Support for violence to resist feminism was highest among adolescent boys (28%), followed closely by adolescent girls (21%).
Perhaps most alarming: roughly 40% of boys aged 13 to 17 agreed that women lie about domestic and sexual violence.
These results raise crucial questions going forward. We don’t yet know how these views have changed over time, whether they are on the rise and what the links are between violent extremism and the negative treatment of women.
The Conversation
At least the article, published in The Conversation, wrote “we” a lot when talking about data interpretation and I saw no reference to any other researchers
On reread, the body of this article doesn’t seem to say anything except “we” and “our research” and I had just woken up and assumed the news agency.
But the authors are Sara Meger and Kate Reynolds of The University of Melbourne so it’s probably their research so I’m probably wrong. It really pisses me off how indirectly news articles point to studies and I think this is a good example of that, but I do think I was wrong about the study being done by a news agency. I’m pretty sure these people would have a pdf on their research websites too so not linking is just hand wavy
The survey wasn’t run by The Conversation, it publishes news articles co-written by academics not academic studies. In the case of articles such as this one that were written by people who have just completed/published a new study, it’s usually a successful pitch made by the researchers to The Conversation. The authors of the research and the article are clearly listed on the right side of the page under ‘Authors’. As I said in another comment, usually the research being written about has actually been published elsewhere and can be directly linked in The Conversation news article. In this case, the research is awaiting publishing which I presume is the reason why it was not linked to in the news article.
So… what my sibling comment says that’s timestamped earlier than yours and admits my mistake, but also notes that saying “our” and “we” a lot in the body of an article is very confusing and even if they want to keep broad ambiguous terms they could still do better at linking to the researchers recent work?
Actually, I’m just a bit tired, thanks for the clarification. It does seem to be a nice premise. I don’t think relying on the authors being listed in small print really does much for people that aren’t aware of how this entity operates (hence my confusion and the upvotes on my comment). I do really think the editors could do better ensuring there is clarity here given the ecosystem these articles sit in. I appreciate this being early data might be why they can’t link to a published reference, but I would be shocked if the authors didn’t have something uploaded somewhere to their personal or university websites. But also, I scanned early morning and saw a bunch of “we” and “our” and got on my soap box with a bunch of presumptions before really reading the article