Your research dollars at work ... Is Gossip Good

<p>After the study of the sexism of magazine covers in Buffalo, it appears that analyzing the impact of gossiping is worthy of the interest of the University of California. </p>

<p>Have</a> you Heard? Gossip may be good for you - KDAF</p>

<p>
[quote]
Gossip--it's such a juicy topic that a television series bears its name and researchers at the University of California at Berkeley thought it was worthy of a study.</p>

<p>What better place to find people who might gossip than at a coffee shop.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perhaps time has come to spread a message that austerity is past due and that money should be spent a tad more "wisely" is NOT gossip, but a reality. Seriously, how do such subjects not only are proposed but ... funded? </p>

<p>All the "researchers" needed to do was to remember that "The tongue has no bones but has broken many." Oh well, the 2012 version might be "Facebook has no heart but is has broken many!" :)</p>

<p>Yes, let's not study how people communicate and what effects it might have.</p>

<p>Are you talking about the Equal Opportunity Objectification study at UB? I don't know who funded the UB study, this type of study is not hugely expensive anyway, but sometimes what appears to be a "trivial" endeavor actually has a serious purpose. The comments made by one of the authors of that study suggest that was the case, so I'll reserve judgement for now. Besides, aren't all professors at research universities actually expected to do research?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The highly sexualised images have far-reaching negative effects on both men and women, particularly when the pictures objectify the subject.</p>

<p>“We don’t necessarily think it’s problematic for women to be portrayed as ‘sexy’,” explains Professor Hatton.</p>

<p>“But we do think it is problematic when nearly all images of women depict them not simply as ‘sexy women’ but as passive objects for someone else’s sexual pleasure.</p>

<p>“Sexualised portrayals of women have been found to legitimise or exacerbate violence against women and girls, as well as sexual harassment and anti-women attitudes among men and boys.</p>

<p>“Such images also have been shown to increase rates of body dissatisfaction and/or eating disorders among men, women and girls; and they have even been shown to decrease sexual satisfaction among both men and women.”

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yep! That is the one!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Erin Hatton, PhD, and Mary Nell Trautner, PhD, assistant professors in the UB Department of Sociology, are the authors of "Equal Opportunity Objectification? The Sexualization of Men and Women on the Cover of Rolling Stone," which examines the covers of Rolling Stone magazine from 1967 to 2009 to measure changes in the sexualization of men and women in popular media over time. </p>

<p>The study will be published in the September issue of the journal Sexuality & Culture.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Besides, aren't all professors at research universities actually expected to do research?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course, and perhaps a bit of teaching on the side.</p>

<p>Wow rather sad when even educated Americans read a magazine or news story to discern what research is about. Newsflash: what my PR department sends out as a press release for the masses to consume actually has very little to do with the actual study and the point of the findings. Often the context isn't remotely relevant but the tested theory is (even if journalists would find it too complex to write about). Lots of more complex studies that add a huge value to a body of knowledge- that has nothing to do with common sense- can have a splice of it covered in the popular press for lay people to read. Those fluff pieces are about as meaningful and deep as celebrity news, and usually have little resemblance to the real point of the study.</p>

<p>^^^^</p>

<p>Amen. I was going to say that but you did it before, and better than, I could.</p>