Have you ever been reading an article on a website that makes a claim either about a study or a report that supports the hypothesis of the article but then, when you go and check the reference, the evidence offers a different argument?

Let me give you an example — Women on Boards. A good idea? Yes — of course. I believe there should be more women on boards of companies, both public and private, not because they need representation but because men are no better than women at running companies. Fair statement?

QZ.com is one of my favourite producers of interesting content. Their content is relevant, intelligent, suggestive but usually well structured and referenced. It’s populist enough to attract readers but studious enough to stimulate a more profound and detailed understanding of a given topic (often presented differently than main stream media).

So, you can see how pleased I must have been to see this: http://qz.com/612086/huge-study-find-that-companies-with-more-women-leaders-are-more-profitable/. I like studies like this. Studies that traipse through raw data using a specific filter and churn out an assessment that has little qualitative value apart from suggesting “the data supports this hypothesis”. The report may go into ‘how’ the data supports this and even reference specific examples but that’s when the hypothesis becomes qualitative rather than quantitative (statistical, evidential etc.).

As I read through the article, I got to the end and saw this statement: “Another discovery that will fuel policy discussions: quotas to mandate female representation on boards do not reduce, or improve, corporate performance”. As you can see from my earlier stipulation of my bias; I don’t think women should be on boards because of representation, rather than they add value to an organisation in terms of improving performance. In other words, they should be there because their ability to contribute to an organisation is no higher or lower than that of a man who is equally qualified to do the job; not just because they are female.

Now, this has always been a difficult standpoint to debate as the natural way to get more women on boards is to go straight for the jugular and impose it via statute and most who are of this standpoint agree that this is the most effective way eliminate the glass ceiling. However, in my eyes, that’s a cop-out by government as it addresses a symptom of low female presence on boards but not the cause (to be solved by cultural changes, open recruitment, skills-based analysis, competency tests etc.) so I was curious to examine an evidential report that, according the QZ, supported my hypothesis. First of all, the link detailed in the article took me to an Atlantic article detailing “Are Quotas for Women in Politics a Good Idea?” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/are-quotas-for-women-in-politics-a-good-idea/251237/. Woah! Hold on there! This article is about politics, not boards! Already I’m shaken. The article goes on to highlight a list of pros and cons of female representation in politics which, although transferable are still qualitative (i.e. not based on evidence, in the context of this article). They are as follows:

Pros

• Quotas for women do not discriminate, but compensate for actual barriers that prevent women from their fair share of the political seats.
• Quotas imply that there are several women together in a committee or assembly, thus minimizing the stress often experienced by the token women.
• Women have the right as citizens to equal representation.
• Women’s experiences are needed in political life.
• Election is about representation, not educational qualifications.
• Women are just as qualified as men, but women’s qualifications are downgraded and minimized in a male-dominated political system.
• It is in fact the political parties that control the nominations, not primarily the voters who decide who gets elected.
• Introducing quotas may cause conflicts, but only temporarily.

Cons

• Quotas are against the principle of equal opportunity for all, since women are given preference.
• Quotas are undemocratic, because voters should be able to decide who is elected.
• Quotas imply that politicians are elected because of their gender, not because of their qualifications and that more qualified candidates are pushed aside.
• Many women do not want to get elected just because they are women.
• Introducing quotas creates significant conflicts within the party organisation.

Most of which are valid points in relation to some of the issues around the quota model for female representation of boards. But these pros and cons came from a study on increasing female participation in political representation — not the board room (see original study here: http://www.idea.int/publications/wip2/upload/4-_Increasing_Womens_Political_Representation.pdf). This list of pros and cons was designed to inform the reader rather than offering evidence to support the hypothesis that female representation is good for politics (let alone the board room). The conclusion of the report is that quotas are a good way to get parties to get more women involved in politics but many of the cultural barriers still remain. Although this may suggest that quotas are not the way to go, it does also suggest that this can be remedied by the nature in which quotas are implemented, rather than not at all.

The bottom line is that this report (buried in the footnotes of a speculative article in the Atlantic) does not support the statement made against the notion to put quotas on boards of directors forcing them to hire more female members. Therefore, I am still none the wiser as to whether my hypothesis is supported by evidence.

I’m not an empiricist or a logician. But I am human, therefore curious, and constantly in search of answers. I have been accused of making snap judgements but I like to think that on matters of politics and economics (i.e. the social sciences), I strive to be as evidence driven as possible. This piece was not designed to be a piece about female representation on boards (which again, I support) but scrutinising those who reference scholarly texts (i.e. studies or reports) without first clearly understanding both the hypothesis, the evidence, the conclusions and the implications of the work. Anything short of perfection around matters pertaining to evidence are at best a humiliation of the author, their credentials and their work and, at worst, typical human laziness.