Conceptual Disruption

Abstract

In research using self-report measures, there is little attention paid to how participants interpret concepts; instead, researchers often assume definitions are shared, universal, or easily understood. I discuss the self-anchored ladder, adapted from Cantril's ladder, which is a procedure that simultaneously collects a participant's self-reported rating and their interpretation of that rating. Drawing from a study about sexual satisfaction that included a self-anchored ladder, four analyses are presented and discussed in relation to one another: (1) comparisons of sexual satisfaction scores, (2) variations of structures participants applied to the ladder, (3) frequency of terms used to describe sexual satisfaction, and (4) thematic analysis of "best" and "worst" sexual satisfaction. These analytic strategies offer researchers a model for how to incorporate selfanchored ladder items into research designs as a means to draw out layers of meaning in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods data. I argue that the ladder invites the potential for conceptual disruption by prioritizing skepticism in survey research and bringing greater attention to how social locations, histories, economic structures, and other factors shape selfreport data. I also address issues related to the multiple epistemological positions that the ladder demands. Finally, I argue for the centrality of epistemological self-reflexivity in critical feminist psychological research.

Power and race in Black and White men’s perceptions and experiences of manhood.

“…Research from Levant et al (1998) found that most differences in the endorsement of traditional masculinity ideologies (e.g., avoidance of femininity, being aggressive, achieving status) were between Black and White men living in the U.S. South whereas in other geographic regions, Black men were only more traditional than White men on self-reliance. Moreover, these studies have primarily employed quantitative methodology to compare Black and White men’s endorsement of traditional masculinity, which may overlook subtle—yet critical—variations in meaning (see McClelland, 2017, for further discussion). More research using qualitative methods is needed to detect nuanced ways in which Black and White men view manhood, as well as to understand the role of power in these perceptions.…”