Categorical Variables Without Categorical Thinking? A Relational Reading of the Sri Lankan Demographic and Health Survey
- PDF / 660,152 Bytes
- 21 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 77 Downloads / 212 Views
Categorical Variables Without Categorical Thinking? A Relational Reading of the Sri Lankan Demographic and Health Survey Catherine E. Harnois1 · Sandya Hewamanne2
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Connell’s theory of gender relations is among the most influential and comprehensive frameworks for analyzing gender. Its influence across methodological approaches has been uneven, though, and Connell herself has argued that relational theory is incompatible with statistical analyses, which, by relying on categorical dummy variables to indicate the sex or gender respondents, essentialize and fundamentally misrepresent gender. We argue that categorical variables do not require “categorical thinking.” We outline three necessary steps for linking statistical analyses and relational theory: contextualizing statistical rates and means; highlighting within-group variation and the process through which it is produced; and contextualizing the data collection and research process more broadly. To illustrate our approach we critically examine data from the 2006–2007 Sri Lanka Demographic and Health Survey. We show that, far from being incompatible, relational theory is often vital for understanding the meaning of statistical data, as well as for critiquing and evaluating any resulting claims. When interpreted within a relational framework, statistical data can also clarify how gender structures the lives and experiences of people of all genders. Keywords Gender · Relational theory · Sri Lanka · Health
* Catherine E. Harnois [email protected] Sandya Hewamanne [email protected] 1
Department of Sociology, Wake Forest University, P.O. Box 7808, Winston‑Salem, NC 27109, USA
2
Department of Sociology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Gender Issues
Introduction Since the publication of Gender and Power, thirty years ago, Raewyn Connell’s theory of gender relations has become one of the most influential and comprehensive frameworks for theorizing gender. In this and subsequent work, Connell “set out to refute the popular models of gender that had led to an intellectual and political impasse: biological essentialism, sex role theory, and all categorical approaches … where women and men were seen as blocs sitting opposite each other” [47, p. 2]. As an alternative to this “categorical thinking,” Connell offered a relational theory of gender, focusing as much on the practice as the structure of gender and emphasizing the dynamic and relational aspects of gender within broader global and historical contexts. Connell transformed the theoretical landscape for gender scholars, but her impact across methodological approaches has been uneven. Emphasizing the processes through which gender is created, reshaped and contested, as well as its variation across social and historical contexts, the theory has resonated particularly with qualitative and historical researchers. Examples of quantitative scholarship that employ a relational theory of gender are few and far b
Data Loading...
