarized at the beginning, though the methods and description of the variables are not summed up.

Do the researchers acknowledge specific methodological limitations?

There is no acknowledgement of the limitations of the methodology.

Are the results discussed in terms of the literature cited in the Introduction?

The literature sited in the Introduction is not used in the Results section, though they are discussed in the Discussion section.

Have the researchers avoided citing new references in the Discussion?

Yes, the Discussion section is free of new citations.

Are specific implications discussed?

The specific implications of feminism and the effect of gender egalitarianism attitudes is discussed as it related to the notion of religiosity in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Are the results discussed in terms of any relevant theories?

There are no relevant theories mentioned.

Are suggestions for future research specified?

The researcher does not mentioned suggestions for future research, preferring to rest on the results of the current study.

Have the researchers distinguished between speculation and data-based conclusions?

The researchers have not made any distinction between speculation and data-based conclusions.

Overall, is the Discussion effective and appropriate?

The discussion is poor in that it does not suggest further research or alternatives to the findings.

Chapter 13 Putting It All Together

In your judgment, has the researcher selected an important problem?

The problem of gender egalitarianism in Islamic culture is an extremely important issue in our time. The culture in the Middle East makes gender egalitarianism particularly important for the women in that region.

Were the researchers reflective?

The researcher is reflective and seems to be thoughtful on the subject.

Is the report cohesive?

The report is cohesive and well put together.

Does the report extend the boundaries of the knowledge on a topic, especially for understanding relevant theories?

The report expands the understanding of the nature of gender egalitarianism in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The main expansion of knowledge comes from the differences between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which are two countries that rank low on the scale of gender egalitarianism world wide.

Are any major methodological flaws unavoidable or forgivable?

The major flaws have to do with the formation of the questions and how they relate to religiosity and orthodoxy for Muslims. Religiosity is too heavily simplified and evaluated poorly. In addition, there is no breakdown for religiosity and orthodoxy.

Is the research likely to inspire additional research?

It seems unlikely that this will inspire additional research. The youth in these countries reflect the national dialogue, but their attitudes have little influence on the nation, and seem unlikely to shift the political stance of those nations in any significant way. Research on these attitudes seems to be unfertile, with those who are nonreligious being more gender egalitarian, which should surprise nobody.

Is the research likely to help in decision making?

The research may assist in the decision of a politician or some other social minded person in the region. However, its results do not seem to provide any insight.