Profiles of Attribution of Importance to Life Roles and Their Implications for the Work-Family Conflict - Coursework Example

Profiles of Attribution of Importance to Life Roles And Their Implications for the Work–Family Conflict By Rachel Gali Cinamon &Yisrael Rich A Critical Evaluation This article is about work-family conflict written by Rachel Gali Cinamon and Yisrael Rich based on Cinamon’s dissertation as advised by Rich. The four hypotheses scattered throughout the article are as follows - H1: There are distinct groups or profiles of married workers that could be identified according to differences in their attributions of importance to work and family roles. H2: Attributions of differential importance to work and family roles would evoke systematically different patterns of work–family conflict for members of the different profiles. H3: The work-related stress variable (i.e., relatively many hours at job) and support variables (i.e., perceived manager support and relative flexibility of work schedule) would demonstrate stronger effects on W 3 F conflict for individuals in the work profile than for participants in the family profile. H4: Family-related stress variables (e.g., young children at home and many housework hours) and spousal support would demonstrate a stronger correlation with the F 3 W conflict for individuals in the family profile than for individuals in the work profile. For the first hypothesis, the authors have anticipated that four different groups would appear based on high versus low importance attributions to work and family roles. For the second hypothesis, participants belonging to the dual profile were expected to exhibit a high level of W 3 F conflict and F 3 W conflict because of their desire to invest time and energy in both roles. With regard to the third hypothesis on family-related stress and support variables, the researchers said research has linked high levels of F 3 W conflict to the presence of small children in the home (Lewis & Cooper, 1988) and to many hours invested in housework (Voydanoff, 1988). However, spousal support was found to moderate the F 3 W conflict (Matsui, Ohsawa, & Onglatco, 1995). Finally, no explanation was mentioned about why the fourth hypothesis was derived. The paper says in the end that the findings generally supported the main hypotheses of the research. According to Creswell (2003), the research question is the statement being examined in the study in its most general form. The way the paper was organized, it was hard to locate the research question or questions. Yet, when a question was found, the paper was not committal. It starts with the words, “However, these studies investigating…. analysis. Thus, the following question remains unanswered: Are work-related stress and support variables similarly related to the W3F conflict among persons belonging to the work profile and individuals belonging to the family profile? There remains evidence….” If this is the research question, it is not comprehensive enough to cover all that the research had studied. In other words, the paper can still be said to have presented no adequate research question. At best, any research question should be at the initial pages of a paper to guide the reader about what the research is all about. The researchers had utilized 213 workers aged 20-50 years; 178 from the computer field (105 men and 73 women) and 35 lawyers (21 men and 14 women). There was no mention of the kind of sampling used and how they were assigned. The computer field and law were mentioned, however, as areas where stress could readily be had. The study analyzed the responses of married persons only, but it was not explained why. In fact, it had eliminated 29 questionnaires due to respondents’ non-married status. What is true, however, is that there are married persons who can be said to enjoy lesser stress because of support in their home functions, while there are singles who are heavily bound with home chores. Clearly, civil status is not an adequate measure for presence or absence of possible stress, hence, the study should have explained its preference for married people. It is possible to be non-married and yet be a parent. The study made an elaborate method of grouping until it arrived initially at four groups, only to delete one that had very little (n =13) numbers. This may be counted as efforts in ruling out elements that might compromise the research. Utilized by the study was the Life Role Salience Scale (LRSS: Amatea, et al., 1986) supposed to assess four roles: work, spouse, parent, and housework. Therefore, what the study should have considered for analysis were those responses from PARENTS and not those of married persons only as indicated in their method. The reason for this is that married–persons-but-not-parents may water down the response results. Under the parent role for those who are married-but-not -parents, for example, how did they answer these questions and how were their answers analyzed? This question is raised more so in the fact that the Measures used has a 10-item scale that taps each of the four roles. What is to be done now with the responses of married people but not parents? The researchers need to explain this in its section on limitations. However, there is none found of this kind. At issue here also is the elimination of the Housework Role following Chi-Ching (1995) because accordingly, it has respondents that are similar in socio-economic status. The researchers retained only the Work Role, Parental Role, and Spousal Role subscales. But later on, as the discussion unfolded, we see tables and tables analyzing housework. How come? The Housework Role after all was not eliminated as claimed in method. To measure participants’ perceptions, the Gutek, Searles, and Klepa’s (1991) eight-item questionnaire was used in the study. The researchers said they had added six items to the number of items in the original questionnaire. Question: Was this pilot-tested? Any modified questionnaire that was earlier validated ought to be pilot tested. In relation to this, the researchers used the word, “pretest” for testing the questionnaire where the correct construct is “pilot-test.” The word, pilot-test is emphasized in the need for researchers not be confused with repeated measures of pre-test posttest treatments. There was no mention about validity and reliability of the measures used. However, the researchers appear very knowledgeable about previous studies related to their topic, the concepts, the theories employed, and the measures each study used. It is rather surprising that they had enough or more than enough literature to back them up; otherwise their study is not really pioneering. In fact, it appears that the researchers came up with a research design having an integrated taxonomy of categories. It shows in the terms they used. For example, work3 family conflict and family3 work conflict is clearly from Gutek, Searles & Klepa (1991), while some terms used come from Chi-Ching’s (1995) study and others. Stress studies by this time may not actually be a new issue where life takes a toll on the family. A Scheffe test is supposedly a post test not to find out if there are significant differences between treatments but to determine exactly which are different and which are not (Gravetter and Wallnau, 2005). The report, therefore, is expected to report on effect size, not on presence of significant effects as reported. Expectedly, MANOVA is supposed to do the role of telling if there was any significant difference between treatments. The researchers had much data to speak of and were apparently appropriate for the analytical techniques employed. There is no way of telling, however, about raw data such as degrees of freedom and error terms (denominator of the F-ratio) since what were reported were processed data. It can be stated that the cluster analysis that was used in the first hypothesis to determine and predict the four separate groups in accordance to the family roles and work was precisely relevant in this case as the data available was in accordance to this form of analysis. The cluster analysis test is generally used for the purpose of enabling the work force to construct specified groups that are meaningful in nature. Here it was proved to be extremely helpful as the matter in concern was evaluated with the means of facilitating and analysing attributions that are simultaneous in nature and are of huge priority to life domains in both cases. In this case the Euclidean distance between variables were used on the clusters as it would help to determine the results in a simpler manner thus would able eradicate complications by some margin. The cluster analysis tests can be determined as more relevant to this article because it enables to reveal three groups in distinction. However, the cluster analysis test is not very useful for smaller groups or groups with small population. As a result the test suffers in its fourth group analysis. Though the result was not corrupted it can be safely mentioned that the determination of a unique profile was not achieved using four groups simultaneously. Thus a repeat test was needed excluding the fourth smaller group. This can be demonstrated as a vital flaw of the cluster analysis test. Otherwise this test can be determined as very useful for tests such as these. On the other hand ANOVA or Analyses of variance can be determined as a more preliminary measure of tests. It is used mainly for miniature variables of populations. In this case Analyses of variance were used for determining the family-related and important work variables. This test however fails to indicate differences in a systematic form. In the case of the article concerned it could mentioned that Analyses of variance failed to develop any specifications. But in the same context it should be mentioned that the initial tests performed on minute variables proved to be extremely successful in the relation of the article. It is obvious that all tests are not relevant for all purpose and wise selection of the test measures depending up on the nature of the activity are sure to yield success. And here it was successful in this context. It could mentioned that Analyses of variance and cluster analysis both have their pros and cons but a wise choice of application as in this article harvests success and this article can be mentioned as a prime example. Analyses of variance and cluster analysis are both important tools in the hands of the able users where the negatives are eradicated and positives exhales. As observed, Table 1 and Table 6 invariably reflect two levels of confidence (.05 and .01) with the same set of data. Why is there a need to be shifting from one confidence level to another? This has not been explained in the paper. In Table 1, for example, if at all helpful, what could the research gain from using the more on stringent confidence level of 99% on work commitment (WC), parenthood commitment (PC), spouse values (ZV), spouse commitment (ZC) and only 95% on Family3 work conflict (FW), seniority (SN), and age (AG)? What about parenthood values (PV), work3 family conflict (WF), number of children (CH), number of working hours (WH), housework (HW), and managerial support (MS) since there were no levels of confidence indicated? The researchers had supplied a legend for the symbols but had not bothered to include an explanation for the shifting back and forth of levels. Related to this, supposedly, whenever significant differences are mentioned, the level of confidence should be mentioned (Creswell, 2003). As it is, discussion of participants talked of “no significant differences” between them but no confidence levels were mentioned. How could the reader tell? Overall, the results of the study may be said to have lead to the conclusions. The strength of the study is its back up of previous studies that the researchers were able to modify to match the problem at hand. The literature may be said to be well covered but they were scattered here and there in the discussions. The language was informal although a more formal language could have been adopted for the study such as precluding the use of the personal pronoun, “we”. “We anticipate”, for example, could have been, “It is anticipated.” The same goes for the use of “our.” Language is also a little problematic in this article. For example, “three distinct profiles emerged composed of…” It is best for the writers to take some more steps for clarity and say, “three distinct profiles emerged that composed of…” The same goes with the last statement of this paragraph. Since the fourth hypothesis is nowhere written and lost in the earlier pages, the writers might as well complete the sentence. “This finding was at odds with the fourth hypothesis” could be continued on by restating the hypothesis for the reader. It is different if the write-up did an earlier enumeration of the hypotheses or a bulleted arrangement that is easy to find. There is a need for more proofreading of the article to insert corrections. On Page 13, for example, it was discussing “the table” but nowhere is it indicated that it is referring to Table 6 on Page 17 that is too far away. Not until the reader looks for the figures will one understand what is being discussed. In the same paragraph, it mentions about additions (additional 9% of the variance, additional 3% of the variance). It is best that the researchers mention also the totals, since it is the totals that are actually reflected on Table 6. On Page 2, “for its support in publication of this article” has overlooked the article in “the” publication. Now, here comes a curious lapse, and it is more than proofreading that is involved here: Just above the subtitle, “Strategy of the Present Research,” is a supposed author citation but no year was indicated. The supposed name of the author is “Super” and he was supposed to have articulated something on social roles. What he was saying was important as it touched on ascribed meanings. On the whole, the approach of the article was one comfortably spelling things out slowly for the reader. However, it mixes related literature with the discussion of findings. In the end, the approach digresses much from the study proper and into the studies of other people. In the end, the effect is that the article is much bloated with related studies and literature and the research proper itself seems confounded. The reader is then left feeling that there is not much originality with the research. In reporting the research from a dissertation, however, accommodation is given to the transfer of information made from a bulk to a few pages. Sometimes, much information is left out in the transfer and this is not done intentionally. References Amatea, E. S., Cross, E. G., Clark, J. E., & Bobby, C. L. (1986). Assessing the work and family role expectation of career-oriented men and women: The life role salience scale. Journal of Marriage and Family, 18, 831–838. Chi-Ching, Y. (1995). The effects of career salience and life cycle variables on perceptions of work–family interfaces. Human Relations, 48, 265–332. Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gali Cinamon, R. & Rich, Y. Profiles of Attribution of Importance to Life Roles and Their Implications for the Work–Family Conflict. [The article]. Gutek, B. A., Searles, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role expectations for work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 566–568. Gravetter, F. J. & Wallnau, L.B. (2005). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences. 5th edition.USA: Thomson. Read More