men are from mars, women are from venus: the sociology edition

Greetings from Australia, where I am on research leave.  I keep meaning to write to y’all about the extensive comparative authethnography I have done by this point of dining out in tipping versus non-tipping societies.  (Hint: anybody who tells you tipping doesn’t make a difference is either unobservant or an ideologue.)

Anyway, wanted to poke my head out of the socblog hidey-hole becuase of the report from Social Problems that included the observation men were more likely to appeal decisions than women.  First, I cannot imagine that this is not a more correct broader generalization about sex differences in likelihood of appeal.  We don’t get many appeals at TESS, but, for every example that comes to mind, it was a guy doing the appealing.  More to the point, though, I want to establish a claim for two ancillary hypothesis that I think are related to the idea that men and women respond differently to disciplinary stimuli, so I can say it was my idea if anybody actually looks at this someday:

Hypothesis 1:  Men are more likely than women to write the blind reviews of manuscripts that prompt authors to appeal.

Hypothesis 2:  Men are more likely than women to submit comments to journals that directly attack a paper that was previously published in that journal.

Author: jeremy

I am the Ethel and John Lindgren Professor of Sociology and a Faculty Fellow in the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University.

2 thoughts on “men are from mars, women are from venus: the sociology edition”

  1. Appendix D to the full Social Problems Editor’s Report includes a rejection of the rejection email. This one is from the rejected author’s advisor.

    The appeal email, which also objects more generally to the journal’s policy of only having one round of revisions, includes the phrases “refused to countenance” and “unprofessional mode of operation”.

    The successful appeal that I witnessed was more specific and technical. The paper was rejected because the authors used method X which was biased in favor of finding significant results. The authors quickly reran the analysis using recommended method Y and found their results were robust. They alerted the editor to this fact and were given an opportunity to revise the paper. I suspect that appeals based on an unfair process or theoretical contribution are less likely to be successful.


  2. If it’s the advisors doing the appeals, it seems like there are two kinds of hypotheses on the appeal-making side. What kinds of advisors do this (senior men? advisors who know the editor — or conversely, who don’t really respect the editor?), and what kinds of students do they do this for?

    The latter question seems like potentially one way to get at the “sponsorship” vs. mentorship issue raised recently on Orgtheory.

    [Side question: Why do we in academia have “advisors” instead of advisers like everyone else?]


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.