>
>Dr. Steiger's post states, "There were HUGE differences in the citation rates
>of senior men and women. The mean number of citations was, as I recall,
>roughly
>7000 for the men and 1400 for the senior women." The actual data were
>7032 for
>the men and 1539 for the women (with sample sizes of 6 and 5 respectively).
>The geometric means were 4800 and 1400. A Mann-Whitney U test indicates that
>12.6% of the permutations of these 11 data would produce differences in
>citation number as extreme or more extreme than those reported. Do these 11
>data offer compelling or dramatic evidence for gender differences in
>productivity? Not to my way of thinking. Was I making inferences to a larger
>population? I didn't intend to. I was just trying to assess Steiger &
>Hausman's claim of HUGE gender-based differences in productivity.
of course, with these ns ... one or two extreme values for males could have
made the difference look big .. the actual distributions would have been
nicer to see given there are so few data ... and, for variables like these
that tend to be rather skewed to the right ... medians might be more
appropriate to report ... not means (if that in fact what was reported)
and what about the notion of senior? it is true that males have dominated
many in the science professions in terms of numbers, ranks, etc. so ... i
would suspect that senior males in this case had many MORE years of
experience ... in rank ... and just in general ... have been given more lab
space, assistants, etc. so ... the citation rates which appear on the
surface (though i have argued against them for various reasons) to be
"telling" ... may not be telling at all since, there are many things that
have not been "equated" ... even for senior males and senior females
it is indeed good advice when a report like this comes out ... if one wants
to have a decent discussion about it ... to read it from cover to cover ...
so that one is able to cogently talk from a position of knowing what is in
the report and what is NOT in the report
but, i would say as being one not having read the report ... to make some
strong claims about differences ... when you have ns of 6 and 5
respectively ... seems a real stretchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
especially when using criteria that are highly suspect
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
