A critical review of some recent developments in quantitative research on gender and achievement in the United Kingdom

Over recent years the findings of a number of quantitative research studies have been published in the UK on gender and achievement. Much of this work has emanated from Stephen Gorard and his colleagues and has not only been highly critical of existing approaches to handling quantitative data but has also suggested a number of alternative and, what they claim to be, more valid ways of measuring differential patterns of achievement and underachievement between groups. This article shows how much of this work has been based upon rather under-developed measures of achievement and underachievement that tend, in turn, to generate a number of misleading findings that have questionable implications for practice. It will be argued that this body of work provides a useful case study in the problems of quantitative research that fails to engage adequately with the substantive theoretical and empirical literature and considers some of the implications of this for future research in this area.

‘Governing (Through) Rights: Statistics as Technologies of Governmentality’

An increasing amount of attention is being given to the use of human rights measurement indicators in monitoring ‘progress’ in rights and there is consequently a growing focus on statistics and information. This article concentrates on the use of statistics in rights discourse, with reference to the new human rights institution for the European Union: the Fundamental Rights Agency. The article has two main objectives: first, to show that statistics operate as technologies of governmentality – by explaining that statistics both govern rights and govern through rights. Second, the article discusses the implications that this has for rights discourse – rights become a discourse of governmentality, that is a normalizing and regulating discourse. In doing so, the article stresses the importance of critique and questioning new socio-legal methodologies, which involve the collection and dissemination of information and data (statistics), in rights discourse.

The Impact of Ethical Orientation and Gender on Final Year Undergraduate Auditing Students’ Ethical Judgments

This study considers the possibility of auditing students’ ethical judgment being affected by two factors, namely ethical orientation and gender. While tests revealed that more idealistic students judged some unethical situations more strictly than less idealistic students, overall no significant relationship was found between ethical orientation and ethical judgment. The study also reported no significant relationship between gender and ethical judgment. Furthermore, males were as likely as females to be classified as high idealists. Overall, the findings from the current study inform auditing educators that discriminating among students on the basis of ethical orientation and gender may not assist in stimulating students’ discussion and resolution of ethical dilemmas.