@psyguy
Too easy. This topic has been extensively studied but didn't expect you to do any research before you speak. Here you go " High-performing collaborative research teams consist of diverse members who are committed to common outcomes"
"Diversity is a multidimensional factor (Uriarte et al. 2007) that includes not only gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs, career stage, personality, socioeconomic class, life experiences, viewpoints, and skills, but also how people represent and solve problems (ie identity and functional diversity; Hong and
Page 2004). http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/130001
More here on the specific effects of gender: http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... erformance
and another "Gender is among the characteristics associated with diversity and is known to influence team behaviours (Barrett & Lally 1999)." from here: http://www.conta.uom.gr/conta/publicati ... 0Teams.pdf
So now it's over to you to actually come up with peer-reviewed research to support your point that it doesn't have any effect. It's clear to many on this forum that you just spew out what ever random thoughts you have without having done any sort of academic research (or experience) on the subject and then quickly go into "challenge mode" and ask others to support their claims with research without having done so yourself.
So Asia only counts for international schools now? I see how you side-stepped my point and said "yeah but it doesn't occur over there.." Since I actually gave you research to show you that men do play a shared-role in parenting, why don't you show me some actual research to support your point that it doesn't happen in Asia?
Teaching couple question
-
Snowbeavers
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:56 pm
Re: Teaching couple question
Last edited by Snowbeavers on Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Snowbeavers
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:56 pm
Re: Reply
> I dont find that claim to be true, there has been little variation in the
> demand for male primary educators. Recruiters are no more engaged is
> specifically recruiting male primary ITs, and there is no evidence that
> their low numbers has increased demand or increases their marketability.
> Basing a hiring decision on a protected class like gender such as hireling
> a male IT or a female IT based solely on that factor, would be illegal in
> many regional jurisdictions.
>
I may as well pick apart your other argument as well. So even though 2 recruiters have already said in this thread that they actually do specifically recruit male ES ITs, that doesn't count as evidence? I know many admin well and they tell me that they do specifically recruit male ES teachers. That doesn't count as evidence either? I suppose if I had access to the Search database, I could give you statistics of this. It's simple economics of supply and demand. To your other point about legality, outside of the US, unfortunately this happens a lot. Schools have quotas and numbers to fill and people are discriminated for number of dependents, age, culture as well. It's not fair but it happens.
> demand for male primary educators. Recruiters are no more engaged is
> specifically recruiting male primary ITs, and there is no evidence that
> their low numbers has increased demand or increases their marketability.
> Basing a hiring decision on a protected class like gender such as hireling
> a male IT or a female IT based solely on that factor, would be illegal in
> many regional jurisdictions.
>
I may as well pick apart your other argument as well. So even though 2 recruiters have already said in this thread that they actually do specifically recruit male ES ITs, that doesn't count as evidence? I know many admin well and they tell me that they do specifically recruit male ES teachers. That doesn't count as evidence either? I suppose if I had access to the Search database, I could give you statistics of this. It's simple economics of supply and demand. To your other point about legality, outside of the US, unfortunately this happens a lot. Schools have quotas and numbers to fill and people are discriminated for number of dependents, age, culture as well. It's not fair but it happens.
Reply
@steve416
You really are arguing that primary ITs are in demand. I dont agree with that conclusion. Yes Im making a very general claim, because it is congruent with my experience. Feelings dont matter.
Those claims are not self authenticating, as I wrote above, we just disagree. Claiming an event or phenomenon is a trend doesnt actually make it a trend.
You can find "something" anywhere, their is no evidence that shows an IE wide initiative to increase or aggressively recruit male primary ITs.
@Snowbeavers
I did do research, your diversity studies aggregate multiple subject demographics /characteristics. The general body of research support a the position that diversity is beneficial to group/team dynamics. thats an excellent conclusion to the wrong question. The issue isnt diversity its specifically gender diversity, and gender diversity only. There is no statistically significant research basis that you can extrapolate the general characteristics of multi diversity specifically to gender diversity. You citation clearly indicates that diversity is a multidimensional factor, not that the singular factor of gender is significant. While you provided a nice collection of research articles they dont support your claim. Your first article in your collection is a literature review, its not an empirical study. They study aggregates data that woman increase collaboration, it states nothing about added benefits of men on homogenous womens teams. It specially addresses collaboration. Collaboration is not efficacy, efficiency, or productivity. This theme is just repeated through out the article, with either insignificant finding or trivial differences. Its not empirical research, it adds nothing to the prevailing body of knowledge and doesnt support the claim that adding males to group dynamics improves anything.
Your third citation is again nothing more than a literature review (this is not empirical research), on page 13 of the article in summary of gender differences. None of the conclusions summarized indicate that females improve efficiency, efficacy, or productivity in group dynamics. none of their conclusions support the claim that add value by improving or increasing group outcomes. It is nothing more then a list of characteristics that define communication styles differences between genders.
Differences do not equate to "better".
No Asia does not account for all of ISs, they do account for a far greater number than other regions. Your research was focused on western cultures, which is not representative of Asian cultures, which account for a significantly large number of ISs within IE.
No thats not evidence, thats a claim, and its not a self authenticating claim. You dont know their recruiters, and assuming they are, is a self serving and disingenuous claim. As i stated recruiters talk and say a lot of things that arent supported by evidence. No you wouldnt find evidence on SAs database to support that claim. Various equity in labor laws would strongly prohibit an IS from advertising a vacancy specially to a gender. The exception is when you see such advertisements in regions like the Kingdom and other ME regions or in ISs that only employ specific genders for their single gender ISs.
We agree it is an issue of supply and demand, there is no demand for male primary ITs which is why the supply of them is so low.
They is a lot of discrimination in IE, but its not advertised, and thats why we still see the historical trend of high numbers of female primary ITs and few male primary ITs, no one really wants them, but they dont want to offend anyone.
You really are arguing that primary ITs are in demand. I dont agree with that conclusion. Yes Im making a very general claim, because it is congruent with my experience. Feelings dont matter.
Those claims are not self authenticating, as I wrote above, we just disagree. Claiming an event or phenomenon is a trend doesnt actually make it a trend.
You can find "something" anywhere, their is no evidence that shows an IE wide initiative to increase or aggressively recruit male primary ITs.
@Snowbeavers
I did do research, your diversity studies aggregate multiple subject demographics /characteristics. The general body of research support a the position that diversity is beneficial to group/team dynamics. thats an excellent conclusion to the wrong question. The issue isnt diversity its specifically gender diversity, and gender diversity only. There is no statistically significant research basis that you can extrapolate the general characteristics of multi diversity specifically to gender diversity. You citation clearly indicates that diversity is a multidimensional factor, not that the singular factor of gender is significant. While you provided a nice collection of research articles they dont support your claim. Your first article in your collection is a literature review, its not an empirical study. They study aggregates data that woman increase collaboration, it states nothing about added benefits of men on homogenous womens teams. It specially addresses collaboration. Collaboration is not efficacy, efficiency, or productivity. This theme is just repeated through out the article, with either insignificant finding or trivial differences. Its not empirical research, it adds nothing to the prevailing body of knowledge and doesnt support the claim that adding males to group dynamics improves anything.
Your third citation is again nothing more than a literature review (this is not empirical research), on page 13 of the article in summary of gender differences. None of the conclusions summarized indicate that females improve efficiency, efficacy, or productivity in group dynamics. none of their conclusions support the claim that add value by improving or increasing group outcomes. It is nothing more then a list of characteristics that define communication styles differences between genders.
Differences do not equate to "better".
No Asia does not account for all of ISs, they do account for a far greater number than other regions. Your research was focused on western cultures, which is not representative of Asian cultures, which account for a significantly large number of ISs within IE.
No thats not evidence, thats a claim, and its not a self authenticating claim. You dont know their recruiters, and assuming they are, is a self serving and disingenuous claim. As i stated recruiters talk and say a lot of things that arent supported by evidence. No you wouldnt find evidence on SAs database to support that claim. Various equity in labor laws would strongly prohibit an IS from advertising a vacancy specially to a gender. The exception is when you see such advertisements in regions like the Kingdom and other ME regions or in ISs that only employ specific genders for their single gender ISs.
We agree it is an issue of supply and demand, there is no demand for male primary ITs which is why the supply of them is so low.
They is a lot of discrimination in IE, but its not advertised, and thats why we still see the historical trend of high numbers of female primary ITs and few male primary ITs, no one really wants them, but they dont want to offend anyone.
Re: Teaching couple question
I feel like this is getting silly, I don't see much point in debating my intention. What I was trying to argue is that your opinions (based on anecdotal evidence) psy are not any more or less valid than anyone else's on the board without their being some context attached to them. That and that the IE world is diverse so experiences will vary.
As far as rustled jimmies or hurt feelings you taking the time to read and anaylse snowbeavers' research may be the best "evidence" of that.
*slowly backs out of thread.*
As far as rustled jimmies or hurt feelings you taking the time to read and anaylse snowbeavers' research may be the best "evidence" of that.
*slowly backs out of thread.*
Re: Teaching couple question
When you have a staff situation where you are the only male, that is not particularly attractive to a man.
Especially if you lean towards masculinity, rather than femininity. (not that there is anything wrong with that)
You can quote all the research studies you like. IMHO half these studies are complete BS.
To me it's as simple as saying it is ideal to have a Mother and Father raise children. With the Mother having more influence in the younger years.
No doubt the vile acts of a small percentage of male teachers has a negative effect on recruitment. In regard to affirmative action, I don't think men want that, it's seen as a weakness.
Especially if you lean towards masculinity, rather than femininity. (not that there is anything wrong with that)
You can quote all the research studies you like. IMHO half these studies are complete BS.
To me it's as simple as saying it is ideal to have a Mother and Father raise children. With the Mother having more influence in the younger years.
No doubt the vile acts of a small percentage of male teachers has a negative effect on recruitment. In regard to affirmative action, I don't think men want that, it's seen as a weakness.
-
Snowbeavers
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:56 pm
Re: Reply
> @psyguy
> I did do research, your diversity studies aggregate multiple subject
> demographics /characteristics. The general body of research support a the
> position that diversity is beneficial to group/team dynamics. thats an
> excellent conclusion to the wrong question. The issue isnt diversity its
> specifically gender diversity, and gender diversity only. There is no
> statistically significant research basis that you can extrapolate the
> general characteristics of multi diversity specifically to gender
> diversity.
Yes there is. You just didn't read the 3rd article in which they stated "This question has been the subject of numerous empirical studies, meta-- and literature reviews (e.g. Baugh and Graen 1997; Bowers et al. 2000; Chatman and O?Reilly 2004; Ely and Thomas 2001; Jackson et al. 2003; Joshi and Roh 2009; Mannix and Neale 2005; Myaskovsky et al. 2005; Pelled 1996; Stewart 2006; Webber and Donahue 2001). Overall, existing research suggests that gender diversity can have a positive effect on group process, while its effect on performance is fairly equivocal and dependent to some degree upon the context of the work."
Let's read the key words psyguy, "numerous" and "meta - ". Seems pretty comprehensive. Again, you argued that gender doesn't have an effect. Where's your evidence? *crickets*
You citation clearly indicates that diversity is a
> multidimensional factor, not that the singular factor of gender is
> significant. While you provided a nice collection of research articles they
> dont support your claim. Your first article in your collection is a
> literature review, its not an empirical study.
The literature review (based on actual empirical studies) does not support your first claim that diversity doesn't affect team productivity. Again, you go on the offensive without any data to support your arguments. Show me a single empirical article that supports your claim that homogenous grouping improves productivity? *crickets*
They study aggregates data
> that woman increase collaboration, it states nothing about added benefits
> of men on homogenous womens teams. It specially addresses collaboration.
> Collaboration is not efficacy, efficiency, or productivity.
Yes, yes that's exactly the point of collaboration; to improve efficacy, efficiency and productivity. Synergy is just that, the sum of the total is greater than the sum of the parts.
This theme is
> just repeated through out the article, with either insignificant finding or
> trivial differences. Its not empirical research, it adds nothing to the
> prevailing body of knowledge and doesnt support the claim that adding males
> to group dynamics improves anything.
> Your third citation is again nothing more than a literature review (this is
> not empirical research), on page 13 of the article in summary of gender
> differences. None of the conclusions summarized indicate that females
> improve efficiency, efficacy, or productivity in group dynamics. none of
> their conclusions support the claim that add value by improving or
> increasing group outcomes.
I already shown you exactly in the article where is shows the opposite. Again where is your counter evidence?
It is nothing more then a list of
> characteristics that define communication styles differences between
> genders.
>
> Differences do not equate to "better".
>
> No Asia does not account for all of ISs, they do account for a far greater
> number than other regions. Your research was focused on western cultures,
> which is not representative of Asian cultures, which account for a
> significantly large number of ISs within IE.
And where do you think all the parents of the international schools are from? All mine had over 70% from Europe and North America. I am referring to top international schools where many from Europe and North America. Perhaps you haven't worked at any top international schools so you are basing your judgement from local tier 3 schools in Asia...
>
> No thats not evidence, thats a claim, and its not a self authenticating
> claim. You dont know their recruiters, and assuming they are, is a self
> serving and disingenuous claim. As i stated recruiters talk and say a lot
> of things that arent supported by evidence. No you wouldnt find evidence on
> SAs database to support that claim. Various equity in labor laws would
> strongly prohibit an IS from advertising a vacancy specially to a gender.
> The exception is when you see such advertisements in regions like the
> Kingdom and other ME regions or in ISs that only employ specific genders
> for their single gender ISs.
>
> We agree it is an issue of supply and demand, there is no demand for male
> primary ITs which is why the supply of them is so low.
There is a huge demand for them as I have already argued. You don't work in Elementary (thank god) so clearly don't understand this.
> I did do research, your diversity studies aggregate multiple subject
> demographics /characteristics. The general body of research support a the
> position that diversity is beneficial to group/team dynamics. thats an
> excellent conclusion to the wrong question. The issue isnt diversity its
> specifically gender diversity, and gender diversity only. There is no
> statistically significant research basis that you can extrapolate the
> general characteristics of multi diversity specifically to gender
> diversity.
Yes there is. You just didn't read the 3rd article in which they stated "This question has been the subject of numerous empirical studies, meta-- and literature reviews (e.g. Baugh and Graen 1997; Bowers et al. 2000; Chatman and O?Reilly 2004; Ely and Thomas 2001; Jackson et al. 2003; Joshi and Roh 2009; Mannix and Neale 2005; Myaskovsky et al. 2005; Pelled 1996; Stewart 2006; Webber and Donahue 2001). Overall, existing research suggests that gender diversity can have a positive effect on group process, while its effect on performance is fairly equivocal and dependent to some degree upon the context of the work."
Let's read the key words psyguy, "numerous" and "meta - ". Seems pretty comprehensive. Again, you argued that gender doesn't have an effect. Where's your evidence? *crickets*
You citation clearly indicates that diversity is a
> multidimensional factor, not that the singular factor of gender is
> significant. While you provided a nice collection of research articles they
> dont support your claim. Your first article in your collection is a
> literature review, its not an empirical study.
The literature review (based on actual empirical studies) does not support your first claim that diversity doesn't affect team productivity. Again, you go on the offensive without any data to support your arguments. Show me a single empirical article that supports your claim that homogenous grouping improves productivity? *crickets*
They study aggregates data
> that woman increase collaboration, it states nothing about added benefits
> of men on homogenous womens teams. It specially addresses collaboration.
> Collaboration is not efficacy, efficiency, or productivity.
Yes, yes that's exactly the point of collaboration; to improve efficacy, efficiency and productivity. Synergy is just that, the sum of the total is greater than the sum of the parts.
This theme is
> just repeated through out the article, with either insignificant finding or
> trivial differences. Its not empirical research, it adds nothing to the
> prevailing body of knowledge and doesnt support the claim that adding males
> to group dynamics improves anything.
> Your third citation is again nothing more than a literature review (this is
> not empirical research), on page 13 of the article in summary of gender
> differences. None of the conclusions summarized indicate that females
> improve efficiency, efficacy, or productivity in group dynamics. none of
> their conclusions support the claim that add value by improving or
> increasing group outcomes.
I already shown you exactly in the article where is shows the opposite. Again where is your counter evidence?
It is nothing more then a list of
> characteristics that define communication styles differences between
> genders.
>
> Differences do not equate to "better".
>
> No Asia does not account for all of ISs, they do account for a far greater
> number than other regions. Your research was focused on western cultures,
> which is not representative of Asian cultures, which account for a
> significantly large number of ISs within IE.
And where do you think all the parents of the international schools are from? All mine had over 70% from Europe and North America. I am referring to top international schools where many from Europe and North America. Perhaps you haven't worked at any top international schools so you are basing your judgement from local tier 3 schools in Asia...
>
> No thats not evidence, thats a claim, and its not a self authenticating
> claim. You dont know their recruiters, and assuming they are, is a self
> serving and disingenuous claim. As i stated recruiters talk and say a lot
> of things that arent supported by evidence. No you wouldnt find evidence on
> SAs database to support that claim. Various equity in labor laws would
> strongly prohibit an IS from advertising a vacancy specially to a gender.
> The exception is when you see such advertisements in regions like the
> Kingdom and other ME regions or in ISs that only employ specific genders
> for their single gender ISs.
>
> We agree it is an issue of supply and demand, there is no demand for male
> primary ITs which is why the supply of them is so low.
There is a huge demand for them as I have already argued. You don't work in Elementary (thank god) so clearly don't understand this.
-
shadowjack
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:49 am
Re: Teaching couple question
The reason why you see the high percentage of female primary teachers to males is two-fold. 1. There are many more primary female teachers. 2. There are very few male primary teachers.
Show me data that says otherwise.
Show me data that says otherwise.