Researchers conducting a meta-analysis on the effects of gender-fair language have issued the following call for data:
For a meta-analytical assessment, we seek unpublished data reporting on effects of gender-fair vs. gender-biased language on the mental representation of women and men from an observer (are women included by others) or an actor perspective (do women themselves feel included).
We search for experimental data comparing masculine generics with gender-fair forms, such as:
- neutral forms (e.g., chair-person, Studierende in German)
- male/female pairs (e.g., male and female students, Studentinnen und Studenten, Studentinnen/Studenten in German)
- specific to the German language capital I-forms (e.g., StudentInnen; or language forms intended to be even more inclusive such as the *-solution, e.g., Student*innen).
If you have any unpublished or nearly published data (including thesis data) for us, please contact us as soon as possible, preferably by October 15th, 2020. We are happy to provide you with an easy-to-use Excel Sheet, so you can provide us with the data we need without sharing original data if that is a concern.
If your data is already published, we likely have found it; however, you are welcome to contact us to ensure that we did! Please pass this request to any colleagues who are examining gender-fair language, especially those who are outside the field of Social Psychology.
If you have any questions, please write to firstname.lastname@example.org. Further information about the meta-analysis is available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/ducgp/.
Mona Salwender, M.Sc., University of Mannheim (email@example.com)
Dr. Ira Maschmann, University of Mannheim
Prof. Dr. Sabine Sczesny, University of Bern
Prof. Dr. Dagmar Stahlberg, University of Mannheim
The (randomly) selected focus publication for August/September 2020 is:
Jordan, K. N., Sterling, J., Pennebaker, J. W., & Boyd, R. L. (2019). Examining long-term trends in politics and culture through language of political leaders and cultural institutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 3476-3481. doi:10.1073/pnas.1811987116
From many perspectives, the election of Donald Trump was seen as a departure from long-standing political norms. An analysis of Trump’s word use in the presidential debates and speeches indicated that he was exceptionally informal but at the same time, spoke with a sense of certainty. Indeed, he is lower in analytic thinking and higher in confidence than almost any previous American president. Closer analyses of linguistic trends of presidential language indicate that Trump’s language is consistent with long-term linear trends, demonstrating that he is not as much an outlier as he initially seems. Across multiple corpora from the American presidents, non-US leaders, and legislative bodies spanning decades, there has been a general decline in analytic thinking and a rise in confidence in most political contexts, with the largest and most consistent changes found in the American presidency. The results suggest that certain aspects of the language style of Donald Trump and other recent leaders reflect long-evolving political trends. Implications of the changing nature of popular elections and the role of media are discussed.
For more information about this article, see: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/9/3476
Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s Department of English is seeking a Head of Department.
For additional information about the job, its requirements, and applying, please see: https://www.polyu.edu.hk/hro/postspec/20081201.pdf
The (randomly) selected focus publication for July 2020 is:
Close, E., White, B.P., Willmott, L., Gallois, C., Parker, M., Graves, N., & Winch, S. (2019). Doctors’ perceptions of how resource limitations relate to futility in end-of-life decision making: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Medical Ethics, 45, 373-379.
Objective: To increase knowledge of how doctors perceive futile treatments and scarcity of resources at the end of life. In particular, their perceptions about whether and how resource limitations influence end‐of‐life decision making. This study builds on previous work that found some doctors include resource limitations in their understanding of the concept of futility.
Setting: Three tertiary hospitals in metropolitan Brisbane, Australia.
Design: Qualitative study using in‐depth, semi‐structured, face‐to‐face interviews. Ninety‐six doctors were interviewed in eleven medical specialties. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.
Results: Doctors’ perceptions of whether resource limitations were relevant to their practice varied, and doctors were more comfortable with explicit rather than implicit rationing. Several doctors incorporated resource limitations into their definition of futility. For some, availability of resources was one factor of many in assessing futility, secondary to patient considerations, but a few doctors indicated that the concept of futility concealed rationing. Doctors experienced moral distress due to the resource implications of providing futile treatment and the lack of administrative supports for bedside rationing.
Conclusions: Doctors’ ability to distinguish between futility and rationing would be enhanced through regulatory support for explicit rationing, and strategies to support doctors’ role in rationing at the bedside. Medical policies should address the distinction between resource limitations and futility to promote legitimacy in end‐of‐life decision making.
The Journal of Language and Social Psychology is announcing a new Special Issue, for which they are seeking co-Editors:
“THE LEGACY OF GEORGE FLOYD:Language, Communication, d Social Psychological Perspectives toward CHANGE and SOCIAL JUSTICE”
In just the last few weeks, almost the entire world has been rocked, shocked, and saddened by the nature of the passing of George Floyd. Arguably and subsequently, it has brought out both the best in some, and the worst in others. People talk of the death of Mr. Floyd and the aftermath as being the “tipping point” after hundreds of years of social injustice. While some are pessimistic that any significant changes will emerge in the wake of similar events in the past, there are, gratifyingly, some significant and immediate signs of the seeds of change in police reform as well as in addressing institutional racism. The JLSP, IALSP, and SAGE wish to foster academic contributions to, and a forum for, the latter.
Hence, I invite nominations (self- or from others) for one or two scholars who would be committed to working with me as Co-Guest Editors on developing the above, including the crafting of a Call for Papers for widespread distribution. In addition, I invite scholars who would be willing to work with us as Members of a Guest Editorial Board not only in reviewing submitted papers, but also assisting in creating our collaborative vision for this enterprise.
If interested, contact: Howie Giles, Editor, Journal of Language & Social Psychology at: HowieGiles@cox.net