In the very beginning of the semester, Dr. Gironda asked us to define what we think of as research. For me, research has always been an interesting process, one that I was (and am) eager to build upon and expand, especially given the fact that research is the cornerstone of my major: Psychology.

In this research paper, my topic was also one of personal interest which is why I was extremely excited to gather information and see the results.  I think  my initial definition of research was pretty much accurate; the many different types of information I encountered (“comparative study, scientific facts, opinions, assumptions, etc.”) and had to  ”untangle” to produce my final research paper and all its many coherent aspects that all pertain to a single argument or thesis (which was described in my initial definition as “a single thread of information, whole in and of itself.”). Examples of directing information to my paper to produce a single coherent argument would not only be my interviews within the AUC community which I had to adapt into a my paper, but also the  many articles on stereotyping only that I was forced to use due to the lack of specific research on Major Stereotypes. It was in this lack of factual information about the topic specifically that I was forced to improvise to be able to reach a coherent paper.

The part of the research project that I enjoyed the most was definitely interviewing people at AUC and getting to listen to many different opinions and points of views regarding a topic I am so passionate about. Also, in my presentation, I included a very short 1.5 minute film to represent the different Major Stereotypes within AUC, doing that collage was a lot of fun (although it took time and effort) it was really eye-opening. My least enjoyed part would probably the stage right before writing the paper when I have tons of raw information is various forms (interviews, articles, forums, etc.) and I’m still not quite sure how to fit it all into a paper or how and where to put everything. After that, when I start writing, everything just sort of flows and it is much more enjoyable.

There was one thing about research that I hadn’t known that I learned while conducting this research. During interviews, I was always careful with my wording because I know  that that tends to influence people a lot. However, on thing that I was never very careful with was giving people examples when they don’t understand your questions. During my interviews, when I would give examples like “You know, people who think psychology majors are not useful or that engineering majors are nerds” I would see a certain tendency to just agree with me and I could definitely see that my opinion affected theirs. I don’t really know whether it was because my topic was very uncommon or maybe my questions were a bit vague (when I observed Yara’s interviews, she did not get this many questions regarding her questions), but it is definitely something I should be wary of in future researches.

As a researcher, I think my biggest strength would be my passion about my topics because this passion truly makes me look for as much information as I can possible gather. My weakness would probably have to be the fact that I’m lazy about reading full articles and, although i DO end up reading them anyways to be able to choose quotes and such, I usually read them with great disinterest.

As a research writer, I would have to say that  my greatest strength would be my background of psychological studies and psychology courses.. As well as taking the AS language course in my final high school year.. These three factors definitely help me in the analytical aspect of my writing, be it psychological factors or linguistic ones. My weakness as a research writer is my technique during the writing of research papers which I always feel need refining or that it is maybe a bit bordering on informal.

On the whole, this paper was very beneficial especially on the personal level because it was a topic close to heart. Learning more about this topic was really important to me  since I’ve experienced this kind of prejudice previously. Also, it provided me with a much-needed training in research writing and its specific techniques; something that will definitely come in handy as i’m planning to minor in Rhetoric and Writing.

“

It seems like a very good start. The argument seems very logical and coherent.

I like how you are considering the topic from several diverse angles; it is a very thorough method for gathering information.

I think you should include exactly which questions you are including in your interview for the reader to be able to assess the results and know that you are unbiased.

Overall, I think this will end up being a very interesting and relevant topic of research. Good luck! “

http://ykhaled.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/research-proposal/#comment-3

1. ARGUMENT: The idea of major stereotypes is neither well-known nor well-recognized, thus, many people can claim that it is not a valid stereotype or even a valid concept. REBUTTAL: the psychological effects proven to exist in many college students show not only the presence of such a thing but also it’s harmful effects.
2. ARGUMENT: It may exist with certain majors but not all of them. REBUTTAL: The many different forums I found with millions of different people from different places all saying what kind of different stereotypes they face regarding THEIR majors.
3. ARGUMENT: Even if it existed, and it had some kind of implicit psychological impact on students, the effect must be minor since the concept isn’t that spread. REBUTTAL: The most under-recognized psychological impacts are too often the most dangerous because that means that they are not fully addressed.

I still need to gather more evidence to support my thesis. I will hopefully be able to gather a lot of evidence within interviews with people both WITHIN the AUC community and outside it. Because this is such an under-rated and rarely acknowledged issue, it is hard to find article to support it, so I am still working on finding articles be it within the library database or otherwise.

“But, what are you going to do with Psychology? You can’t find a job with THAT!” The sheer presumptuousness of that phrase describes the essence of ‘Major Stereotypes’; something that is slowly spreading throughout the AUC community like an infectious disease. English majors are book freaks, Biology majors are studious and nerdy, Art majors are supposedly “creative”; and the list goes on and on. These kinds of stereotypes are present all over the world, and they are (usually) surprisingly similar.

As a Psychology major, I’ve received all kinds of typecasting comments and quandaries, ranging from plain curiosity to mild scorn to straightforward hands-down rudeness. The ridiculous amount of stereotyping I’ve received in my 1 year (only) stay at AUC prompted me to wonder: what makes people think this? Stereotypes are, typically, based upon some kind of generalized action or perceived quality of the stereotyped group. What made Psychology a moneyless dead-ended profession?  What made Archeology come with the “mad scientist” image? Why do the “scientific” kinds of majors always gain an advantage? These kinds of questions are essential to uncovering this myth of “Major Stereotypes”.

In my research, I want to basically explore 4 questions: 1) what are certain stereotypes attached to certain majors? (I’m going to limit myself to 3-5 majors within the AUC community), 2) History of those stereotypes i.e. where do these stereotypes come from, 3) Why do people rely so heavily on them? Why is it that these are actual representations in some peoples’ opinions? And 4) What is the effect of these stereotypes? By examining these questions using diversified methods, I am hoping to gain further understanding about how stereotypes form and the obviously judgmental human nature.

Thesis:

Major stereotypes exist with every major there is, then why are some majors more accepted than others?

Methods:

The first key method to my research would be interview. I am planning to interview as much people as a can within the AUC population. I’m also planning to create a distinction between Foreigners’ replies and Egyptians’ replies in order to later on cross-reference them and determine whether this kind of stereotyping has something to do with the kind of culture one is used. These are preliminary questions that I’m planning to include in the interview:

1. Do you feel that there are “labels” attached to Majors?
2. What do you think about Psychology/Biology/Engineering, etc? Majors?
3. What are some reactions you get for YOUR major? How do you feel about them?
4. Do you believe there are stereotypes regarding majors? Give examples of some you know.
5. Why do you think people believe stereotypes even though they are not always true?

The last two questions are going to be last regardless of how many questions precede it in order to ensure that the idea of “stereotypes” is not embedded into the answer. It would be interesting to know how people think of majors without them thinking of stereotypes since this would prove/disprove their presence to begin with.

The second method I’m planning to use is researching the whole concept of “Major Stereotypes” within Psychology. For this I will probably rely mostly on psychology journals and scholarly articles from the university’s database. Also, maybe some psychological researches regarding this topic would be useful.

A third method I’m considering utilizing is looking at this topic from a historical context to see for how long have certain stereotypes existed and in conjunction with which Majors. Perhaps there was a time where more “literary” majors were considered the real norm and people within areas of science were more prone to ridicule?

Sources:

• Interview answers
• Online Forums discussing certain stereotypes

• For more detail, check Preliminary Bibliography attached.

  Online articles about experiences with Major stereotypes

• Any online studies regarding this topic
• Library sources like articles

Anticipated Difficulties and Possible Solutions:

The first problem I may face is with the interview and its wording; certain ways of saying things may imply certain answers and may create bias in answers. Also, the arrangement of the questions matter to the answer to be given. In order to avoid this, I have to be very careful with my wording and make sure that any noticeable biases certain questions give are amended.

My second difficulty is the kind of pure objectivity this research requires in order to present facts about different stereotypes that are independent from yours. This requires a certain amount of awareness while writing the research paper or reaching any conclusions.

Significance:

TO ME:

This research would have great meaning to me personally because this has been something that has bothered me ever since I came to AUC; the discovery of the reasons behind it may make it seem more acceptable or, at the very least, understandable to me.

TO OTHERS:

This is an interesting field of research that will undoubtedly be of interest to anyone in college since this is a universal concept that everyone is exposed to. The universality of this concept also means that this a problem everywhere, one that requires a decent amount of exposure and awareness on this issue, something that I’ve yet to come across. This kind of article will highlight the importance of this issue and raise attentiveness towards this issue, especially within the AUC community.

Suggested Timeline:

October 20th - Submission of Research Proposal

October 21^st – BLOG POST: notes on conference and proposal feedback

October 25^th and 26^th – Work on final draft of Research Proposal

November 1^st to November 12^th- Work on interviews and sources, collect notes to go in first draft

November 16^th to November 21^st – Work on First Draft Research Paper

November 22^nd- First Draft Research Paper due

November 24^th to December 10^th- Work on Final Paper

There are 3 basic questions that fall underneath this topic that I would like to explore:

1. What are some of the streotypes regarding certain majors?
2. Why do people go by these streotypes?
3. The history of these streotypes (i.e. where do they come from?

This topic is certainly an interesting one for me. I am really looking forward to interviewing people and finding out the afore-mentioned factors.

Dr. Coltue examined the uncertainties and vagueness in regard to factors that contribute towards giving. As a Psychology major, this was more relevant to me than most because this obviously had psychological stemming: be it the giver’s “logic” of sorts for giving or the needy’s appeal for help. Technique and wording matter very much here, since this “Appeal” is what is going to lead to the giving, it is what is going to trigger this rationale of need vs. deserve.

Dr. Coltue  first divided this topic into two (very broad) research questions; Why give?/Who receives? This essentially sums up all the topic. She then went on to talk about distribution mechanisms like lending, writing in the paper, etc. The discussion about lending got me thinking whether lending should actually be considered as “giving” so much as “providing help”; is it really “giving” if you take back what you gave (often with interest added)?

She also introduced me to new concepts like “the crisis of giving”, which is the chaotic combination of limited resources, vast need and suspicion. This sort of in-depth knowledge of the topic showed me the importance of really delving into your research since some abstract things (like the “crisis of giving”) cannot be uncovered unless patterns are drawn from experience and knowledge.

Dr. Coltue talked also a bit about narrowing down our research topic and sticking to one segment only.

1-What is the claim the argument is making?

The author claims that Stevenson and Wolfers’s research conclusion stating that women’s unhappiness is due to feminism is wrong. She believes that there are more reasons like segregation within society or discrimination within the workplace and so on.

2-What is the primary reason used to support this claim?

That the study doesn’t really claim nor prove that this unhappiness is caused by feminism. It rather illustrates this decline without really stating a reason for it. She also supports this reason by adding that the researchers themselves admit that this is the case : “their numbers really don’t tell us anything clear about why women now report being more unhappy, only that they do.”

3- What is the primary warrant (underlined assumption)?

That full equality between men and women automatically entails happiness for women.

4- What is used for evidence?

She used quotes and certain parts of the research to prove that women’s unhappiness is entirely unrelated to feminism but rather to the way they are treated in society, the discrimination present against them, the higher expectations that are set for them (especially in comparison to men), etc. The diversity of the quotes (from sociologists, from writers, from researchers, etc.) makes it more reliable in the view of the reader. “Men in today’s world who have gone with the flow of changing roles and mores, the sociologist Michael Kimmel writes, are healthier, closer to their wives and children, happier” this quote for example shows her impartiality towards men and shows the importance of women’s happiness in the society; something that would be easier achieved, in her point of view, if the society’s relentless discrimination would be altered.

The first thing that she mentioned was to  make sure that my interview questions were free of any bias or inclination towards a certain answer. An essential way to ensure this objectivity is to remove the concept or insinuation of “stereotypes” completely in order to be able to prove they exist in the first place. Another thing that I need to focus on is isolating my personal opinions on the matter.

The second point that Dr. Gironda mentioned was looking at whether these stereotypes actually DO exist in the first place rather than looking at their effect solely.

We also discussed what kinds of sources can I use and where might I find them; what kind of databases should I look at within the University’s Library.

Hopefully all these pointers should help drastically improve my research proposal.

• The connotations and annotations of a Major:

The kind of labels that go hand-in-hand with each major is something that, try as we might, is unavoidable. These mini-stereotypes create many different “Cliques” in the AUC community and causes considerable amount of what can only be labelled as friendly ethnocentrism. These stereotypes, where they come from, the actual effect they have on people and their self-image are all questions that beg an answer in this situation. Such a research would help us better understand the complex relationships that bound the AUC community together; differences and similarities aside.

I researched this lately, and I discovered that “Major Streotypes” are actually a big problem for many people in Campus life.

Dr. Rich talked about the fieldwork method. This basically means the kind of hands-on reseasrch that involves observing and interviewing people to collect information whether it’s regarding their lifstyle, their culture or, in Dr. Rich’s case, their economic state (ex. how much a person makes per year). This type of research obviously has an advantage in the sense that it increases the researchers insight and the accuracy of this insight. I had some experience with this type of research with my Anthropology 202 course where fieldwork was a major part of my project, and, as a researcher, this type of research definitely helps me to notice things that I would not normally notice if, say, my research was coming from a book or the Internet. Another branch that i learnt about was the “participant-observation method” that involves, as the name suggests, much more participation during the fieldwork.

Dr. Rich also stressed that research is a very robust tool that has the power to influence as well as change many things.

Dr. Rich also talked about the barrier of biases that come hand-in-hand with any research; be it bias caused by mistranslation or bias caused by overcoming certain details, etc. This also emphasizes the importance of having a very critical eye to avoid any mix-ups or possible subjectivity.