Sunday, August 27, 2017
It's been awhile. I feel like I'm slinking back onto your screen. Whatever, life is too short, I'm here and I hope you're glad to see me because I'm glad to be here. Consider me jazz-handsing back onto your screen.
It has been a big, long year already, and a crazy summer that started with co-presenting with my colleague Dr. Sohui Lee (our director of the Writing and Multiliteracy Center) at Computers in Writing in Findlay, Ohio, middled with a disaster of a move (home, not library), and ended with presenting at the Colloquium on Libraries and Service Learning up in Santa Clara, California. More about at least those summer bookends soon, since they're actually relevant to my librarianship.
Right now the big huge work-related thing that has me resuscitating Guardienne is that as of my return to campus August 14th this year, I'm the new Digital and Data Services Librarian at CSU Channel Islands, where I spent the last 3 years as Information Literacy Coordinator. I'm really excited to be building brand new services, and getting to work with colleagues I enjoy on a campus I love for students and faculty I'm thrilled to serve.
Bear with me as I clean up the blog sidebars and get things re-situated and generally blow the dust off this old thing.
Monday, January 23, 2017
Sit. Have a coffee. Let's chat. Let's chat about this weekend. The marches! Come now, we can't pretend libraries are not, at their heart, places of political activism. Heck, in our Code of Ethics it flat-out says that we "uphold the principles of intellectual freedom..."
For those who are rusty, the American Library Association defines "intellectual freedom" as "the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause, or movement may be explored."
So, we as librarians are ethically bound to uphold principles of intellectual freedom.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is a political statement. A big one. Upholding the principles of intellectual freedom, no matter who sits in the White House, or in Congress, or in your State Assembly, or in your County Seat, or on your library's board.
Let's take the most politically painful example: family planning resources. Information on abortion. Information on adoption. Information on methods of birth control.
My commitment to this as a librarian reflects and informs my commitment as a feminist.
This is an administration that plans to push to cut Planned Parenthood funding, and did cut funding for family planning resources that the U.S. contributed to throughout the world, and particularly in the developing world (reinstating the Reagan gag-Rule by executive order). No federal funds may be used for abortion, either domestically or abroad, so what we are really talking about is restricting non-abortion services and information.
Restricting information is infringing upon intellectual freedom. By the ALA definition, at least.
And that is one of the reasons why I'm paying extra close to this administration, in terms of information (more on that in a later post).
So, I'm outed as a feminist, which is fine. (Hell, I go by warmaiden on social networks, it shouldn't be a surprise, really). But I do want to say something to the women who do not identify as feminists, who were all over my newsfeed proudly declaring that they don't want feminism, that they don't need the marches, that they are just fine and dandy on their own, that they feel heartily equal and are not interested in sisterhood with the marching masses. I have two responses to this, which I'm including below. They are inadequate responses. There are others who have written more eloquent responses. I'd like to develop better ones. But my initial gut-reactions first:
1. You don't need to be a feminist to accept other peoples' experience as valid, even if it contrasts with your own experience. You just need to be human.
2. There has been a Facebook post going around shared by women who don't agree with the women's marches that happened this past weekend. Susan Speer posted her own response here, but I posted mine on Facebook prior to having read hers. I'm too lazy to fool with the formatting resulting from a copy/paste, but it should be readable:
Tuesday, May 03, 2016
1. Two surprise student consults this morning because their professors told them to come see me specifically.
2. A professor just called in an emergency status, needs some research to support a major NIH grant, thought immediately of me. Yep, I can help with that. Due Thursday? No problem.
3. Finished and submitted a complicated "revise & resubmit" research article to one of the top journals in my field.
4. Chatted with a friend about researching grants for her business idea.
5. Made comments on a group report submitted by one of the groups of students in my experiential learning social justice class.
6. Had a phone call to clear up some things about the library leadership book manuscript.
7. Rejoined the local CSA - 12 biweekly deliveries of a giant box of farm fresh veggies. Back onto the Autoimmune Protocol.
8. Submitted a poetry book manuscript to a press
9. Already located some good sources for #2 - sent 5 articles to the faculty member
10. Bought Urban Decay's red lipstick in the color "F-Bomb." Because yeah. Also: on sale. (Thanks, @pigsinspace)
11. Submitted book chapter proposal "“The Mythology of Barbara Gordon’s Body: Intersections of Gendered Violence, Gendered Professions, and Disability”
It's only 3:35pm and I've already kicked this day squah in the ass. Tonight: reading Moby Dick.
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Back on topic: for my FJS 340 course, my students are required to work on a research paper. Essentially, they get to explore any conflict or issue of interest to them that involves questions of freedom and justice, but they must explore their conflict from an information perspective (which is our focus for the class). I leave the subject matter wide open for a reason--the course I teach is an upper-level general education course, multidisciplinary and international in scope. I want students to choose a topic of interest to them, since they'll be living with it for a few months.
Having worked an academic library reference desk for more than a decade now, I know that undergraduate students with wide-open options for paper topics are wild-haired, confused things, dazed by possibility and overwhelmed with options. (An exaggeration? Perhaps not by much.) This confusion often manifests among freshmen and sophomores, who may not have enough grasp of a subject yet to have particularly well-thought out areas of interest.
This semester, I found the largest part of the struggle for my students wasn't actually identifying a topic of interest, it was in the attempt to articulate the information issue(s) at hand for their particular conflict. The topics themselves are fascinating, and the students were excited to focus on something of their own divining. Topics of interest included felons' loss of voting rights, Native American land rights issues vis-a-vis the federal government, the illegal car modification and racing community, black women's experience of violence by law enforcement officers, prisoner access to information through prison libraries, and women's voting rights, among others.
Refining the Research Topic: Let the Students Hash It Out
More difficult than identifying the social justice issue students wanted to focus on was identifying the information issue at work within the larger social justice context. This go-round, I had students submit their topics to me as part of their weekly assignment early in the semester. Fielding questions about the assignment, I decided to use a portion of class time to have student discuss and white-board their topics, exploring not just what angle of their larger social justice issue they wanted to tackle, but having them attempt to articulate how information was a crucial component of their topic.
At this point in the semester, we had covered not just freedom and justice theory, but some information theory, and readings on information poverty, ways of knowing, and how information is used and viewed in various disciplines. The discussion at this point revolved around deciding what the information issues at hand might be. Questions I had students consider included:
- How is information at work here?
- Are there information haves and have-nots in this situation?
- What processes are being informed, or not, and by whom?
And from here, the students engaged with each other, pressing each other to expand on their topics and to hearken back to the readings for concepts. Three examples that stand out of students taking underdeveloped topics and really hashing out a better way to think of them as information-centric:
- The student interested in felons' loss of voting rights refined her idea to focus on how the denial of voting rights means felons cannot inform the political process through voting, and she wants to explore what information loss is there, what alternative avenues felons can pursue to inform the political process, and whether those avenues have the same impact as informing through voting.
- The student interested in the conflict between Native Americans and the federal government over land ownership was able to articulate the conflict between a dominant culture dependent on written record of ownership and the non-written record-keeping of a minority or oppressed culture, and how different "ways of knowing" come into conflict.
- The student interested in car modification and police profiling decided to focus on information communities surrounding taboo subculture practices, the information-signaling people use to identify themselves as belonging to the community, and the information-signaling that law enforcement recognizes and uses to police the community.
All of the students' topics benefitted from the class exploring each topic, and discussing how the information concepts covered to date in class readings could be made a focal point for each research project. Having students lead the discussion for each topic and probe each other for more information to help build a case for a topic was incredibly effective, and received unanimous approval after the exercise. Yet again, something that happened serendipitously I am now going to build into the class for next semester. I love learning better ways to make things happen from my students! I'm also genuinely excited to read their final papers.
Basic Scaffolding: The Annotated Bibliography
To ensure that students actually consider their topics in depth before the paper is actually due, I tried to scaffold assignments related to the project throughout the semester. Like the active journaling assignments for the course, the smaller assignments were for low-stakes grades, but in totality the pieces of the project add up to the major part of the grade for the course.
The annotated bibliography is a wonderful assignment, for a few reasons. First of all, and most important to me, it means my students have to at least do some basic searching of their topic some weeks before the project is due. I scheduled an information literacy session (just like I ask my fellow faculty to do), and it was taught by Awesome Amy, our Dean of the Library. (I would have loved to teach the session, but I wanted students to be exposed to other librarians as much as possible.) They learned to refine research topics, choose appropriate databases, and work with keywording. Most importantly for my purposes, they also learned the need to synthesize information from multiple sources, and that The Perfect Article does not exist.
The annotated bibliography is also a good opportunity for students to make mistakes. I allow students to use either APA or MLA, since the course is a GenEd and I expect to have majors from across the spectrum. (Since I've completed graduate theses in both styles, I'm comfortable correcting both, though most faculty I know require one or the other.) Students can murder the annotation style and I can help them at this point, before the higher-stakes paper.
The annotations were also a good way for me to eyeball which students might have difficulty digesting and writing up academic work, catching it early, and supporting them so that the drafting process is not as painful.
The Project Plan Outline
The next stage is what I called the project plan outline, where students submit an outline of their paper. The writeup indicates not just the outline of the overall paper, but initial thoughts for each section, where their different research sources will be used in the paper, where they indicate they'll use interviews and other information. It forces students to consider how they will structure their paper, and not to believe that simply finding relevant sources was enough. This is a stage where I can indicate where they might need sources in addition to those they discovered earlier, to support assertions or firm up a section of the paper.
The Rough Draft
The rough draft is the first draft of the full paper. This is a great opportunity for students to have a full draft done (and to have my comments back before Thanksgiving!) and to have their mistakes or weaknesses again sussed out in a low-stakes assignment. I also discovered that watching student papers grow organically through these scaffolding assignments allowed me to treat them as the experts on the subject, and to make that clear to them. Lots of shy smiles when I would tell a student, "You know more about this particular subject than I do! Seriously. You've done the research to support the argument you are making. I am just here to help you work on the structure, to help with your writing, and to identify weaknesses for you to address, given your knowledge and research." The biggest breakthroughs for me were every time I saw a student smile, and truly take ownership of their topic. It also, I think, helped create a mentor/mentee relationship instead of a more adversarial or intimidating relationship. I'm still waiting for the student reviews of teaching, though.
The Final Paper and Presentation
The presentations happened during the last class session. The students had created the assessment and grading rubric for the final presentation as a class session with Dr. Sohui Lee, our Faculty Director of the Writing and Multiliteracy Center. Students each had 10-12 minutes to present their research and field questions. Previous to the sessions, we explored how academic conferences were populated and presented, and how my intent was for them to conduct themselves in similar fashion. The presentations themselves were excellent, and had a celebratory atmosphere--one student had her husband attend her presentation, and my own husband delivered burritos from a local carniceria. The students were not only responsible for developing the rubric for the assignment, they were also responsible for filling out the rubric and assessment for each of their peers. This assignment earned them credit for participating in the assessment, and was also used as 50% of their grade for the final presentation (the other 50% was my own grading of their presentation). The result was that the students offered considered and thoughtful comments along with a grade for their peers' presentations, and had a stake in addressing all of the points in the rubric they had themselves created.
Moving Forward: Evolving Into Service Learning
For future iterations, I'm considering a bigger service learning component option. I just requested a meeting with our Center for Community Engagement folks, and we'll be talking in January about how I might be able to make this happen for the Spring 2016 iteration of the class. Since the focus of my version of the topics course is on information as a freedom and justice issue, developing a service-learning component where students help to identify and address a community information need seems to fit nicely with our university mission pillars and (I hope) with the intent of the Freedom & Justice Studies program itself. (More on this as I find out more and consult with the faculty in charge of the program!)
Monday, October 26, 2015
In practice here at CSUCI Broome Library, we are all teaching librarians. when I schedule information literacy sessions, all librarians are up for grabs for me--my Head of Public Services and Outreach, Head of Unique Collections and Scholarly Communication, my Collections & Technical Services Coordinator, my Electronic Resources Librarian, my Original Cataloging Librarian, even my dean/AVP. Everybody's on deck when there's an instruction need, and with over 120 information literacy sessions scheduled this fall alone, everybody bats, and everybody bats big. In addition to the many information literacy sessions we teach, many of us also teach semester-long classes.
Before I talk about teaching my credit course this semester, some important background. Here at CSUCI, the librarians (who have tenure-track faculty status) regularly teach and co-teach credit courses in disciplines where we're qualified, in addition to classes actually certified under the LIB (Library as home department) heading. We're teaching (or co-teaching in some cases) both lower- and upper-division courses in English, University Studies, Political Science, History, Communication, and Freedom & Justice Studies, among others. It's pretty difficult not to trip over us anywhere in the curriculum. In theory (and sometimes practice), the home departments get us on buyout either through their budget or through a grant, so that the library dean can hire part-time lecturers to fill behind us for things like reference desk time and other duties that are more easily transferred to another person. (Whether librarians are tenure-track, whether they teach, and how that is decided and practiced varies widely, even in my own experience across a handful of state universities.)
Here at Broome Library, we are encouraged to teach within home departments and effectively become embedded information literacy ninjas, integrating information literacy concepts and work into the regular work of the curriculum, especially since information literacy is specifically written into our general education requirements. I'm still new to the politics of the place, but our teaching seems to go over well with all involved. The struggle becomes when the buyout doesn't quite happen, and resources get strained. We can easily backfill reference desk hours, but other duties are not so easily re-assigned. General wisdom is that teaching one class per semester is do-able, and most librarians teach one class every or every-other semester. Occasionally opportunities related to grants and new initiatives come up and someone teaches two classes, but from what I've seen, it's a grueling pace to have to keep. Just the one class has kept me pretty well on my toes this semester.
Sooprize Collaboration: Including Students in Syllabus-Building
This semester I've been teaching FJS 340: Exploring Freedom and Justice, a first-time course for me. It's been going very well -- my initial syllabus scared the students a bit: because we have a 2 hour 50 minute block for class once a week, I treated each block as two classes, and took seriously the idea that for a 3-credit class, at least 9 hours of work was going into it per week. Add to that what *I* figure I can read and digest across 9 hours, and cue panicked undergrads in a gen-ed course faced with what was essentially a graduate-level workload. My initial misstep actually led to a great activity, though, in which I gave my students the opportunity to choose which readings they would focus on each week. From the initial syllabus, we went week by week, and I indicated which two readings were foundational and would be required. After that, I described each of the remaining readings *and why I chose to include them on the syllabus*, and the students, in collaboration with each other, chose two to three more readings from the remaining four to seven that were listed for the week.
It was an eye-opening experience--I approached building my syllabus as seriously and carefully as any architect, building a list of readings from a broad bibliography painstakingly developed, paring it down to what I thought was essential and including some items I hoped students would find uncomfortable, intriguing, or controversial. Since the course is multidisciplinary in nature, I talked with colleagues both in and out of the library for ideas and readings, but I hadn't considered consulting students in the building of my syllabus. It turns out that students really engaged in the exercise, and because they are the ones who have effectively chosen the readings for each week, they've taken real ownership of the material (to the point of calling folks out for being the deciding vote for choosing a particular article, and then being caught out in discussion as the one not reading it).
We also went through the list of assignments and pared those down, though that was mostly removing one large project, rearranging some due dates, and redistributing point values. I discovered that what some may find tedious in terms of syllabus revision, the students found fascinating--the nuts and bolts behind the decision-making of course creation, how point values were determined, why assignments were included and what they were designed to do in terms of asking students to demonstrate mastery. Course-creation became a real conversation and a bit more of a collaboration with students than I've experienced in the past.
The accidental and conversational approach to a too-large syllabus worked so well that I'm actually going to build this in as part of the first day's activities for the next time I teach the course, in Spring 2016. Right now I'm trying to figure out how to structure this in such a way that I might study it and report out, so any ideas welcome.
Engaged Journaling vs. Weekly Critical Reflection Assignments
This exercise, though accidental, synergized nicely with the way assignments were designed. In addition to a large research project scaffolded through the semester (more on that in a moment), in the past I've assigned students to complete a weekly critical reflection on the material they read for class. The intent of the assignment is not to get the students to summarize--I tell them I've already read the material, I assume they're going to do the same--but to have the students think critically about where they see the principles for the week manifested in their own worlds, what that means, and how/whether the week's material changed how they think about something. Inevitably, though, the weekly reflections become summaries. The students begin to detest writing them, I start to detest reading them. I attended a workshop on building community in the classroom with Dr. Jacob Jenkins (Dr. J) of our Communication faculty, and he generously shared with me his work on active/engaged journaling exercises.
Though I did ask students for critical reflections during a few weeks (particularly where I ask them to consider what information is valued in their field, and how it is valued), for most of the other weeks I asked them to engage the material in different ways. During the week where I ask them to consider readings on various "ways of knowing," students were asked to write a poem or song lyric capturing a 'way of knowing' other than academic, with the option of performing their piece in class live or recording it to play to the class via YouTube. During a week where we considered information as a freedom and justice issue within the context of political science and international conflict, students were tasked with selecting an image that felt significant to them after considering that week's readings, and speaking for 1-2 minutes on why they chose that image and how it resonated with their understanding of concepts within the readings.
So far, the assignments have been a success. The biggest success has been generating conversation between students regarding the choices they made, and what concepts are more difficult to grasp than others. The assignments are low stakes in terms of points, but really help to start off each class session with energy (not a small thing for a 12:00-2:50pm class), and the chance to work with concepts in a more personal, engaging way than just academic narrative appears to (1) inform how well students understand the concepts presented, and (2) make students much more open to discussing difficulties they encountered in the material, both in terms of comprehension and in terms of struggling with questions of social justice within particular contexts. This is no mean feat--before we explore information in different disciplines (such as economics and business, health, political science, and others), students have to master theories of freedom and justice. This means the first few weeks are heavy on political theory, which can be tough for students to get through. Low stakes assignments designed to elicit questions and identify challenges early mean that by the time we make it out into the disciplines we want to explore, students are comfortable with identifying the concepts of freedom and justice at work, as well as identifying those not actively considered by parties to various information conflicts.
The assignments also prime students for discussion--students have been eager to share their work and creativity, and the way I organize class is usually around a number of larger discussion questions instead of lecture. Because students have just engaged with sharing their assignment, moving into discussion about the readings (which were the foundation for their assignments) works well in terms of transition. We move from sharing the assignment, to covering concepts and lingering questions, and then into application across cultures and connection across disciplines.
It's not all fun and games; my students are required to work on a research paper throughout the term--more on that in the next post. But so far, both the syllabus-decisions and the engaged journaling exercises (hat-tip to Dr. J!) have been huge successes for my course, and I'm looking forward to seeing how students respond to the next iteration when I intentionally include their feedback. I'm going to be doing a search for some literature on faculty who have involved students this way in syllabus-building, so if you know of any good reads on the subject, please share!
Summer was a wild one, with some rough health issues, then a week away at PhD camp for the Mythological Studies degree, then the first week of August in Seattle for the ACRL Immersion program, then coming back to welcoming the new faculty, developing the syllabus for my new class, and scheduling library instruction.
September: All Information Literacy Instruction, All the Time
In September, I taught 27 instruction sessions across all manner of subjects (including Anthropology, Art, Business, Education, English, Environmental Science & Resource Management, Communication, Psychology, Political Science, Spanish, University Studies). Something I really value about the way our library works is that we are true partners with faculty--for every instruction session I teach, I make personal contact with the faculty member, and we craft the instruction session to be specific to what they want their students to learn in the context of their research assignment. Another policy that existed before I came that I'm happy with is that faculty are required to attend library sessions with their classes; no faculty member, no session. I've broken this policy on a few occasions where a faculty member made a specific request, and every time it has resulted in a poorer session not only because the professor tends to have a moderating effect on student behavior, but because we dig into the details of the assignment and it is always surprising how little the students understand, and how much the professor has to explain that they thought was clear. The value-add of that short conversation and having students articulate their understanding of their information needs (and having the professor see how *un*clear their instructions were) is immense.
I've made some good connections this year in teaching that I've been excited about. I've noticed that something as simple as asking if students are happy with their results, instead of whether they are getting good results, has led to better conversations with students about refinement and articulating their need. When teaching students how to read a full record from one of our databases, I hit on the idea (not novel, probably, but a new connection for me) that the hyperlinked subject terms effectively work like hashtags. It definitely livens up class when we can connect something familiar like #whitepeopleproblems or #bringbackourgirls to translating the pieces of research information in a record, and there's a genuine "aha" moment I see in students' eyes. That has been incredibly rewarding, so I'm using that analogy to death in relevant sessions.
I've had a huge uptick in the number of students emailing me after sessions, stopping me around campus, and coming by to see me at the library. It makes me happy that they come back to ask more questions, and so far (according to informal poll and students coming up to me after sessions and randomly during the day) the students feel that they've learned something new and useful in each of the sessions.
Somehow I'm only 8 instruction sessions into October--it feels like more, but they've also been upper-level and more specialized (including one session entirely on using EndNoteWeb for a Chicano Studies class). It's been a blur - the rheumatoid arthritis was a real monkeywrench thrown into things this month with some uncontrollable inflammation, pain and swelling, and I spent the month mostly resting at home during off-time so I could work, hurling myself through the workday, and then heading home to collapse and do it all again. October is a vague blur of steroids, teaching, reference, meetings, and doctor appointments. By the grace of my colleagues who helped me with coverage and offered generous emotional support and cheerleading, and my husband who handles everything so that I can collapse, I'm still here, and if I make it through this week, I get to step into November. Ooh-rah! Next up to end the month (and my to-do right after I finish dashing this off) is setting up and testing Zoom for my first distance-delivered instruction session.
In the more-to-come for the back end of the semester, I'm getting caught up on grading for the course I'm teaching in Freedom and Justice Studies, working to establish some standards and options for distance information-literacy sessions, working on a gnarly revise-and-resubmit, and during the post-finals dip I'll be getting to the chapters submitted for the edited collection I've contracted with ALA Editions. I'll also be working with our director of the Writing & Multiliteracy Center to develop a new workshop series. I was lucky enough to have a talented friend and author come forward as a co-editor to finish the work on the collected papers on mythology and contemporary women poets that I started a few years ago, and thanks to her energy and talent, the collection is speeding toward publication and should come out in 2016. (More on this in another post where I discuss the difficulty of letting go a project I simply couldn't finish.) So, always more to do, but it's always interesting. Onward!
Thursday, July 09, 2015
Now that they have done the hard work of building relationships with university staff in those areas, and developed some outreach materials, programming, and reference hours, they asked for folks interested n helping them continue the program. I was very excited to volunteer to be our liaison to the Disability Resource Programs office, and I'm looking forward to helping in this area for a few reasons, not the least of which is that I identify with the student population.
If you're a Facebook follower of mine, you may know that I'm suffering from one of the worst rheumatic flares I've had since my RA diagnosis in 2011. In the past week, I've spent 4 days of 7 in the emergency room with out of control pain and inflammation; I've been out of work this week and negotiating some serious medications and long appointments with various medical specialists. I was diagnosed while at the beginning of my doctoral prorgram, and it took me a long time to realize I needed the services of my campus disability services office. In my current state, I am reminded how easy it is to become overwhelmed with the basics of survival.
CSU Channel Islands serves a number of nontraditional demographics. To be a student and dealing with with a disability on top of academics, work, social life, and family responsibilities can feel like drowning. I know what that feels like. I'm also proof that you can make it to the other side, and I know that when I was struggling to keep it all together, I would have loved to have someone who looked like me. (Personally, I found some satisfaction of folks I could identify with on the PhDisabled website, but it would have been so much more fulfilling to talk to someone in person.) To be able to serve as an ambassador for our library's services to students is always something I take great pride in. The opportunity to provide tailored outreach and programming to help students make the most of what the library has to offer...yep, that makes me happy.
I was actually out in town, and met a young lady who was in a position to learn about my chronic health issues. One of her coworkers told her I worked at CI, and she mentioned she was having trouble as a newly matriculating student with paperwork, registering, and worrying about her disability issues. I managed to connect her with the right offices, and give her my info so she could always contact me. I told her my motto was that I may not always be the right person, but I can probably get students TO the right person for the job, they just need to find someone they ar comfortable asking for help. She ended up happy, I felt like I had been a good ambassador, everybody wins.
I am excited to be a resource for these students, and look forward to watching Janet and Kaela grow the PASS program. I think it will be an enormous help to our students, new and returning.
Tuesday, June 02, 2015
The Big Hairy Deal: Research Ethics , Roles of IRBs, and Responsibilities of Chairs/Coauthors in Light of Lacour and Green,
Brief Unofficial Timeline of the Study, and Discovery of Possible Misconduct
- an important study on persuasion coauthored by a UCLA political science graduate student (Lacour) and a big-name political scientist at Columbia University (Green) was published in (and then retracted from) the peer-reviewed journal Science;
- the large-N study indicated that attitudes about same-sex marriage could be significantly changed long-term by brief exposure to someone who was gay;
- because this would be huge news, it was picked up by NPR's This American Life;
- because the conclusions go against most research on persuasion (in general, people tend to sway only slightly from their beliefs, and tend to "snap back" to their initial beliefs quite quickly), another graduate student tried to replicate the findings;
- Broockman, Kalla, and Aronow release a report recounting the extreme irregularities in Lacour and Green's article;
- Lacour responded to the report critiquing his work in a 23-page document;
- Another statistics hound explains why Lacour's rebuttal is weaksauce;
- under closer scrutiny, it appears that Lacour may have faked a number of other things, including grants and teaching awards listed on his CV, research integrity documents, and perhaps data for other studies;
- not only could the study's findings not be replicated, under closer scrutiny, it appears the study may have been faked. While the political canvassing was actually done, the pre- and post-surveys to determine baseline attitudes and aftereffects of intervention were what were fabricated. (It appears that Lacour used CCAP data (an already-done but not publicly available dataset) as the baseline data, and made up the post-survey data).
Whew. So, in an even smaller nutshell, a UCLA grad student and a Columbia U. Famous Faculty Dude coauthored an influential article on gay marriage that turned out to be based on data that it appears the grad student COMPLETELY MADE UP.
Why This is a Big, Hairy, Hulking Deal
First, the "so what?" question. There are many reasons why this is such a big deal, and I'm only going to articulate a few of them:
- First, this is the sort of political behavior research that changes how people actually approach issues, and how agencies distribute grant funding.
- Talking to people changes their minds in the long run? Then political organizations will send out canvassers to speak to people instead of spending their money on television ads and paper mailings.
- Grant organizations start shifting their funding away from projects not using that methodology, since the published research makes them think that Lacour's way - exposing people to people holding different political views - is more persuasive. This means research projects based on other research, namely that it is perennially difficult to get people to change their minds, and to keep their minds changed, see less funding.
- It puts a dent in the trust we have in institutions of higher education, and in our peer-reviewed published research.
- Our whole scientific structure rests on trust. Some scientific journals are more rigorous than others and ask authors to share their data so that statistics can be verified. But who guards the realm against complete fakery?
- Will UCLA actually grant Lacour the PhD now that the cat is out of the bag that his research design was a lie? If they do, what does this say about our expectations for the highest research credential you can earn?
- This event has implications for how higher education hires new faculty.
- Lacour was hired as a new tenure-track professor at Princeton University, a plum gig for someone straight out of graduate school. Will Princeton keep his contract live now that they know about his research ethics failure? Or will they let him come in and see what he does to earn reappointment into a second year?
- Princeton seems to have some raised eyebrows with academic honesty in its ranks already, as is heavily discussed on PoliSciRumors.
- Lacour claimed he had brought in over $700,000 in grant money. If he was working as a tenure-track professor, there is all sorts of documentation that would have been required for him to include that in the portfolio reviewed each year for his reappointment. But because he was just a graduate student, and the grant information was on his CV, no one bothered to double-check his claims against the foundations themselves. What mechanisms do we have in place to catch such shameless CV-padding?
- Lacour was hired as a new tenure-track professor at Princeton University, a plum gig for someone straight out of graduate school. Will Princeton keep his contract live now that they know about his research ethics failure? Or will they let him come in and see what he does to earn reappointment into a second year?
- Broockman, one of the graduate students who discovered the foul play, was repeatedly advised against publishing or discussing his concerns. There's a lurking shadow in academia that whistleblowers are not to be trusted, or supported. How does this play out with the purported search for Truth? What does this say about our willingness to critique and do thorough peer-review on our scholars' work?
- There are other issues, related to research integrity, data documentation, co-authorship, and academic job-seeking; expect more blog posts.
The Role of IRB, and the Problem of Data
The role of an Institutional Review Board or IRB, is to review proposed research to determine that it will have no ill effects on the people/animals/phenomenon studied. For those not familiar with the process, usually if you are going to do research it has to be approved by an institution's IRB. This involves lengthy amounts of paperwork, articulation of the research project in great detail, and detailed explanation of how subjects and data will be protected. (You can see my university's IRB page and paperwork here, if interested, to get some idea. You can also see an example of an IRB application I myself submitted here.) I filled out IRB paperwork for my dissertation research back at UT-Chattanooga, and have filled out IRB paperwork here at CSUCI for new research projects. it's generally considered a necessary evil, a dotting-of-the-is.
The Data Problem
One of lacour's defenses appears to be that he destroyed the raw data file, and so he cannot provide that to back up his research. I don't know if all IRBs have this issue, but I'll note that my own institution's IRB paperwork contains no option for permanent storage of anonymized data - I had to write it in on one of my IRB applications, and then re-explain it in detail because it didn't fit within the antiquated practice of destroying all data so many months after the project was complete. We live in the future. Sharing our data with other researchers can add to the amount of information available to study. In fact, this reminds me to ask data guru and librarian Abigail Goben about this, since I want to bring it up - with an elegantly worded solution - to my university's IRB committee for their forms, since I think we *should* be encouraging researchers to share data.
I should note here that I am describing keeping anonymized data, where all identifying characteristics and variables have been removed. For instance, when I submit my dataset to my institutional repository so others can use it, I will remove columns with names of individuals, email addresses, and their institution, as well as comb through the open-ended responses to remove identifying information that may have ended up there. then each respondent will be given a randomly generated unique number. Nothing identifiable from the respondent remains, but now I can share the data with others interested in the phenomenon, so that they can try to replicate my work, or use the data to answer their own research questions, if the data is what they need.
This practice of anonymizing data is common (and usually required). It is also standard practice. I say this as someone who was an Economics major in undergrad and then did doctoral level study in political science: for someone with a background in statistics and doing doctoral work in political science, I would expect Lacour to know this. That Lacour deleted all his original data files and kept nothing is beyond suspicious, and claiming he had a responsibility to keep certain data points confidential doesn't excuse him from the responsibility of maintaining the data. This is not just data used to publish in Science, lest we think this a one-off--this is his dissertation data. Which he claims he does not have and cannot share. How, then, to discuss the merits of his dissertation? (Yes, I still do have my dissertation data. Anonymized. Which I am happy to share with any interested parties.)
The IRB & Outside Researcher Problem
One of the big gaffes in this whole Lacour and Green research scandal is that Green, the senior researcher and statistician, claims he did not have access to the raw data, nor did he want that access, since gaining IRB approval from his institution to work on the research project our of UCLA would have been a huge hassle. I won't recreate this entire argument, since Scatterplot has a great post on this very issue. What I will say is that IRB should have very much been involved, and that faculty efforts to avoid IRB at all costs (due to delays, hindrances, and paperwork) does nobody, including our institutions of higher education, any good. Still, the argument exists that the Lacour and Green issue could have happened even if Green had gotten proper IRB approvals to look at the data--it still would have been Lacour's fake data in the file he would have shared with Green. Would Green have recognized it as fake, the way broockman, Kalla, and Aronow did when they really dug into the statistics? We'll never know, but he surely would have been concerned at there being no sourcefiles in Qualtrics.
The Role of the Chair and Co-Author
Very little has been made, to date, of Green's role in this whole debacle, or of Lacour's dissertation advisor and what her responsibilities might have been.
First, let's discuss the dissertation chair. Professor Lynn Vavreck at UCLA served as Lacour's dissertation advisor, and the data for the retracted study is purported to have come from Lacour's dissertation, which puts Vavreck in the hot seat. My dissertation advisor was all up in my data booch while I was doing my dissertation--he had access to my Qualtrics instance (the software doing the data collection), though I don't know if he ever used that access to track progress. For instance, I could log in on any day and see how many respondents had answered my survey to date. My chair also had me run and re-run numbers to his satisfaction, and had me address any oddities in the findings. Anything that went against decades of established research would have been something he would have raised an eyebrow at, and picked away at. I don't know if the chair has much of a defense against straight up data fabrication; the assumption during the dissertation phase is that the student is spending their time doing the collecting and analyzing. Something should have smelled fishy about his crazily positive results, but Vavreck didn't catch it. Should she have? Should she have checked his data against existing sets and discovered he had co-opted the CCAP data, as Lacour's detractors did? If a graduate student can figure it out, I'd expect the dissertation chair to have at least as much invested. *Spock eyebrow*
I'll admit that I have some pretty serious misgivings about Green's involvement in this whole affair. Green is a professor of political science at Columbia University, and formerly taught at Yale. He's a known big name in the field. (Having a big, famous name on your article makes it much more likely that the universe - especially the academic universe in one's discipline - will pay attention and talk about your research.) It appears that Green was approached by Lacour to serve as coauthor of the Science article. Green claims he helped with the writeup, but never looked at the original data. When Green saw the data skewed opposite of other research in the area, he asked Lacour to replicate the experiment, and depended on Lacour's confirmation that he did. Green applied his statistical expertise and found the same results in the data Lacour did. Green wrote of his disappointment in various statements, he requested the retraction from Science, and reflected in a statement to Retraction Watch:
"Convinced that the results were robust, I helped Michael LaCour write up the findings, especially the parts that had to do with the statistical interpretation of the experimental design. Given that I did not have IRB approval for the study from my home institution, I took care not to analyze any primary data — the datafiles that I analyzed were the same replication datasets that Michael LaCour posted to his website. Looking back, the failure to verify the original Qualtrics data was a serious mistake."
I would posit that it's a serious mistake on a number of levels, and that Green's statement is a declaration of absentee-co-authorship in that he didn't expect to have to do much work, just to put his name on the article. The Famous Guy gets an article for his CV, and the Up-And-Comer gets a great article in an important journal plus the halo-effect and credibility boost of coauthoring with Famous Guy. With this sort of relationship, then, Green overtrusted Lacour, and likely figured that lacour was just using Green's name as leverage. Green may have re-run the statistics to be sure his results were the same as Lacour's, but the issue isn't the statistics that were run, it's the data itself. Had the co-author been more intimately involved in the data collection process, he might have noticed Lacour's vague explanations. As the LA Times stated,
"if close collaborators aren't going to catch the problem, it's no surprise that outside reviewers dragooned into critiquing the research for a journal won't catch it either. A modern science article rests on a foundation of trust."
How much do you trust your co-authors? Enough to not have the same access to the data that they do? I've actually struggled with this, and let a great research project idea die because a prospective co-author would not share the necessary instrument and data analysis. I'm not famous. I'm not even on the job hunt. But I'd never put my credibility on the line for research that I can't vouch for from cradle to grave. Is that because I'm a librarian with an overactive imagination? is it because my default mode is transparency? Maybe a little bit of both. And if things get squirmy at that beginning stage of discussion and IRB paperwork, one should be on alert moving forward with that project and co-author.
The Role of Replication
Broockman was repeatedly warned against discussing or publishing his findings that Lacour and Green's study had serious problems. It appears academic is no kinder to whistleblowers in research than it is to whistleblowers in academic administration. Broockman was warned off because Green is Famous and Lacour was an Up-And-Comer. He was warned off because folks thought he might get a reputation for 'merely replicating' instead of developing his own research agenda. I'd like to point out that replication is crucial for research. It might not get you a PhD, but it will definitely bring out nuances in the data, and let you know if findings are a fluke,a product of research design, or an actual phenomenon. Interestingly, I'm involved in replicating my dissertation study in slightly different populations to see if the findings hold. Replication is worthwhile, especially if done conscientiously. It is just that conscientiousness, and how Broockman tried to determine why his study wasn't bringing back the results found in Lacour's study, that led to the discovery of fraud in the first place.
What it Means for Academic Job Seekers
The best way to go on the market as a newly-minted PhD is with a published article in hand, and the more of those the better, especially if you want to land at a research institution. Lacour was on his way to Princeton this July, though there's been no word on whether or not that has changed in light of this scandal. Was the job market a stressor inducing Lacour to cheat his way to astounding, news-making results? Why don't other new PhDs fake their data? Or DO THEY, and we just don't know it? Who is getting advantaged in this situation? It seems that Lacour put much time and effort into creating his fictions; in my experience, it might have been less effort to actually do the research properly and avoid this whole clustersuck. I'll be interested to see how (and whether) this shakes out into any changes in the hiring process or publication in general, such as requiring publication of datasets. Repository librarians, be ye ready! Maybe this is our inroads to discuss data storage and publication with our faculty.
Since I'm teaching a course on information in the fall, I'm intrigued by all levels in this case and hope to use parts of it for my students' reading. I wish I were teaching a methodology course, we would have so much fun with this. As a librarian and researcher, it just makes me angry and sad. Why the lie? Why the continued defense of the lie? And how on earth did it pass before so many sets of eyes and only come out because Broockman couldn't let it slide, even if it meant his professional reputation?