In the Australian today was an excellent piece, focussing on an issue that's been close to my heart for a while.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/radicals-get-rich-while-truth-begs/story-e6frg6zo-1225957983565

A couple of quotes:
"THERE could hardly be a more pleasant discovery.

It is when we find that our political preferences, professional interests and friendship networks all stand in perfect alignment, like an eclipse of the sun.

Out of this delightful conjunction of the planets we discover ourselves free to advance our career under the mask of political rectitude, even as we enforce our political prejudices on others under the description of scholarly research, all the while convincing ourselves that we are acting from the loftiest of motives."

and

"The problem with the modern planets-in-alignment school of professorial radicalism is that it too often rewards bad behaviour with an enhanced superannuation payout, even as it provides scholarly mechanisms for the elimination of heterodoxy and independence of spirit."

I think the author has very well-encapsulated the problem that I have previously likened to a steam engine with the throttle tied down and the brake removed. I have mostly discussed it in regard to the feminisation of our institutions and social structures, but the author clearly shows the broader problem.

So how do we fix it?

Since Graham's been busy, this thread took a while to be a pproved, so I thought I'd bump it.

Antiseptic:

So how do we fix it? I'm not sure that we can. If the world consisted simply of some self-evident reality that everyone perceived in exactly the same way, there might be no disagreement among observers.
But the truth of the matter researchers will be influenced by their background, training,and prior experiences. Inevitably, they, like anyone else, will be guilty of some measure of bias (the tendency, often unconscious) to interpret facts according to one's own values.

Complete objectivity is particularly difficult to achieve for scientists. By rigorously excluding personal biases and by submitting their research findings to the criticism of the scientific community however, scientists can try to guard against subjective distortions and can reach a high degree of objectivity. Total objectivity is probably impossible to achieve in any science, since bias is usually always unconscious

Very good article anti.

I think aside from the peer group trends and ideologies of the scientists, I see the meeja also may have a role.

I read the papers too much, and I always wonder whether the filter of the things I read comes from

a) My bias in selecting articles
b) The editor/papers idea of what will sell or their ideological bent (Though I make a point of reading both the smh and Australian etc)
c) The phenomena discussed in the article.

Now a) is pretty easy to recognise, and I think I have a realistic view of to what extent I read stuff in order to be outraged.

b) Well, I am always fascinated by the 'flavour of the month', and even think there is a flavour of the year and decade. One example is when every indiscretion by any P-plater (It got to ridiculous levels) was reported after a particular tragic death of a speeding P-plater. Then all the animal cruelty stories after that cat-in-a-bin lady recently. As for longer term trends, (you'll love this anti) there are many many articles on all sorts of topics how women, uniquely, or even just differently to men (ie more powerfully) are affected by something. I would estimate at least double the stories are about 'how woman are affected' even when the topic is plainly not remotely a women's issue. I still haven't worked out if nobody studies men at all or the women articles are the only ones that get reported.

c) This article rings very true. I remember when pynchme posted a link containing some emails between her university colleagues and one of them was complaining that one of her pupils was 'aggressive' or needed to be kicked out just because he was asking too many of the wrong type of questions. It gave the impression they weren't teaching a subject rather an ideology, and were so indignant a student wasn't obediently swallowing every little theory they proposed. They were upset that the student had read an alternate source of information that wasn't kosher to them.

Lexi, the whole point of science is that results should be able to be replicated and that conclusions should be falsifiable. The objectivity of the researcher in coming to the conclusion is irrelevant if the results are broadly disseminated and analysed.

The problem with that approach for the funders of public research is that it allows their preferred conclusion to be shown to be wrong or at least unsupportable on the evidence presented. Governments don't fund projects that will make their policies look foolish.

Houellebecq, of course we all filter our inputs and outputs. The author's point was that the current way we do research - he focussed on science, but social research is a much bigger problem - is flawed in that it doesn't permit proper review of results. I've time and again seen press releases touting such and such a result from a paper, but found that the paer itself was either not complete, not published, or simply not available broadly. The effect is that the result takes on a life of its own and by the time the paper is finally revealed (usually very quietly) the fact that the result was not supported by the data is simply not mentioned.

science at least has a process for self-correction: socila studies will be defended even if shown to be wrong, on the grounds that "my opinion is as good as hers".

My suggestion is that there should be a rule for Governemnt-funded research of any kind that the original data sets must be made available with the report and that no press releases making substantive claims may precede publication of the report.

It won't stop those who know their bread is buttered best with ideological margarine, but they won't be able to dine out for months on half-baked results.

The screening out of nonconformists can start early. It reminds me of the study of psychologist graduates (Gartner, J.D. "Antireligious prejudice in admissions to doctoral programs in clinical psychology" published in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice in 1986).

Unsuspecting clinical psychology department professors were sent applications purportedly from graduate students. These were matched on relevant aspects eg. academic achievement but differed in that some applications volunteered information that suggested they are a conservative Christian. It appears to test the hypothesis many of us develop (eg. when you read the curious research that gets through on spanking in peer reviewed psychological publications) that psychologists are predominantly left wing liberals and being a conservative could indicate an undesirable post graduate psychology candidate.

When asked to provide feedback the professors provided support for the hypothesis by rating the 'conservative' candidates significantly lower in all areas than those with equivalent qualifications. They also had fewer doubts about the abilities of the nonconservatives, felt more positively about their ability to be good psychologists, and rated them as more likely to be admitted to the graduate program.

Teaching psychology students also seems to require a certain political perspective. Gross P and Levitt N in their 1994 book "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science." have suggested that social science disciplines demand "at least a rough allegiance to a leftist perspective as qualification for membership in the faculty".

Psychologists with a history of progressive activism Wright RH and Cummings NA (a former President of the American Psychological Association who successfully introduced a resolution in the APA in 1974 that homosexuality is not a psychiatric condition) in their 2005 book "Destructive Trends in Mental Health" opined that McCarthyism was "abominable" but lacked the "insidious sense of intellectual intimidation that currently exists". They hold that "If psychology is to soar like an eagle it needs both a left and a right wing."

Professional integrity is a nebulous concept. Personally I think all government department websites should have a running tally of expenditure including all funding approvals for various programs/grants etc so that the process of governing is truly accountable and transparent. It is the information age and it would not be an unwieldy task.

We are all influenced by our beliefs and experiences and people filter what they don't want to read/hear and take on board what already marries with their own viewpoints. Whether one is a climate change believer or non-believer, will influene their interpretation and reaction to certain 'evidence' or scientific study. The layman has little chance to discern between fact and fiction if even the 'experts' are not agreed.

Words like honour and integrity are no longer fashionable in some quarters, especially the APS where policy is often politically and 'electorally' motivated rather than done on 'evidence' based or needs based. Hence the money shoved at wholly ridiculous schemes to the detriment of hospitals or the aged (you can fill in the gaps).

It is not all like this however, but legislation that would ensure public reporting on not only spending, but policy papers and consultations with the various lobby groups, that ultimately provide the basis or 'evidence' for policy decisions would go a long way to keeping our elected representatives and public servants honest.

Arf, you still smarting about that white ribbon campaign anti?

That was a great example, where a stat that they hung their hat on was exactly the opposite of the true statistic. Once everyone has had their fill of outrage, the quiet little correction goes unnoticed.

But, I still don't know whether it wasn't a monumental stuff-up, rather than an attempt to deceive. The problem is there is no actual journalists any more just monkeys that cut and paste from press releases.

I think people always scream corruption and scandal where what really happens is ineptitude and stupidity. Especially in governmnet. Nobody seems to make the link that in their own job they cant be assed doing things properly and forget that those that must be obeyed or listened too are probably much the same.

I think the base problem is that people don't want complexity and uncertainty. Tell them all the details and they nod off. They want to believe, they want to feel informed, but they don't want to have to read lots of stuff. They will take more notice of some complete crap put into simple terms with no grey areas that they can easily quote at BBQs than they will of a thorough study that outlines all the assumptions etc.

I have some technical literacy, and I love reading the sales brochures of some of the gadgets we have. The way they simplify for the Harvey Norman customer is so close to lying it's not funny. Even funnier is to ask a few questions to the guys in Dick Smith. I read an article once where they surveyed people about HDTV and asked them what TV they had and what they watched. So many were watching analogue Foxtel or DVDs and saying how much better HD is.

pelican,

What if one is a climate change agnostic? I reckon I can think above the main game that is the science. Based on experience on the behaviour of scientists and public opinion, you can easily gauge the importance and validity of climate change.

Basically, scientific 'consensus' changes all the time. Now I have read a certain amount of noise one way and a certain amount the other way. With so many in the game these days, you can get a sense of the direction of opinion in the next 100 years. All in all it will be yes we were right, the most extreme predictions were alarmist, we have more time than we think and it's all irrelevant now as we are running out of fossil fuels anyway.

Human nature is based on cramming for the test at the last minute and scraping through. But who says that's any worse than being studious and pedantic and worrying your life away and exceeding what is objectively and practically necessary. In short, the nerds are too close to it all. They cant step back, and the layman is needed to balance them out.

They sit around with their models and fret and like the attention of important discoveries, and they have fierce backers in those that admire intelligence (rather than looks, when both are god given) and want to vicariously project said intelligence, but in the end the beautiful sociable cads win because they've had a fun life with hot chicks and drugs and have waited 'til all the hard work is done before cashing in on the prudence of the fretful lot.

The smartest, most iconic thing about Australia that is underrated by so many is the phrase 'She'll be right mate.'

Antiseptic:

You've raised some excellent points. The first step is to recognise that subjectivity and objectivity are not two neat and separate categories; they are really matters of degree. By exercising scrupulous caution a sociologist (or any scientist) can attempt to be as objective as possible. This caution involves a deliberate effort to be conscious of one's own biases so that they can be kept out of the process of research and interpretation. The ethical code of the discipline requires that sociologists be intellectually honest - that they attempt to be aware of their own values and not allow these values to distort their work; that they relentlessly hunt down the relevant facts and not ignore those that are inconvenient for their pet theories; that they not amnipulate data to prove a point; and that they not use research to suppress or misuse knowledge.

Moreover, as you pointed out, the sociological (and/or scientific) community does not have to rely entirely on the integrity of the individual to ensure that objectivity is strived for. When research is published, other sociologists can assess the findings and attempt to verify them by repeating the research to see if it yields the same results. This procedure provides an extremely effective check against bias and other distortions.

However as I've stated previously total objectivity is probably impossible to achieve in any science, since some bias is always unconscious. The pursuit of objectivity does not necessarily mean that scientists should not express personal opinions, or value judgements. It means that these judgements should be clearly labeled as such and that they should not intrude into the actual process of research and interpretation. It would be perfectly legitimate, for a scientist to give as objective account as possible, and then to add a subjective judgement - provided that the judgement was presented as a matter of personal opinion.

Dear Antiseptic....

I read that depressing article in the Australian.

For a warm hearted change of pace...please see THIS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNVPELdeO0o&feature=related

Which is what my own church is doing in Uganda. I know most of the people in the images and love them dearly. I'm only sorry I could not be a part of the self funded team which shared of themselves to some poverty stricken Ugandan ophans and poor children, boosting their educational prospects considerably.

Cheers.

Lexi:"When research is published, other sociologists can assess the findings and attempt to verify them by repeating the research to see if it yields the same results. "

Actually, they frequently can't. Many if not most sociological studies have serious flaws in that they are subjective or they have leading questions or they are insufficiently large to be meaningful, or they use self-selected subjects, or...

You've missed the point though, which is that when a researcher in any field sees his/her own best interests served by producing a specific conclusion on demand, the research that results won't be worth paying for.Even more so if the researcher is trying to do some "social construction", in the mode of a Flood or McInnes or Bagshaw or Cox.

Pelican, as Houellebecq says, a reasonably well-educated layman with decent capacity for critical analysis can be remarkably perpicacious when it comes to evaluating the merits of a claim when there is conflicting research. Sadly, there are few such laymen in the media and even fewer in Government, hence the problems described in the article.

It would be reasonable to assume that the proposed question of why there is very little Integrity in professionals would be ; in all probability is they do not know what it is. Both Professional or Integrity; But then if we apply the equation Of State and Government and a soft cosy salary on the upper etalons of the Tax funded welfare system called Debentured positions; and Political appointment; and State Granted Monopoly status then the State has a great line up of Intellectuals including professional politicians themselves who are little endowed in intellectual integrity.

Who teaches the wise? The State of course.
In their private lives they may well be honourable people, but Lie through their teeth when dealing with issues regarding the State and its institutions and Industries.They are Professionals laced with integrity for the state. And not for the public wheel.

Must admit I misread the title as Professional integrity. Professorial centres on the main issue of science and research - so apologies for going off on a tangent but the central point remains.

True, Anti, the layman can easily read all the material and make decisions for themselves, however not many of us are climate modellers or meteorologists and get by as best we can with all the conflicting information available.

Like Houlley, I am an agnostic in regard to AGW and have hesitations in regard to using a market mechanism for reducing emissions. Mainly because there is doubt it will work and merely shuffle the pieces of the monopoly board around, not to mention the issue of under-reporting of emissions which is inevitable.

However, reducing emissions can only have good outcomes in regard to polluting effects, even if in 20 years time we find that AGW was overstated or outright false.

Like any professional pushing a barrow, there will always be contrary views, all vying for government attention, and government's generally expected to take a Pascal's Wager approach. It is those contrary opinions and research that we should be thankful for.

Accountability is only possible wherethere are contrary views that test the power of decisions based on scientific research.

Pelican, most of us rely on summary reports to make our judgements about the merits of conflicting claims. That's fine as long as the producers of the summaries are producing accurate, complete and unbiased recaps. If instead they're doing their best to act like spin doctors, then we can't rely on their summaries. Increasingly it seems that is the case.

To be fair, I think that a lot of the problem lies with the cultural malaise within universities that have become little more than glorified tech colleges, training people to do a job rather than to have a profession. There is also the incessant demand for more money and justifying the next round of grants.

The past few decades have seen a vast expansion in the number of "universities" that used to be called CAEs or Institutes of Technology (I attended one myself that is now called a university). I suspect that this has devalued the whole concept of academic rigor within the university sector, as has the move toward "user pays".

I'd like to see a complete overhaul of the sector.

Antiseptic:

You've certainly raised a complex topic and I am still floundering with various concepts. As I understand it an ideal research model consists of the following basic steps: defining the problem, reviewing the literature, formulating a hypothesis, choosing a research design, collecting the necessary data, analyzing the results and drawing a conclusion. Sociological research can pose important ethical problems, notably those involving possible harm to participants, invasion of privacy, lack of informed consent, improper applications of research, and deception. A code of ethics helps guide sociologists through many of these pitfalls, but in some ambiguous cases the researcher may have to rely on personal judgements - and
in that there is always room for error. How to overhaul the system -
I simply don't know.

'To be fair, I think that a lot of the problem lies with the cultural malaise within universities that have become little more than glorified tech colleges, training people to do a job rather than to have a profession.'

I think it's even broader than university anti. Regurgitation with the internet at our fingers has taken over creativity and original thought.

http://www.viget.com/inspire/consumption-how-inspiration-killed-then-ate-creativity/

'The reality is that it's easier to be inspired than it is to create an original idea and we are hardwired to take the path of least resistance. It's easier to jump onto a design inspiration gallery site than it is to sit down with a blank sheet of paper and a pencil. It's easier to follow a pattern than it is to test-drive new options. It's easier to copy a style or idea that works than try something that might miss the mark or outright fail. Above all, it's cheaper mentally for us to rally around what's already been done and emulate it. '

Too many articles I read (especially those gender feminist ones) really aren't saying anything new I haven't heard from 50 other articles on the topic. I think it's not worth writing a new article, and god knows why they get published, where it's the same argument as the last 10 articles from that author just with different props.

Same as most movie scripts, advertising, fast food, you name it. Best Practise has take over (ie cut and paste)

People should learn how to think at uni not how to parrot and make all the right noises to get slaps on the back from the establishment. Trouble is now that uni isn't free the kids are barely keeping their head above water and it doesn't leave any time for independent thought. Not that the lazy lecturers would give them credit for that anyway if they challenged what they were fed.

Anyway, I'm with you we should go back to TAFE for a lot of these micky mouse undergraduate degrees but I don't know whether it would change anything.

Perhaps it is a question of prestige and attracting money? So much easier to do if you're a published author. The "Publish and Perish," syndrome is very common in tertiary institutions as known names have an easier time attracting financial backing than people who may have excellent ideas - but their names are not known.

Within your first post there Lexi, you may have inadvertently hit the nail on the head with one stroke; In that when you mentioned ; “ SOCIOLOGY “ and that is the reason for Intellectual corruption , stemming back to Germany and form the works of Hegel and others . For his philosophical efforts in Dialectical Materialism; simply put in words simple to understand is the creation of a new Religious verve based on Polly-logism and Pan-physicalism- More to do with Surreal abstracts rather than Scientific abstracts , in that it was an interpretation of what an Individual thought wanted it to be , and not what in fact is.

The true meaning of Conspiracy will explain in much detail for the reasons why such dogma became an Academic study, and further the advancement of Academic Retrogression; Thus the deterioration in Intellect and ability of generations of Individuals, and the near total loss of “Social Power” now to do with” State Power “or the Ruling classes over the peasants; which are us.

All:

I'm a bit wary of the emphasis that some sociologists place on the major components of society because concepts such as "the economy"
or "the state" are, after all, abstractions; they cannot exist or act by themselves. It is people that exist and act, and it is only through their social behaviour that society can come into being at all. Society is ultimately created, maintained, and changed by the social interaction of its members.

Antiseptic wrote 22 November 2010 9:44:39 AM:

>In the Australian today ...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/radicals-get-rich-while-truth-begs/story-e6frg6zo-1225957983565 ...

The article "Radicals get rich while truth begs" (David Burchell, The Australian, November 22, 2010 12:00AM) appears to be an attack on Professor Jones, University of East Anglia, for the email messages about his unwillingness to release climate data.

My reading of the Parliamentary report into this is that no scientific misconduct by Professor Jones was found, but that there were some institutional procedural problems: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38703.htm

The traditional way academic research has been done is that researchers keep their data to themselves, in part because they are competing with other researchers and, in part, because their may be commercial or privacy restrictions on the data. The researchers only published summaries of the data and only in publications which had to be purchased. If you contact a researchers and ask for a copy of their data, they will therefore more than likely say "no".

There is a movement for open access to research results and to the source data. In 2006 Professor Sale made a submission to the Australian Research Council, proposing that those getting government grants should make their results freely available. I signed the submission on behalf of the Australian Computer Society: http://eprints.utas.edu.au/277/1/ARC_submission_v1.1.pdf

Examples of projects to help implement open access in Australia are:

* Australian Partnership for Sustainable Repositories: http://www.apsr.edu.au/
* Australian National Data Service: http://ands.org.au/

However, the way Australian researchers are promoted has not been changed to reflect open access. If you publish in a journal which given away freely to the public it will likely get a lower ranking. If you give away your data you will get no credit for this. As a result your institution will get less money from the Australian Government and you will get fewer promotions. This was discussed at a recent ANU seminar: http://blog.tomw.net.au/2010/10/era-era-of-measuring-research-output-in.html

tomw, as I read the piece and as I understand the situation with Jones, it wasn't the fact that he refused to share, it was the fact that he tried very hard to suppress dissenting data and dissenting views.

The point was also made that Jones was abetted in this by a system that was effectively deaf to any view but the one he put forward. There was no effective review and his advocacy was well-rewarded ith tenure and seniority.

The only justification for publicly funding research is to add to the sum of knowledge in the society. Fraudulent, inadequately analysed, or advocacy pseudo-research does not do that and we should not be funding it. Nor does hindering the free exchange of data. Congratulations to the ACS for supporting the principle of free exchange of data.

The issue of academic weighting is a different one, but also very relevant, since rigorous peer-review is the first bulwark against those who seek to be advocates rather than scholars.

Privately-funded research is a different kettle of fish altogether, unless there is public funding involved. I do not believe that the Govt has any right to claim "commercial-in-confidence" as a justification for the suppression of data obtained using public funds - it is not a commercial entity and can have no commercial interest in the data except insofar as the broader community can benefit.

Allowing the suppression of raw sata merely allows the shonks with a political ear to prosper.

For a stark illustration of fudged figures look at the Sociology Departments of many of our respected universities. Not a sign of raw data anywhere...

Antiseptic:

As you know data can be raw, analysed, experimental or observational.
Most Institutions of Higher Learning have policies on the Managment of Research Data and Records. Most of the data is usually available to other researchers unless there's a confidentiality clause involved with a third party for whatever reason. Anyway, the following website will give you an insight into Melbourne University's policy (click on 8).

http://www.unimelb.edu.au/records/research.html

Lexi, thanks for the link. The Uni of Melbourne is currently reviewing their procedures, apparently.

i would also like to see researchers enjoined from publication (especially in non-reviewed form) of results with significant statistical errors without noting that the standard error of the estimate is greater than x standard deviations. I suggest that a good value for x is 2, meaning a 95% confidence level for a normally- distributed data set. If the data set is skewed, this should also be reported. We are a well-educated society and we have enormous amounts of information trivially available. We are quite able to get our heads around esoterica if properly explained and as the old maxim goes, if you can't explain it to a layman, you don;t understand it.

As it stands at present, a "researcher" can publish a "startling result" with no way for the public to make any kind of critical analysis of the claim. This is especially true of social research.

I pressed post before finishing, sry.

Another link on that site, Lexi is to the Conflict of Interest policy.

http://research.unimelb.edu.au/integrity/conduct/conflict

It says the following categories exist:

" Where the research is sponsored by a related body.

Where the researcher or a related body may benefit, directly or indirectly, from any inappropriate dissemination of research results (including any delay in or restriction upon publication of such results).

Where the researcher or a related body may benefit, directly or indirectly, from the use of University resources.

Where the researcher conducts a clinical trial which is sponsored by any person or organisation with a significant interest in the results of the trial.

Where private benefits or significant personal or professional advantage are dependent on research outcomes."

It gives the example of a researcher being employed by a firm that may benefit commercially, but there is much more to it than that.

What of the social researcher who seeks government grants to establish a not-for-profit employing her or her friends using her own purported results to justify it?

What of the social researcher who has made a career out of trying to prove that violent behaviour is the sole preserve of men? What chance do you think there is that such a person will ever produce a dissenting report?

It concerns me that the ethics departments of some of our unis, especially UniSA, seem far less concerned about the ethics of social research than the scientific type. As a result, very flawed reports are allowed to be propagated as unimpeachable research. It devalues the institution.

Antiseptic:

Of course you've raised some valid points. The sociologist unlike the natural scientist, is part of the very subject he or she is tudying. The geologist may be interested in establishing the composition of a particular rock sample but is unlikely to be emotionally involved in the findings. The sociologist, who may be studying such issues as race relations or poverty, may find it much more difficult to maintain a detached attitude, and can even become passionately involved in the outcome of the study as you point out. The researcher may identify strongly with the problems and experiences of the subjects, and there is a risk that the process of investigation and interpretation will be distorted as a result.

Part of the problem is that the sociologist's subject matter (as "All" pointed out in an earlier post) presents research problems of a kind that natural scientists rarely have to deal with. The sociologist's subjects are not inanimate objects or unreflecting animals. They are people who are self aware, who have complex individual personalities, and who are capable if choosing their own course of action for both rational and irrational reasons.