Gender Differences: Factors Influencing Men And Women’s Participation In Gender Research

Gender, Cooperation and Power relations

In the context of society, gender creates either power or powerlessness. For a long time, feminist theories considered power as the core element in men’s world (Edley, 2017). Also, Kaufman (2000) believes that masculinity is coupled with power and men consider power as an opportunity to have control over the others in various social settings. Moreover, a person who is capable of taking advantage of inequalities between people in society is regarded as a powerful person. Black and Coward (1998) suggest that power is better described in terms of ideology. They believe that this dominating behaviour is taken over from society and can be considered as a socially structured heritance to men and women as well. This demonstrates that power discrimination in which a powerful party controls a weak party is created by society and its norms. In society, women are associated with cooperation and support because they generally value and appreciate friendship (Coates, 2015; Greif, 2008). This can also be explained through the norms in which societies and the surroundings have created for women.

These socially constructed differences between men and women have influenced them in various domains. For instance, in an interactional level, the way men and women interact is different based on the powerful and cooperative roles that they play in society. The language that men use has the elements of power demonstration and dominance while the language that women use encourages cooperation and support (Coates, 2015).

In research activities, it is observed that male and female participants are significantly different in cooperating. In a conducted study, female participants tend to cooperate and collaborate more than male participants (Stockard, Van De Kragt, & Dodge, 1988). In another study, whereby the participants had to donate some cash to anonymous partners, it appears that women had more tendencies than men to cooperate. They donate two times more than their male counterparts (Eckel & Grossman, 1998). Eckel and Grossman (1998) have also classified men’s resistance to donate voluntarily as selfish behaviour which is less observed among female participants. It can be generally inferred that women are more cooperative than men in that sense. Men, on the other hand, are inclined to cooperate differently due to the masculinity. It is found in a study that men behave based on their mating strategies while receiving help request from women (Schwarz & Baßfeld, 2019). Moreover, men prefer competing with others (Cameron, 2011). When competition is involved, they actively cooperate with the other people while for female participants competition does not make a significant difference in their cooperative manner (Van Vugt, De Cremer, & Janessen, 2007).

The cooperative attitude of people can fluctuate when they correspond to different genders. In other words, the gender of the people who are communicating with each other affects the extent in which cooperation is achieved among them. For instance, in a study by Kerr and MacCoun (1985), the participants show less cooperation when their partner is a man.

Fowler (1985) believes that besides gender, the social norms which are practised in different societies can distribute either power or cooperation among people. In this regard, Brown and Gilman (1960) assert that power prevails in an asymmetrical and nonreciprocal relation where one is in an upper position such as doctor-patient (West, 2011) and teacher-student’s relationship (Abdullah & Hosseini, 2012). Being in an upper position creates autonomy and that is the reason that in asymmetrical professional situations the powerful party imposes power and dominance over the weaker party. In the same vein, Leet-Pellegrini (2014) finds that gender cannot be the only effective factor in the interactants’ powerful manner. In fact, gender and expertise level of the communicators give people the opportunity to exert power more than cooperation. This is approved in another study by O’Barr and Atkins (2011) where they argue that the social status of the participants overrides their gender in exerting power. Woods (1989), however, has found the opposite. She has examined the relation between power and occupational status among male and female colleagues at workplace. Based on her findings, she concludes that gender is more effective than the status of the participants in exerting power. She has evidenced that even men in lower professional positions show powerful attitudes when communicating with their female colleagues who are higher in occupational status than them.

Woods (1989) in her study has used a triangular shape in order to show hierarchical levels of occupational status among the participants in each conversation. In her triangular shape (Figure 1), each angle demonstrates the participants’ professional standings compared to the other participants in the same group.

See Full Size >

Source: (Woods, 1989, p. 148)

In this study, her triangular model has been adopted and modified to fit the purpose of the study. This model is applied in our study in order to demonstrate asymmetrical relations such as friendship and professional standings (see Figures 2 and 3). However, in Woods’ model (1989) each angle represents an individual while in our study each angle presents a group.

The Profile of the Female and Male Participants

The first table, Table 1, belongs to the female participants and the next table, Table 2, belongs to the male participants who cooperated. Table 1 shows that female participants are the researchers’ colleagues and friends. They know each other for 8 years except A8. They are all English instructors in the language centre in which the researchers were working at the time of the research. As such, the occupational status of the participants and the researchers are at the same level.

As can be seen in Table 2, the male participants are the researchers’ students and know them for less than a year. As for the occupational status of the male participants, it appears that some of them possess higher occupational status compared to the other participants and the researchers who are English instructors.

The Profile of the Potential Male Participants

Table 3 demonstrates the profile of the potential male participants who were approached by the researchers and asked to take part in the research on gender studies but they all refused to cooperate. The potential male participants who were not willing to take part are the researchers’ colleagues. As a result, their occupational status is the same. Besides being colleagues, the potential participants and the researchers are all friends and know each other for 3 years except C5 who knows the researchers for a period of 2 years.

Friendship with the Researchers

A comparison between the profiles of the groups shows that the female participants and the potential male participants are the researchers’ colleagues and friends while the male participants who accepted to take part are the researchers’ students. The comparison also reveals that the female participants know the researchers for a longer time than all the other participants. However, the male participants who participated in gender studies know the researchers for a much shorter period of time than the potential male participants who refrained from taking part.

The level of friendship with the researchers among the groups is demonstrated in a graphic triangle adopted and modified from Woods (1989). Fig. 2 shows that the female participants have the highest level of friendship with the researchers, followed by the potential male participants and the male participants respectively.

See Full Size >

Occupational Status among the groups

In terms of occupational status, it appears that the females and the potential male participants possess the same occupational level. They are all English language instructors. Nevertheless, the male participants, who accepted to take part, possess different occupational status and in some cases, they have high-status positions (see Table 3). Fig. 3 shows that the occupational status of the males who participated is higher than the rest

See Full Size >

See Full Size >

As stated earlier, the researchers are both English instructors. The female participants and the potential male participants are all English instructors as well. Therefore, they all hold the same occupational status.

The findings indicate that there are three contributing factors that influence the participants’ decision to either take part in the research on gender studies or refrain from participating. These three factors are gender, friendship and power imbalance. In addition to these factors, there is one more determining aspect in the process of decision making and that is the type of study they are asked to participate in. It appears that gender studies also play a role in the participants’ decision-making process. In the following section, friendship and power are explained concerning gender. Afterwards, the effect of gender studies will be explained independently.

Friendship and Gender

There is a long-term friendship between the female participants and the researchers (see Table 1). The female participants accepted to be a part of research on gender study without any hesitation in order to support and collaborate. This can be explained by the notion that women care about friendship and cooperation with their friends (Coates, 2015). Their friendship with the researchers, who are females, motivated them to cooperate with them.

The findings also show that friendship is not very significant for men and this is not a determining factor for them in accepting or refusing to be included in research. For instance, the potential male participants who refused to be included in research on gender studies are the researchers’ friends and colleagues. They know the researchers for almost 3 years. Despite their friendship with the female researchers, they do not show their willingness to cooperate. On the other hand, the male participants who accepted to cooperate are the researchers’ students who know them for less than a year. As such, there was no established friendship between them except the teacher-student relationship. As a result, it is inferred that friendship is important for women while it does not play a significant role for men in this study. Moreover, the gender of the researchers may have a different effect on male friendship than on female friendship. In a study by Vial, Brescoll, Napier, Dovidio, and Tyler, (2018), the authors discovered that women and men follow a pattern which is consistent with gender in-group favouritism. It shows that women favour women and men favour men and that can be an explanation of why women in the present study are more cooperative towards the researchers who are female as well. However, since men are connected to power (Kaufman, 2000), we need to analyse their behaviour through power perspective in the following section.

Power and Gender

The study in hand is looking at power imbalance between the groups and the researchers to investigate the factors which resulted in asymmetry since asymmetrical situations generate power (Brown & Gilman, 1960). The analysis reveals that the female participants are at the same occupational level as the researchers. They are all English language instructors in the language centre. They all agreed to cooperate with the researchers and participate in research on gender studies. There is no specific power imbalance observed between the female participants and the researchers in terms of occupational status.

The potential male participants, who refused to take part in research on gender studies, possess the same occupational status as the researchers. Like the female group, they are all English language instructors who work with the researchers in a language centre. Despite their same professional status level with the researchers (Fig. 2), they refrain from cooperating with them. This can be explained by the virtue of the fact that men are naturally more into power demonstration than cooperation (Coates, 2015). In fact, society gives the authority to people in power to refuse or accept a request. In this study, potential male participants refused to cooperate with the researchers, who are both females, because being a man gives them the power to act dominantly over them. As such, in equal occupational positions where power is equal, gender is more effective.

The male participants, who have actually cooperated, have the highest occupational status compared to the other groups and the researchers. Although they possess higher occupational status compared to the researchers, they are the researchers’ students. Teacher-student relationship generates power imbalance whereby teachers have authority over their students (Abdullah & Hosseini, 2012; Swann, 1989; Walsh, 2008). It appears that in this study, the power imbalance between students and teachers puts the students in a lower position that cannot complain and turn down their teachers’ request to participate in their gender studies. The male students, despite their high occupational status out of classroom confinement, all agreed to cooperate with their teachers (the researchers). It shows that power imbalance between the teachers and the male participants at that particular time and place creates an atmosphere that the male participants’ higher occupational status does not count. It should be noted that the male participants were asked to cooperate in the research they were still students. Therefore, as long as they are students and they are in the classroom, the power belongs to the teacher. Moreover, the power imbalance in teacher-student relationship overrides power imbalance between genders. It reinforces the idea that power is relative (Holmes & Stubbe, 2003) and effective at certain time and place depending on the relationship between people, occupational status, expertise level and any other relationships that create imbalance.

Gender Study

It appears that the research on gender studies, due to analysing gender, has some complications on its own accordance such as the bias which is attached to gender specifically to women’s community (Walden, 2007). before the study, all the participants and the potential participants were briefed about the research and were informed that their language is going to be analysed for research on gender studies. As for the female participants, there is no single instance of discomfort among them since they all agreed to cooperate without hesitation. However, the situation is different for men. As illustrated in Table 3, the participants who refused to cooperate in gender study research are all men. The reason lies in the fact that masculinity and power are interrelated (Kaufman, 2000) and the gendered nature of such studies can create a paradoxical situation for men where their masculinity and power are in jeopardy. Moreover, as stated earlier, the researchers in this study are females. That also generates an uncomfortable situation for them and contributes to their refusal.

Since only men refused to take part, it can be argued that men in this study have the apprehension that their masculinity is exposed to female researchers and is challenged by them. Apparently, they were not comfortable with the gendered nature of the study. As a result, they provided various reasons to refrain from cooperating despite their friendship with the researchers. The male participants who agreed to cooperate may have the same feeling about gender studies. However, they did not show any rejections since the power of their teachers (the researchers) created an authority over them that they could not resist. The male participants who take part in our research on gender studies do not want to refuse to participate because the researchers have authority over them as their teachers. As such, they ignore not only the bias attached to the gender study research but also their occupational higher positions.