Exercise 17.2 Reported below is a newspaper article found in the New York Daily
ID: 328984 • Letter: E
Question
Exercise 17.2
Reported below is a newspaper article found in the New York Daily News some time ago:
HEART DISEASE RATE HIGHER AMONG WORKING WOMEN
Married women who have children and hold clerical jobs are more likely to develop heart disease than any other group of women, according to Suzanne Haynes, Ph.D., research assistant professor at the University of North Carolina's Department of Epidemiology.
In New York this month for the Third Regional Conference of Women in Medicine, she discussed the findings from her research on cardiovascular disease.
"We followed up on some of the people who had participated in the Framingham, Mass., Heart Study," Haynes explained. Those in the 10-year study ranged from 45 to 64 years old and included 387 working women, 350 housewives and 580 men, all free of heart disease at the outset.
"We found that there was no great difference between the two groups of women. About 7% of the housewives developed heart disease after 10 years; about 8% of the working women did; and about twice that many men did.
"We concluded that it doesn’t matter that much whether women work in the home or outside the home, and this finding was substantiated in three other studies.
"We also found that single working women have the lowest rate of any group; that married, widowed and divorced working women had the highest rate over the 10-year period.
"It seemed, when looking at all the different factors, that the incidence of heart disease was higher among those working women who have children; the more children, the higher the rate."
When the researchers studied the kinds of jobs held by the women in the study, it turned out that those who held clerical jobs were developing heart disease at a rate of 12%, and the rate went up proportional to the number of kids they had.
"The reasons we came up with were that this group of women had non-supportive bosses; they didn't discuss their problems with a friend or relative; and they hadn't changed jobs often. So we had to conclude that being tied to a clerical job and having a family, too, seemed to produce a high-risk situation."
Critique the report. What information is missing? What is misunderstood or misstated? How accurate is the headline? Apply the consumer's guide to social research found in the chapter.
Explanation / Answer
The report seems to take a very narrow view of a subject which is world encompassing. It is related to cardio vascular health of women. Given the subject the data seems insufficient the presentation unconvincing and the headline inappropriate and misguiding. The report in one line contradicts it's own headline. Consider this line from the article: We found that there was no great difference between the two groups of women. About 7% of the housewives developed heart disease after 10 years; about 8% of the working women did. Now consider the heading: HEART DISEASE RATE HIGHER AMONG WORKING WOMEN. How does the author begin to explain this, and what about all the busy women who read only headlines. They have increased their stress levels and chances of a myocardial infarction simply by reading that headline which makes them assume they maybe at higher risks for heart disease. Reading that one contradictory statement led me to psychologically discredit the rest of the report as not being very dependable.
The report does not provide clear information on the age at which the disease developed and as it is concerning women whether it was related to onset of menopause another reason I would want to see the age. We are well aware that women overall are as prone as men to heart disease once they lose the protection of estrogen. The report is simply making statements without substantial data to support the claims and the research itself is very haphazard not taking consideration of the various factors that can cause heart attacks.
There is misstatement that working women are more prone to heart disease then there is contradiction in the statement in the article that there is only 1% difference in occurrences among working women and housewives and again this statement supporting that statement. We concluded that it doesn’t matter that much whether women work in the home or outside the home, and this finding was substantiated in three other studies. Which studies, what findings on what basis. Then again another contradiction saying single working women actually have a lower rate compared to divorced or married. We also found that single working women have the lowest rate of any group; that married, widowed and divorced working women had the highest rate over the 10-year period. Another statement with working women have higher rates. It seemed, when looking at all the different factors, that the incidence of heart disease was higher among those working women who have children; the more children, the higher the rate. Suddenly another factor is introduced number of children which is unbelievable as we are aware that pregnancies afford better heart health to women. Major factors such as levels of stress, environmental factors, heredity, cultural predisposition and basic lifestyles all important factors in causing heart disease have been entirely ignored, in fact, their absence is glaring. The report would have one believe that if you are a working woman with more than 2 kids, over 45 and especially in a clerical job you are doomed. Actually the data and statements, in fact the entire report is badly presented in a confusing haphazard manner. The same data presented in a cohesive co-related manner would make more sense atleast but remain incomplete anyhow.
The consumer's guide to social research basically makes a consumer of research capable of analysing the research, evaluating it on basis of quality markers and deciding it's value and utility on this basis. The above research is presumptive without adequate and relevant data to support it. The statements are confusing and contradictory and do not clearly emphasis the basis on which they are made. For example research reports should not have any statements not backed by adequate and relevant support data. An example statement from the article to prove this: The reasons we came up with were that this group of women had non-supportive bosses; they didn't discuss their problems with a friend or relative; and they hadn't changed jobs often. So we had to conclude that being tied to a clerical job and having a family, too, seemed to produce a high-risk situation. Reasons we came up with, assumptive not backed by data. We had to conclude, on what basis? Seemed to produce, Hesitance not adefinite statement that it produces a high-risk situation means the author is herself not convinced by the report and it's findings.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.