Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to analyze critically a quantitative study. This objective will be accomplished by critiquing the research questions, hypothesis, research background, methods used, results, and ethical aspects. An overall evaluation of the study, including the appropriateness of the methodology, as well as its strengths and limitations will also be provided.
The study critiqued in this paper is titled, “Gender differences in work-family guilt in parents of young children”. Its authors are Jessica L. Borelli, Katherine Nelson, Laura M. River, and Sarah A. Birken. The research question examined was how does guilt related to work-life balance affect mothers compared to fathers? (Borelli et al., 2016). Two hypotheses were tested: mothers would report more “work-family guilt” and “work-interfering-with-family guilt” than fathers would (Borelli et al., 2017). The study’s background information includes a comprehensive review of literature. It emphasizes gender and cultural beliefs encountered in our daily life. The general assumption is that men are bold and independent. The authors then describe the consequences of violating this gender-based norm, including feelings of inadequacy that affect the mother (Borelli et al., 2017). The authors acknowledge the limited attention paid to quantitative research on work-family guilt. This forms the purpose of the paper, addressing widespread nature of this phenomenon.
There was an apparent bias in the choice of most materials used in the review. The report did not also capture the different notions portrayed across the US about the childrearing and parenting responsibilities of mothers and fathers. Most of the literature materials used on gender norms, work-family conflict, and guilt were of cultures very dissimilar to the study sample.
Summary of Methods
The quantitative study used a non-experimental approach. In this research design, research variables are not manipulated; instead, they are measured as they occur naturally (Leatherdale, 2019). The study was correlational as it sought to discover the relationship between gender roles and their effect on work-family guilt.
The researchers used convenience sampling approach. The researchers used a sample of full-time workers in the US who were parents of children aged 1-3 years. The study participants had responded to an emotional study of their experiences announced online and through flyers in public spaces. They were recruited via social media platforms, parenting websites, emails list, and even fliers circulated in Southern California City and other metro areas in the US.
The researchers collected data using open-ended questions about the work experiences of the participants who then filled a report of their measure of guilt. The study obtained information related to general guilt using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Expanded Form (PANAS-X). The participants rated the extent to which they experience the said emotion on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Their demographic data were also collected.
The researchers used the Pomona Work and Family Assessment (PWFA) to assess the coder’s rating for guilt. It comprised four open-ended prompts that participants responded to keeping in mind all their employment aspects. Both the PANAS-X and PWFA had been validated by previous studies as reliable measures of general guilt and coders’ ratings of guilt, respectively. Data analysis involved the Spearman rank-order correlation that was used to assess the inter-rater reliability to capture the ordinal nature of data (Borelli et al., 2017). Linear regression was also utilized for hypothesis testing.
Validity and reliability of the research methods were achieved through the evaluation of the internal consistency (α =.86) of the 5-point Likert-type scale items. A test-retest procedure was applied to the measures over a standard period of two months, demonstrating their convergent and discriminant validity (α =.68). In general the study showed a good reliability (full sample: α =.89; mothers: α =.89; fathers: α =.91) (Borelli et al., 2017). They used coders not who were not part of the sample team to develop the PWFA.
Summary of Results
Work-family guilt was significantly correlated with distress among working parents. However, the researchers concluded that preliminary evidence of gender differences was not so big but further research was needed. No practical significance nor effect size of the results was estimated. The researcher’s conclusion shows evidence of gender differences in work-family guilt. It is drawn from the results obtained in this study. When using the self-reporting (PANAS-X guilt scale), mothers generally expressed stronger feelings of guilt than fathers did. The data shows that work-family guilt and work were interfering with family guilt (Borelli et al., 2017). The researchers also concluded that general guilt did not differ significantly between women and men.
Ethical Aspects
The researchers did not explicitly address ethical issues. However, the study was designed to have a minimal risk for the participants. The survey was completed online, which may be deemed convenient for working parents. Further, there was no extra effort to maximize the benefits for the subjects. The researchers also did not express how they preserved the anonymity of the participants. There was no mention of them acquiring consent prior to data collection. The researchers did not mention whether they had institutional review board approval. Some practices raise ethical questions. The researchers could have obtained informed consent and offered to protect the participants’ identifying information secret. Alternatively, they would have not collected such data during the survey.
Evaluation of Study
Overall, the methods used were appropriate for examining the research question. The researchers used a large sample of parents (N = 255, 140 mothers), giving insights into work-family guilt. Another strength of the study was the quantitative (correlational) approach used, which enhanced the external validity of the results (Newman, 2016). Additionally, the use of validated measures (PANAS-X and PWFA) ensured the reliability of the data collected.
The authors mention that due to the correlational and cross-sectional design used, they were unable to determine cause-effect relationships related to gender differences. A second limitation stated is the biased method used to recruit participants. The inclusion criteria – full-time employees and parents of children aged 1-3 – may have revealed the study’s purpose to the respondents, creating bias. The sample was also not representative of all demographic segments of US population, making generalizability of the findings difficult. A possible limitation relates to sampling. Including only parents in the US limited the external validity of the findings to other non-Western societies.
The study recommended implementing a paradigm linking social factors to high work-family guilt among mothers. The authors also suggested that future studies be done to explain whether work-family guilt can account for gender differences in anxiety (Borelli et al., 2017). The quantitative approach used was the right method. However, a random sampling approach should be used to enhance the representativeness of the sample. The researchers should also include other mediating social factors that moderate gender differences in guilt experience.
Conclusion
In most US family setups, both parents are working. Work-family guilt has the potential to impact the psychological health of the parent. This study used a quantitative approach to research this social problem. Overall, the study provided great insights into the topic. However, problems with the sampling approach resulted in a biased sample that limited the generalizability of the study findings. A recommended research question for a follow-up study is; do mothers in conservative societies experience more guilt than those in liberal cultures? A stratified sampling approach and hypothesis testing methods are suggested.
References
Borelli, J. L., Nelson, S. K., River, L. M., Birken, S. A., & Moss-Racusin, C. (2017). Gender differences in work-family guilt in parents of young children. Sex Roles, 76(5-6), 356-368. Web.
Leatherdale, S. T. (2019). Natural experiment methodology for research: A review of how different methods can support real-world research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(1), 19-35. Web.
Newman, M. (2016). Research methods in psychology. (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education.