Review the article by Tilcsik, Anteby and Knight

In this essay, the writer shall review the article by Tilcsik, Anteby and Knight in which they conduct research on the concealable stigma as well as work segregation faced by the homosexuals.
Was this an experimental or non experimental research?
From the authors’ research report, they conducted a non-experimental study. In the non-experimental study design, the study is being carried out within the normal surroundings, and it does not entail any form of manipulation of data or study subjects, occurrence, conditions or individuals in the study. Through this research non-experimental design, the researchers were able to create a correlation, but they could not establish causation. For a study to determine causation, the investigators ought to be capable of declaring that the findings are the product of their experimental variable but not anything else, this is only possible with the experimental study design. The investigators did not use a control group which is used in the experimental design. Their design approach is very flexible. However, because of the lack of the control group the investigators cannot guarantee that the ultimate outcomes are the direct impact of the variable which they have studied. The advantage of this design to these authors is that non-experimental study design examines phenomena, individuals or circumstances in their ordinary surroundings minus manipulation; thus, their research findings may be used by a broad audience; that is, the findings can be generalized to a wider populace.

Was the research topic clearly stated in the first paragraph?
The researchers’ topic of study is to offer a very wide-ranging explanation for homosexual work-related segregation. This topic, though clearly stated by the researchers, it appears towards the end of the introductory section. Therefore, in my view, this makes the audience unguided at the first paragraphs on what the researchers intend to study (their research objective).
Were the research problems clearly stated?
The researchers have used the first three paragraphs to build on the research problem. They have clearly explained the study problem which they seek to remedy with their study. They have affirmed that occupational segregation bears significant effects on companies, for example, reducing the aptitude pools from where bosses may employ as well as mold the demographic profile of various work ranks and specialized clusters inside the companies. They further, assert that occupational segregation of homosexual employees is under-studied and presents an unanswered dilemma. Therefore, the authors have to build a good historical background on their topic issue and presented a clear problem warranting their research.
Did the literature review accurately summarize the most important past research?
The researchers in conducting the study endeavored to explore the two sides of the issue in their literature review, the concealable stigma and the occupational segregation of the homosexuals. They divided the literature review systematically starting with the broad overview of the topic then discussed the question of homosexual segregation through the eyes of other researchers. They draw past studies from the 1980s through to 2015. This provided them with a good pool of researches as well as the transformation in perspectives over the years on the topic issue. These studies were pertinent to their topic and offered required information for the authors to build their hypotheses.
Was the purpose of the Research and Question clearly stated and did the literature review lead to the research purpose and research questions?
The researchers did clearly provide their study objective at the introductory section; however, they held back their hypotheses from the first paragraphs but were informed by the literature review articles and journals. It is evident that after every topical literature review, the researchers concluded by giving their hypothesis. For example, after reviewing pieces of literature on the topic of “job independence and work-related segregation,” the investigators hypothesized that there exist a constructive association between the degree of work autonomy within a job and the number of homosexual employees within that job.
What were the independent and dependent variables?
Regarding variables, the authors only used homosexual employees as their independent variable while for dependent variables they used the work-related segregation and concealable stigma.
Was each research hypothesis clearly stated? Did each hypothesis state the expected relationship between the independent and dependent variables?
The authors were vivid in their hypothesis and postulated two hypotheses. The first one was that there exist a constructive association between the degree of work autonomy within a job and the number of homosexual employees within that job. The second hypothesis was that there exist a valuable connection between the degree of social acuity that a job usually needs and the percentage of homosexual employees within that job. These hypotheses show the relationship of the variables; they have elements of homosexuals (independent variable) as well as the factors of work segregation and stigma (dependent variables).
Was the theory from which the hypothesis came explained? What theories did the authors use in framing the study?
These hypotheses stemmed from two theories; the first theory that inspired the first hypothesis was that job autonomy assists in the control of concealable stigma as well as alleviates the risk of prejudice or abuse within the place of work. The second hypothesis was anchored in the advancement of an above-average capability for social acuity before getting into the labor force. Therefore, these hypotheses were based on clear theories and vividly explained by the authors.
Method
Were the demographics of the participants accurately described, and were they appropriate to this study?
In both surveys, and in line with the topic of study, the researchers focused on the homosexual population and who are employed. These demographics are clear from the study, but the ages of the study population were unclear, but a person can just imagine that they referred to the age limits of the employed individuals.
Was an appropriate method of sampling used, given the purpose of the study?
In their methodology, the researchers used two survey data that had been previously sampled. They used American Community Survey (ACS) and Add Health which was their primary and secondary data source respectively. ACS is the United States’ biggest survey, and it is a survey done in three stages (through the post, followed by phone calls, and then through private visitation). Add Health survey is a continuing survey of a study sample representing persons who were 7th -12th grades in 1994–1995. The first interview was conducted in 1995, and then follow-up interviews were done in waves from 1996 (the 2nd Wave), between the years of 2001–2002 (3rd Wave), and the latest interview was done in 2008–2009 (4th Wave). These authors used the latest wave (fourth) since it was the most recent and in my opinion it captures the changes of the modern times within homosexuality which was the focus of the study. Therefore, it provided reliable and valid data. They further used these data from these two surveys and harmonized them with the occupation-level data they obtained from the Occupational Information Network. This means in my view permitted the authors to directly determine cognitive, inventive, technological, as well as social abilities of the study population and thus, the methods adopted were suitable for the study. These approaches provided data on various aspects of homosexual lives that the researchers were investigating such as work-related segregation and job independence.
Were enough participants included in the study?
The authors utilized the data sampled for the period of 2008, 2009, as well as 2010. These ensured that their data are current to the prevailing circumstances of their research topic. Further, the data was representative of the random national sample as well as it was a big sample to carry out the occupation-level analysis.
Were the research instruments reliable and valid for the participants used in the study?
The way these surveys, ACS and Add Health, were conducted to obtain information, in my opinion, ensure a very high response rate and the researchers making it their primary data source made their research reliable and authentic.
Were there elements in the procedure that might have biased the results?
The sampling of the participants were done by those undertaking the surveys and their procedure of sampling was not discussed by the authors hence any possibility of biasness may not be identified. However, biasness from the researchers may emanate from the selection of the two surveys (ACS and Add Health) over the other surveys or just doing their individual survey instead of relying on already done surveys. In my view, the result of the study could have been more compelling had the researchers conducted their individual surveys instead of relying on the already done surveys.
Did the researchers take appropriate actions to control for extraneous variables?
The researchers encountered some extraneous variables and sought to control them. First, they regulated the fraction of male employees within the focal job. They also controlled some likely confounds such as education, since they viewed that superior education levels might be linked to greater social acuity levels, job autonomy, being in a homosexual relationship or professing homosexual personality. They also controlled town areas since homosexuals can be overrepresented within towns. They controlled the race as well, since mindsets to homosexuality may differ across ethnic clusters and ethnicity may influence job-related results.
Were the participants treated ethically?
The researchers relied on the already done surveys hence did not directly work with live participants and therefore the issue of ethical consideration may not arise in this study. However, the dealt ethically with the survey data by not revealing any identity of the survey participants or done anything that could make the survey participants to be identified.