Transcript
INSTRUCTOR
In this animation, we are going to take you through some analysis of the article you have just read-- "Adolescent Leadership: The Female Voice," by Nicole Archard. We will be using some of the questions we developed at the end of the last animation, which will be useful to have in front of you.
Firstly, what is their point of view or perspective? It is very important to try to understand this, as the author's point of view will flavour the article. If we look at the beginning of the text, the author states that her interest is in the gap in the literature and how better understanding of the area might inform adult female leadership. This is hinted at again a little later.
But when the purpose of the research is stated later, it only includes the understanding of female adolescent opinions on the matter with no extension.
And not much further on, the next stage is stated as being an evaluation of the educational practices needed to develop female adolescent leadership. So although at the beginning the author appears to be wanting to understand the implications of this for adult leadership behaviours, we rapidly change to an interest in developing school practice to better encourage female adolescent leadership.
This is a very value-laden position, as some cultures will not see development of female leadership, let alone adolescent female leadership, as desirable at all. And yet this idea is never problematised. Is this worth bearing in mind?
Secondly, is the method used to find the evidence sound? As you would expect from the article subject matter, there is great concern to capture the authentic voices of the female adolescents. The difficulty of achieving this is noted. The points made are not linked to the methodology but apply equally well to it.
Without any discussion of alternative methods or any statements about the author's methodological position, we are told that the research will use focus groups because of their reported success with adolescents. There is then a supposedly unproblematic leap from deciding on focus groups as the method, to the use of Skype instant messaging. This is accompanied by a bold statement that makes a number of assumptions about young people's familiarity with social media.
The bonus of anonymity is mentioned and the removal of potential intimidation, but only scant mention of the loss of relationship, which is seen as an important part of focus groups. It appears that the author considers intimidation a possibility only when the participants are able to identify each other. It ignores the intimidation of not knowing who you are speaking to, who is listening, and who might be able to trace who you are. It ignores the earlier statement about needing safe environments.
In addition, it ignores the difficulty of gathering thoughts about feelings in a short text message. Girls who might be able to speak very eloquently about leadership may not be able to write as well.
And the issue of power is completely ignored. What is the involvement of the adults in this process? What is being fed back to the schools? The author mentions the growing tendency of female adolescents to want to conform to adult and peer expectations. But no consideration is given to the implications of this for the data. Then, of course, there is the issue of the sample size. But let's leave that for now.
We will now have a quick look at the conclusion. Often when people are in a rush, they skip straight to the conclusions. Is this conclusion a fair representation of the article?
Early on, a very bold statement is made that does not appear to be supported by the research. The assumption in the statement that female adolescents can be taught leadership is not based on data. The sample claimed to have been taught leadership in formal ways. But given that they were all leaders, did they already have competence that made them susceptible to the teaching?
And once again, that extrapolation from female adolescents to adult leaders creeps in. There was nothing in the research to prove this. It is mere conjecture. We are not provided with a reference for this change in leadership research. There is acknowledgement here that there might be social norms at play and that the author recognises the voices of girls are often silenced. This is presented in an unproblematic way, as it is in the main text.
Once again, the extrapolation from the female adolescent voice to pedagogic change to development of female leaders is presented in an unproblematic way. There is no reference to cultural or societal influences.
The final paragraph acknowledges that there might be societal influences. But it still presents female leadership in adulthood as a universal good accepted by all. The potential dual purpose of this article spotted right at the beginning and through the analysis in Question One is here again in the final paragraph.
Has this perspective influenced the quotes they have used, the data they have reported, and the inferences the author has drawn? Probably. How much? That would be mere conjecture on our part. But it should be reported in a critical analysis of this article as a potential weakness.
We have only had the time here to feed back on our analysis of three questions. Hopefully, it has provided you with insight into how critical you're expected to be in reading and analysing articles during your studies.