Do academics account for their own biases?

[maxiep]

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.c...e-be-surprised-by-political-bias-in-academia/

My personal experience tells me "no". Within the U of C Economics world, it was an odd bubble. We were largely Libertarian, surrounded by typical far-left assumptions in other departments. When I would venture to the political science department (specifically international politics) I was struck on how different my world view was. When I studied IR at another institution, it was assumed that everyone voted Democrat. To vote any other way was considered Neanderthal.

I don't have an answer for the question I posed, but too often academics pose a question, determine an answer and then perform research to support that conclusion. The proper way to research is to pose a question, do the research and then see what the data say. Confirmation bias is one of the biggest issues in academic research today.

 

[mook]

Interesting article in NYT about this subject:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?src=me&ref=general

The short answer is, "Yes, it's very biased." But it doesn't really discuss how they account for bias.

 

[speeds]

Academics (code word alert!) are subject to the same character flaws as everyone else.

Seems like a left/right bias would also depend on the institution.

 

[barfo]

Yeah, seems to me that corporate research is subject to confirmation bias also. Maybe more so.

barfo

 

[Eastoff]

as long as the money isn't in academics, there will be a bias against the people who want to make money.

 

[PapaG]

as long as the money isn't in academics, there will be a bias against the people who want to make money.

When did the federal grant programs cease to exist?

 

[Eastoff]

When did the federal grant programs cease to exist?

I didn't realize academics typically use this money for themselves and their students, I thought it went to a liveable wage and the equipment. My bad, please point out the academics that make over 500$k per year.

 

[jlprk]

My personal experience tells me "no". Within the U of C Economics world, it was an odd bubble. We were largely Libertarian, surrounded by typical far-left assumptions in other departments. When I would venture to the political science department (specifically international politics) I was struck on how different my world view was. When I studied IR at another institution, it was assumed that everyone voted Democrat. To vote any other way was considered Neanderthal.

The world disagrees with you = the world is biased.

Most smart people outside your specialty disagree with you = they're the ones who are biased.

I chuckle when Tea Party yahoos whine, "Most top members of the media are Democrats." Aside from the unverifiability, the obvious answer is, that's because most highly intelligent people are Democrats.

 

[PapaG]

I didn't realize academics typically use this money for themselves and their students, I thought it went to a liveable wage and the equipment. My bad, please point out the academics that make over 500$k per year.

Well, that's quite an arbitrary figure. How about the percentage of academics that make over the median US household income of $49k? Wouldn't that be a more accurate measure of where the money is?

Average salaries alone, pre-grants, seem to be ~$78k at UO.

http://ir.uoregon.edu/sites/ir/files/OUSpeers0708_by_School.pdf

 

[maxiep]

The world disagrees with you = the world is biased.

Most smart people outside your specialty disagree with you = they're the ones who are biased.

I chuckle when Tea Party yahoos whine, "Most top members of the media are Democrats." Aside from the unverifiability, the obvious answer is, that's because most highly intelligent people are Democrats.

Where did I say we didn't have biases? In fact, there's an entire field of economics--Behavioral Economics--that focuses on biases and ways that people act irrationally. The difference is, I did most of my academic work in a field where you recognized that everyone had biases. It seems the groups discussed in the initial article thought they were completely unbiased.

P.S. Your "obvious answer" demonstrates your bias and is precisely the wrong way to attack a question. Carry on.

 

[Denny Crane]

How do they deal with their biases? They become teachers and pass them on to whole new generations. Like a virus spreads.

 

[barfo]

How do they deal with their biases? They become teachers and pass them on to whole new generations. Like a virus spreads.

Is that worse than spreading your biases via a website?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Is that worse than spreading your biases via a website?

barfo

I don't think I have the ability to influence your career by giving you bad grades.

 

[barfo]

I don't think I have the ability to influence your career by giving you bad grades.

You influence my career by luring me into silly arguments, which takes time away from work. You wield the mighty power of S2, a power which is nigh unto limitless.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Is that worse than spreading your biases via a website?

barfo

...or through control of the media, or through a political party, or through professional organizations like the AMA, ADA...?

 

[MARIS61]

I don't think I have the ability to influence your career by giving you bad grades.

If bad grades influence your career significantly, you weren't destined to have much of a one anyway.

 

[BrianFromWA]

it hurts if you can't get into grad school, or if you just spent 50k on a thesis that gets shot down on general principle.

 

[barfo]

it hurts if you can't get into grad school, or if you just spent 50k on a thesis that gets shot down on general principle.

If one spends $50k on a thesis that gets shot down on general principle, I'd say that was a life lesson one was badly in need of learning.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

Really? So if the master's thesis in International Affairs was an investigation and analysis of Iraqi reconstruction from the POV of the coalition, and was rejected not for "academic principles", but for saying that there was good that came out of a war that the prof thought was illegal, you're cool with that being called a "life lesson, one was badly in need of learning"?

I don't have any skin in it one way or the other, and I don't know if you were just tossing in a joke, but I'm interested now.

 

[jlprk]

You just have to be aware of the prof's bias. At 19, as a sophomore at U of California, my young TA in Intro to Economics announced that this class produced too many liberals, because Professor Sherman was a Marxist. The punk TA had just graduated from the U of Arizona (maybe it was Arizona State), so I knew he was a conservative. My first weekly essay was carefully, moderately liberal.

To pick up my composition, I sorted through a big pile of graded ones on a table. I read excerpts and compared to grades given. I verified that he was biased in grading.

All my remaining papers that quarter were written as a conservative. Never read a chapter, just like all my other UC courses, and got a B as usual. Almost all students wrote from the left and got Cs. (I know because I continued spying on the pile on the table during the quarter.) Man, I was so lazy in my UC days. Rarely read even a page, just watched my hair reach my waist. 15 years later I returned to a real major, Accounting, and was forced to learn actual study skills. Actually had to read the book to get through.

Just observe the bias of your teacher and act accordingly.

The day President Kennedy was assassinated, and my French teacher was ranting, who cares about the damn Democrat, did any of us question her? Noooo, we kids knew how to survive in academia. I mean, just have a brain.

 

[barfo]

Really? So if the master's thesis in International Affairs was an investigation and analysis of Iraqi reconstruction from the POV of the coalition, and was rejected not for "academic principles", but for saying that there was good that came out of a war that the prof thought was illegal, you're cool with that being called a "life lesson, one was badly in need of learning"?

I don't have any skin in it one way or the other, and I don't know if you were just tossing in a joke, but I'm interested now.

I guess what I was suggesting is that any student who does that is severely clueless, so, yeah, they need to be shown just how clueless they are.

And by "does that", I mean writes a thesis that his or her adviser disagrees with.

It's like jumping off a tall building. Most people don't do it because they know they'll splat. A few people do it because they know they'll splat. It takes some serious cluelessness to do it because you are unaware of the possibility of splatting.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

gotcha. Forget research and analysis...go with continuing to perpetuate the bias of an professor, no matter what the research says.

It's not at all like jumping off a tall building. It's like going to court presided by a judge who you didn't believe had been paid off. It doesn't matter if you present your case infallibly, if the corruption is for you, you win. If not, you lose. And that's neither a "life lesson that needs to be learned" or a "serious cluelessness" on the part of the plaintiff. Unless you're saying that corruption should be embraced, and the plaintiff should've known that.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

You just have to be aware of the prof's bias. At 19, as a sophomore at U of California, my young TA in Intro to Economics announced that this class produced too many liberals, because Professor Sherman was a Marxist. The punk TA had just graduated from the U of Arizona (maybe it was Arizona State), so I knew he was a conservative. My first weekly essay was carefully, moderately liberal.

To pick up my composition, I sorted through a big pile of graded ones on a table. I read excerpts and compared to grades given. I verified that he was biased in grading.

All my remaining papers that quarter were written as a conservative. Never read a chapter, just like all my other UC courses, and got a B as usual. Almost all students wrote from the left and got Cs. (I know because I continued spying on the pile on the table during the quarter.) Man, I was so lazy in my UC days. Rarely read even a page, just watched my hair reach my waist. 15 years later I returned to a real major, Accounting, and was forced to learn actual study skills. Actually had to read the book to get through.

Just observe the bias of your teacher and act accordingly.

The day President Kennedy was assassinated, and my French teacher was ranting, who cares about the damn Democrat, did any of us question her? Noooo, we kids knew how to survive in academia. I mean, just have a brain.

Same for me. I often wrote what the prof wanted and it made my life a lot easier. If they wanted a liberal slant, so be it. If they wanted conservative, no problem. Poli-sci was my minor. I have 2 stepsons just finishing college and they had to learn the same lesson the hard way.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm becoming disgusted by this thread. No offense intended.

 

[jlprk]

Shouldn't you say that you love this thread?

The grades will be posted on the wall outside my office.

 

[barfo]

gotcha. Forget research and analysis...go with continuing to perpetuate the bias of an professor, no matter what the research says.

It's not at all like jumping off a tall building. It's like going to court presided by a judge who you didn't believe had been paid off. It doesn't matter if you present your case infallibly, if the corruption is for you, you win. If not, you lose. And that's neither a "life lesson that needs to be learned" or a "serious cluelessness" on the part of the plaintiff. Unless you're saying that corruption should be embraced, and the plaintiff should've known that.

You don't choose a judge; you do choose a graduate adviser. Whose fault is it if you make a stupid choice, and then compound the error with stubborness and/or cluelessness? Who do you think is going to win, the professor or the student?

Do you walk into traffic when the walk light comes on, even if there is a speeding car coming at you? After all, you have righteousness on your side. And that's all that matters in the real world, right?

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

I can't fathom how you're turning research into a game, and how doing the right thing is "stubbornness and cluelessness". Are you seriously implying that if the professor says 2+2=6, then your research better affirm your advisor's opinion, rather than be an "original work of research"?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I can't fathom how you're turning research into a game, and how doing the right thing is "stubbornness and cluelessness". Are you seriously implying that if the professor says 2+2=6, then your research better affirm your advisor's opinion, rather than be an "original work of research"?

It's unfortunate, but there's some truth in what barfo says. When my wife got her Masters and a couple of her friends their PHD's to one degree or another they had to appease the profs and if that meant, to them, a somewhat disingenuous thesis that was the way it was going to be. Typically profs delight in showing off their authority and demanding what they want and not what the student has to offer in the advancement of their field. Welcome to the world of academia.

 

[barfo]

I can't fathom how you're turning research into a game, and how doing the right thing is "stubbornness and cluelessness". Are you seriously implying that if the professor says 2+2=6, then your research better affirm your advisor's opinion, rather than be an "original work of research"?

The rational person, in that situation, finds a new adviser.
Fighting unwinnable battles when there are viable alternatives is not "doing the right thing". That's "doing the stupid thing". Surely they teach you that in the military? If they don't they should.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

The rational person, in that situation, finds a new adviser.
Fighting unwinnable battles when there are viable alternatives is not "doing the right thing". That's "doing the stupid thing". Surely they teach you that in the military? If they don't they should.

barfo

Not when the goal is the search for truth. The point you're missing is that academicians don't even realize they posses biases; they have their worldview reinforced by living in an echo chamber.