Changes in Money Management - Research Proposal Example

The article has been taken from; Social Policy and Society Journal published by Cambridge School of Social Policy Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent. The article is titled: Individualization in Couple Finances: Who Pays for the Children? pages 381 – 391, published Oct 2004, vol 4, part 4. This article; written by Jan Pahl, School of Social Policy Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, has an interesting premise. The paper states that it would consider how the effects of changes in the way married couples handle their finances, in particular the way the expenses for children and child care are paid, and who is most responsible for those expenses, can still be a route to inequality. The paper leads the reader to understand that the individualization of finances, though leading to a real sense of autonomy, could still leave women with the belief that they are still the primary care givers of society. The paper focuses on two key questions. “How much money do individuals retain under their own individuals control? And what are they expected to pay for out of that money? (Pahl, 2004: 385). In “Research Methods in Politics” it says, “The ability to research, and therefore provide evidence to corroborate a particular view of the world, is clearly vital to the discipline of political science.” (Brunham, 2004: 1) Keeping the above thought in mind, we must understand what Pahl was intending by making such a statement. The paper did not put forth any particular reason(s) or solution to the inequality problem as presented, it only stated that there could be an unexpected end result. The methodology used for the paper was fairly extensive, citing both the author’s own research and a number of different studies, interviews, books and research papers that substantiated the author’s premise. The paper incorporated a lengthy reference list, with over thirty references to research directly related to the article. There was a lot of material crammed into such a short article, so much so, that it may have been too overbearing. “Presenting the findings of a survey can be quite complicated, and it is easy to lose the reader in a mass of detail” (Punch, 2003: 72). Learning how to present, and maybe even more importantly, how not to present information, was something that this author could have done a little better. Even though the writer is faced with more options when presenting the findings, and has a little more leeway in presenting those findings, if the information contained in the rest of the article has already overwhelmed the reader, then the findings may not make as much sense as desired. The structure of the paper was fairly straight forward, with a couple of points to be made, one in favor of the author, and one not so. In an electronic article at http://www.oncampus.richmond.edu/~tlewelle/studyaids/termpapers.htm and titled; Writing a Research Paper in the Social Sciences, two points are brought out. The first is that the author should focus on a clearly bounded population. The author did this in this particular paper by using only a small audience of couples (99, 59 of which were personally interviewed and 40 which answered a questionnaire). All these people came from the same country which was the focus of the paper. On the other hand, the author did not concern herself as much with the second point of the website which was that the time period covered should be as brief as possible. It took the author a couple of years to finish the study, and then she compared her study to material taken from studies over a long length of time. As a general rule research papers probably should keep their studies to a shorter time frame, and maybe in this case, it was short enough, it just seems like an inordinately long time to conduct one study. A reader is typically asking him or herself how the survey included in a particular paper was done, what methods did it use? With so many different studies used in this paper, it was especially important that the reader feel that the studies were both reliable and valid. “Here, the reader’s central interest is in the way the project was carried out. In a research environment…..readers need to be able to inspect the methods used in order to judge how much confidence to place in the survey’s findings.” (Punch, 2003: 70). If the reader does not feel that the variables in the surveys were compatible, or was unable to see the relation between the surveys and the findings, then the paper loses its punch. The author did, however, have some good points in this regard in the paper. These points were in how it was written as well as how it presented the different studies. The paper answered the question of how the data was collected. Pahl states; “The study drew on three different sources of data.” (Pahl, 2004: 383). It then goes on in detail to describe the data and how it either conflicted or enhanced other data throughout the paper. The information she listed took almost a full page and was further enhanced by the over 30 reference listings on the reference page. The researcher continued to use this style of confirming her data throughout the paper as evidenced further on by her consistent use of various research articles. There were also a number of attempts that were made by the paper to justify information that was not actually in evidence. As an example, the paper states; “We do not know whether payments for childcare come from joint accounts or individual accounts, but it is clear that typically women pay the costs of children.” (Pahl, 2004: 387). If the paper is stating evidence that may not be replicated then it probably should not be used. In “Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches” it states that “Missing data can be a serious problem when constructing an index. Validity and reliability are threatened whenever data for some cases are missing.” (Neuman, 1997: pg 156). If the author did not have the information concerning where the payments were coming from then either she should have researched more to discover the necessary information, or she should not have included it at all. The information that she did include was well standardized, which made it very possible to still come up with the same conclusion without the doubt thrown in by including non-existent information as well. The author did, however, have some good points in the paper as well. These points were in how it was written as well as how it presented the different studies. The paper answered the question of how the data was collected on page 383. Pahl states; “The study drew on three different sources of data”. It then goes on in detail to describe the data and how it either conflicted or enhanced other data throughout the paper. I would have to say that the paper had its drawbacks and limitations (like any other research paper) and that it had its fine points as well. If I were a reader I would be asking myself a number of questions concerning the validity of the writer’s findings, but I would hardly questions the forbearance of evidence accumulated by the author. In writing a research paper, or in this case reviewing a research paper in order to learn how to write a similar one, I found the different aspects almost overwhelming. There are so many books written on the how, whys and wherefores of writing a good research paper, that I felt like a child in a candy store. In each book or paper that I used to assist me, I found more information and gained more knowledge in what to look for and what differentiates a good research paper from a bad research paper. I felt that this paper was strong in the area of research but weak in how it related the data to its findings. That I found the paper to be so is a very normal circumstance. In Survey Research: The Basics, Keith Punch states; Data analysis…this is now described in some detail again since, in my experience, this is where beginning research students have the most difficulty.” (Punch, 2003: 94). Pahl’s article showed a general weakness when it comes to analyzing the data and then presenting the data to corroborate her findings. It wasn’t only that the findings were wrong or right, they might have been either one, but she did not show how her premise was supported by the data. Or if the data did support her premise, she did not present it in a way that made it understandable to the reader of the paper. Punch goes on to describe how researchers have to proofread answered questionnaires and data entry. Pahl’s paper showed that she accomplished this part of the paper in fine fashion, and presented an abundance of material in her quest for justification. The material, abundant as it was, just did not establish her findings. If I can remember these drawbacks as a researcher, and strive to put forth my findings in a clear and concise way, then what I have learned by writing the review of this paper, has been well worthwhile. References Burnham, P., Gilland, K., Grant, W. and Layton-Henry, Z., 2004, Research Methods in Politics, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Neuman, W., 1997, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Whitewater, University of Wisconsin. Pahl, J., 2004, Individualization in Couples Finances: Who Pays for the Children, Social Policy and Society Journal published by Cambridge University, School of Social Policy Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent. pages 381 – 391, published Oct 2004, vol 4, part 4. Punch, K., 2003, Survey Research: The Basics, London, Sage Publications. Read More