What is it about?
An article in Sexualities argued that homophobia is still central to the production of masculinities, and stated that a methodological paradox existed between qualitative and quantitative research on the topic. My response showed that the methodological response 1) wasn't a paradox and 2) didn't exist. The difference was manufacture by the authors' excluding research that found otherwise.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
When articles are flawed in method and argument, and lack intellectual integrity, they should be called out. This is my critique of an article that failed in those areas.
Perspectives
The original article was methodologically flawed and intellectually dishonest. It demanded a response highlighting its errors, biases and systematic flaws.
Professor Mark McCormack
University of Roehampton
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: On the construction of an artificial paradox: A critical commentary on Diefendorf and Bridges’ ‘On the enduring relationship between masculinity and homophobia’, Sexualities, February 2020, SAGE Publications,
DOI: 10.1177/1363460720905519.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
