Tag Archives: academia

On Goffman’s survey

Survey methods.

Survey methods.

Jesse Singal at New York Magazine‘s Science of Us has a piece in which he tracks down and interviews a number of Alice Goffman’s respondents. This settles the question — which never should have been a real question — about whether she actually did all that deeply embedded ethnography in Philadelphia. It leaves completely unresolved, however, the issue of the errors and possible errors in the research. This reaffirms for me the conclusion in my original review that we should take the volume down in this discussion, identify errors in the research without trying to attack Goffman personally or delegitimize her career — and then learn from the affair ways that we can improve sociology (for example, by requiring that winners of the American Sociological Association dissertation award make their work publicly available).

That said, I want to comment on a couple of issues raised in Singal’s piece, and share my draft of a formal comment on the survey research Goffman reported in American Sociological Review.

First, I want to distance myself from the description by Singal of “lawyers and journalists and rival academics who all stand to benefit in various ways if they can show that On the Run doesn’t fully hold up.” I don’t see how I (or any other sociologists) benefit if Goffman’s research does not hold up. In fact, although some people think this is worth pursuing, I am also annoying some friends and colleagues by doing this.

More importantly, although it’s a small part of the article, Singal did ask Goffman about the critique of her survey, and her response (as he paraphrased it, anyway) was not satisfying to me:

Philip Cohen, a sociologist at the University of Maryland, published a blog post in which he puzzles over the strange results of a door-to-door survey Goffman says she conducted with Chuck in 2007 in On the Run. The results are implausible in a number of ways. But Goffman explained to me that this wasn’t a regular survey; it was an ethnographic survey, which involves different sampling methods and different definitions of who is and isn’t in a household. The whole point, she said, was to capture people who are rendered invisible by traditional survey methods. (Goffman said an error in the American Sociological Review paper that became On the Run is causing some of the confusion — a reference to “the 217 households that make up the 6th Street neighborhood” that should have read “the 217 households that we interviewed … ” [emphasis mine]. It’s a fix that addresses some of Cohen’s concerns, like an implied and very unlikely 100 percent response rate, but not all of them.) “I should have included a second appendix on the survey in the book,” said Goffman. “If I could do it over again, I would.”

My responses are several. First, the error of describing the 217 households as the whole neighborhood, as well as the error in the book of saying she interviewed all 308 men (when in the ASR article she reports some unknown number were absent), both go in the direction of inflating the value and quality of the survey. Maybe they are random errors, but they didn’t have a random effect.

Second, I don’t see a difference between a “regular survey” and an “ethnographic survey.” There are different survey techniques for different applications, and the techniques used determine the data and conclusions that follow. For example, in the ASR article Goffman uses the survey (rather than Census data) to report the racial composition of the neighborhood, which is not something you can do with a convenience sample, regardless of whether you are engaged in an ethnography or not.

Finally, there are no people “rendered invisible by traditional survey methods” (presumably Singal’s phrase). There are surveys that are better or worse at including people in different situations. There are “traditional” surveys — of varying quality — of homeless people, prisoners, rape victims, and illiterate peasants. I don’t know what an “ethnographic survey” is, but I don’t see why it shouldn’t include a sampling strategy, a response rate, a survey instrument, a data sharing arrangement, and thorough documentation of procedures. That second methodological appendix can be published at any time.

ASR Comment (revised June 22)

I wrote up my relatively narrow, but serious, concerns about the survey, and posted them on my website here.

It strikes me that Goffman’s book (either the University of Chicago Press version or the trade book version) may not be subject to the same level of scrutiny that her article in ASR should have been. In fact, presumably, the book publishers took her publication in ASR as evidence of the work’s quality. And their interests are different from those of a scientific journal run by an academic society. If ASR is going to play that gatekeeping role, and it should, then ASR (and by extension ASA) should take responsibility in print for errors in its publications.

10 Comments

Filed under Research reports

Gender and the sociology faculty

In an earlier post, I reported on gender and the American Sociological Association’s (ASA) leaders, PhDs received, subject specialization, editors and editorial boards. Here is a little more data, which I’ll add to that post as well as posting it here.

Looking at the gender breakdown of PhDs, which became majority female in the 1990s, I wrote: “Producing mostly-female PhDs for a quarter of a century is getting to be long enough to start achieving a critical mass of women at the top of the discipline.” But I didn’t look at the tenure-ladder faculty, which is the next step in the pipeline to disciplinary domination.

To address that a little, I took a sample from the ASA’s 2015 Guide to Graduate Departments of Sociology, which I happened to get in the mail. Using random numbers, I counted the gender and PhD year for 201 full-time sociology faculty in departments that grant graduate degrees (that excludes adjuncts, affiliates, part-time, and emeritus faculty). This reflects both entrance into and attrition from the professoriate, so how it relates to the gender composition of PhDs will reflect everything from the job market through tenure decisions to retirement and mortality rates.

The median PhD year in my sample is 2000, and women are 47% of the sample. In fact, women earned 52% of sociology PhDs in the 1990s, but they are only 40% of the faculty with 1990s PhDs in my sample. After that, things improved for women. Women earned 60% of the PhDs in the 2000s, and they are 62% of current faculty with PhDs from the 2000s in this sample. So either we’re doing a better job of moving women from PhD completion into full-time faculty jobs, or the 2000s women haven’t been disproportionately weeded out yet.

Here is the breakdown of my sample, by PhD year and gender:

soc-prof-gender

With 15 years or so of women earning 60% of the PhDs, they should be headed toward faculty dominance, and that yet may be the case. If men and women get tenure and retire at the same rate, another decade or so should do it, but that’s a big “if.” I don’t read much into women’s slippage in the last few years, except that it’s clearly not a slam-dunk.

3 Comments

Filed under Me @ work

Proposed rule change for the American Sociological Association Dissertation Award

open science can

Dear Prof. Janoski and members of the ASA Dissertation Award Committee,

I am writing to suggest a rule change for the Dissertation Award. Jordan Robison at ASA told me:

Any rule change for an award committee is usually voted on by the same award committee, presented to Committee on Awards. If Committee on Awards approves any rule change it is then brought to Council, who makes the final vote.

So it is my hope to persuade you to take this rule change up the chain to the Committee on Awards (currently chaired by Jane Sell at Texas A&M), and from there to Council (where the current liaison to the Committee on Awards is Adia Harvey Wingfield at Georgia State, moving to Washington University in St. Louis).

Background

The issue has been raised with regard to 2011 winner Alice Goffman’s dissertation at Princeton. That dissertation is not available at the Princeton library. A query from me to the library produced this response from Martin A. Mbugua, Director of Media Relations & University Spokesperson:

Alice Goffman was granted an exemption from submitting her dissertation to the University Archives, so we do not have a copy of her dissertation in our collection. The Graduate School in 2012 instituted a dissertation embargo policy under which no dissertation would be exempted from the submission requirement. Thus, a dissertation may be embargoed for a period of time to allow for publication in other forms, but it must be submitted to the University’s Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library.

Rationale

Goffman’s case is extreme in that her dissertation apparently may never be available, but it remains the case that people at Princeton (and at other schools) may choose to embargo their dissertations, to keep them out of public circulation, while they publish them commercially. Perhaps other schools also allow a complete exemption. If that is their privilege, and they choose to exercise it, then I believe they should be ineligible for the ASA Dissertation Award. My logic is that, if ASA holds up a dissertation as the best of the year, the purpose of that honor is partly to inspire and inform other sociologists about what constitutes the best doctoral research. If the dissertation is not publicly available, that purpose is undermined. Further, I think it would be a welcome – albeit small – signal in support of emerging norms of open science for the association to affirm the principle that dissertation research should be publicly available.

Proposal

I propose the following rule be added:

In order to be considered for the ASA Dissertation Award, a nominee must commit to making his or her dissertation publicly available through a suitable academic repository by the time of the ASA meeting at which the award is granted.

Thank you for considering this request. I welcome your response, and would be happy to work with you on getting this rule – or something like it – passed by the ASA Council. Please let me know if there is anything else you need.

Sincerely,

Philip Cohen

19 Comments

Filed under Me @ work

Sociologists asking me questions

A few weeks ago I participating in an Ask Me Anything session on the Sociology Job Market Rumors board, a mostly anonymous board devoted to gossip and chatter about sociology and its subjects. It’s posted here (with some responses), but I’ve copied it below.

We thank renowned family and gender scholar, Dr. Philip Cohen, for participating in SJMR’s inaugural AMA. Below are Philip’s responses. You can learn more about his research by visiting his website and his blog.

1. What was your answer when, at the age of 9, people asked you: “what will you do when you grow up?”

At age 9 my plan was to be a writer. Then, in chronological order: artist, prophet, rock star, and eventually journalist.

2. If you could do your career over, what would you do differently? What would you *definitely not* do differently?

I would have learned more broadly earlier, starting in college: I should have taken more math and statistics, and natural sciences. A decision I would not change would be moving into demography. My original inclination was much more theoretical and historical (My MA thesis was on the women’s suffrage movement and intersectionality). But when I took my UMass MA to the University of Maryland the demographers there were very strong (and supportive): Harriet Presser, Suzanne Bianchi, Sonal Desai, and my advisor, Reeve Vanneman, and I got pulled in. That was great luck.

3. As one of the most prominent public sociologists, how do you balance your traditional scholarship with your public blog, media appearances/writings, etc. How do you decide which issue merits which approach? And how, if at all, do you think these roles can come into conflict?

There is not much method to my priorities, I’m afraid – I’m just not that well organized. But on the balance question, usually when people ask this they are concerned about academic productivity – real productivity – peer-reviewed research and grants. Sometimes when I’m chatting with someone who’s a regular research academic, we talk about the blog, and media stuff, and my textbook, and then they say, “So what are you working on these days?” I would – or at least could – have done more peer-reviewed research if I hadn’t written 760 blog posts and a textbook in the last 5 years. On the other hand, maybe I would have just been less productive altogether. Because all my research ideas now come from interaction around my public work, or from students I work with.

A lot of people worry that if they blog or get on Twitter or try to write op-eds they won’t be able to do research anymore. And for some people this could be a problem – if it doesn’t suit you, don’t do it. But if it does suit you it may make you more, not less, productive. You learn to write better, and faster, with more practice. And you might learn how to make your work more effective from the interactions you have.

On the other hand, the social media side is endlessly distracting, and this can be a serious problem. The only way I get anything else done is by making commitments and then forcing myself into fulfilling them. I’ve made some big commitments which help me focus by regularly imposing deadlines: writing my textbook, editing Contexts, and working with the Council on Contemporary Families – these all make deadlines for me. And working with students provides a steady stream of commitments (I have seven PhD student advisees) since we’re always co-authoring papers and meeting various deadlines.

Finally, as for topics, I’m very impressionable. I got heavily into the Regnerus affair because there was a need for organization and it was timely (my blog hosted the “200 researchers” letter that Gary Gates organized), and I was on the ASA Family Section council; I got into critiquing marriage promotion because I had the expertise and data necessary to debunk the nutty stuff those people were doing. And so on. In each of these cases I got positive reinforcement from a community of sociologists and others who appreciate my efforts.

On the conflict question, I don’t think I’ve had a problem with roles coming into conflict – though my critics might disagree. The fact is that the different kinds of work I do have overlapping audiences, so someone reviewing my article for a journal might know what I’ve written on the blog, and political critics have access to my scholarly work. That potential scrutiny is mostly good – my peer-reviewed work should be more carefully scrutinized if it relates to strongly-held value positions that I have made public.

4. How, if at all, should we study the role that culture may play in reproducing inequality? The sort of relevant cultural things (like in Lareau’s work, for instance) seem maddeningly difficult to measure and put into conventional regression models. Yet, simultaneously, there do seem to be strong cultural elements in play in addition to the well-established structural ones. Methodologically, epistemologically, politically, is it possible to move from either/or approaches to culture and structure to both/and approaches?

This is really important. Theoretically, this is all about capitalism, modernity, and social change – the core questions of sociology. What drives change? What defines our era and its identities? Etc. Politically, this is all about all the policy questions of inequality: Head Start versus welfare, K-12 versus community college versus Pell grants, the minimum wage and skyrocketing executive pay. And of course race, poverty, and crime. (The political discourse around this stuff is depressingly impoverished in either/or terms; “culture” usually means something is poor people’s fault, versus “structure” or “the economy,” which refer to the unquestioned behavior of elites, with their unassailable motivation for self-interest.)

To study it is of course very difficult, for the reasons you say. I am a big fan of Lareau, as well as some other book writers on the qualitative side in my area, like Kathryn Edin, Marianne Cooper, Shamus Khan, and Sarah Damaske (a non-exhaustive list off the top of my head), as well as historians. Not good for regression models, but great for getting a feel for inequality and generating hypotheses. In my stratification seminar I assigned some neighborhood work (Sharkey), as well as some work from audit studies of discrimination – showing the wide range of things you might lump under “culture.” Often, like with racism, “culture” lives in the residual of your regression model, or is proxied with unknown validity by variables such as education, race, nativity, family structure, and so on (though credit to Michael Gaddis and others who have tried to put this stuff right in the model).

I think it’s really important to shake up the either/or thing. For example, with regard to marriage, it doesn’t make sense to use “culture” to attribute blame to poor people for not marrying any more than it does to call failure to raise the minimum wage a cultural issue (which it is). Individuals act under the impositions of “culture,” which appears as structural to them as the economy – I’m thinking of norms that essentially force people into shotgun weddings or divorce. (When I’m in the mood, I actually love Bourdeiu’s structured structures and structuring structures.) Good luck with this in politics.

5. In the last few years, there has been growing numbers of economists studying traditionally sociological topics like the family and even gender. What do you think will be the impact of this influx on the way sociologists study these topics? Has it modified your own research in any way?

I don’t agree with the premise of the question. Gary Becker won a Nobel Prize for his work on subjects like that going back to the 1970s. When I was studying gender inequality in grad school in the 1990s, Claudia Goldin’s Understanding the Gender Gap (1990) and the work by Blau and Kahn from 1992-2000 was central. In fact, my own work on the gender gap in earnings is all based on assumptions from the human capital model. Economists of course cause all kinds of problems for sociologists, but that’s not a recent phenomenon. It takes real training for sociologists to learn how to understand what economists are doing – and why we might disagree with their approach – and I don’t think most of us get that training.

6. If you had free reign to recreate a grad program in sociology, what would the curriculum look like?

In my experience being in grad school in two departments and on the faculty in three, everyone has their own ideas of how the training should be – and we mostly want it to be like our training. I generally come down on the side of people who want the training to be more broad than narrow, more theoretical than not, and more demographic than not. The best seminars (and the ones that are hardest to teach) combine theory and methods around a substantive theme (one of the reasons demography is such great training is that their seminars do this). I also think grad students should learn how to write – including for different audiences – and (for those heading that direction) how to teach.

7. What’s the most important advice you give your grad students?

I have no idea. Read and write a lot. Go to talks. Support each other. Have a life. There’s no shame in leaving academia behind, but if you want to give it a try we’ll give it our best shot.

8. What is the current and future state of Maryland sociology given the deep budget cuts?

Deeply troubled. We have some great people and we’ll get through it. Pray for us.

9. Do you prefer Philip or Phil? I hear you refer to yourself as Philip, but others always seem to call you by Phil.

I prefer Philip – thanks for asking – but not enough to correct people. It’s just one of those names people shorten without asking. (In writing it has to do with not knowing how many L’s to use.)

10. What do you think of SJMR? Any theories as to why “right” wing posts and sentiments often dominate? What should it look like in the future?

I have no way of understanding what goes on because I have no idea who anyone is. People routinely lie about their status and affiliations, tell lies about other people, impersonate people, and spread misinformation. You can argue the benefits of anonymity, but it makes some awful stuff possible on here.

11. Almost all of your work focuses on the US (obvious exception: “Headed Toward Equality? Housework Change in Comparative Perspective”). Almost all of your blog focuses just on work done in the US (occasional exceptions: global comparisons). Michele Lamont said in her ASA presidential candidate personal statement:

“My intellectual agenda will be to promote a greater internationalization of American sociology, with a focus on cultural and social processes of inequality and stigmatization in the United States and abroad.”

Do you consider yourself a scholar of “inequality” or a scholar of “inequality in America”? What do you think the relationship should be between the study of inequality in the U.S. and the study of inequality globally? For instance, you often speak in your blog about inequality processes that are very specific to the US (say, mass incarceration or even the racial system more generally). While country-specific processes are interesting to study in the US, the only non-American work that seems to catch most people eye is more global, multi-country comparisons. What should be the role of (possibly) country-specific processes that take place in another country in the study of inequality? Beyond trite truisms like “I think it’s important to have a global perspective” that often get repeated (without that “global perspective” making much of an impact in citation networks), is there any way that American sociology can ever become less self-obsessed and provincial in its research interests?

It’s a really important question and a great subject, but I don’t know what to do about it. At Contexts, Syed Ali and I are really trying to recruit more writers from outside the U.S., with some success, but that’s just one editorship at one journal (where the editors have a lot of discretion).

American provincialism among sociologists is a big problem. We did a survey of people teaching family when I was preparing my textbook proposal, and very few teachers wanted global material. Which was fine with me, because most of the global comparisons you get in intro-level textbooks are obvious or cliché, like arranged marriages in India, polygamy in Africa, cohabitation in Sweden – things that make the superficial (though important) sociological point that it doesn’t have to be this way. I don’t know enough to write for real about societies other than this one, at least not without collaborators.

About 10 years ago some China scholars made a push, led by Wang Feng and Deborah Davis, to integrate studies of inequality in China and the U.S. They had some meetings and published an edited volume with Stanford called Creating Wealth and Poverty in Postsocialist China, that I was part of. They were tired of there being a China session at ASA, instead of having the papers on China spread around the substantive sessions that they were writing about. That was a great idea.

It’s difficult. There are institutional barriers, linguistic barriers. How much should a grad student risk studying in another country, learning a new language? What if the project doesn’t work out? There are some established comparative traditions, such as US/Scandinavia, or US/West Europe, so if you do one of those you can get funding, maybe a postdoc or a job. And there are demography opportunities in specific places. But what if you want to do less well-trodden cases? Picking a project is always the hard part. But when you’re choosing between Add Health and PSID then the harm from being wrong – and the cost of switching – is much less than if you’re choosing between Botswana and Cambodia. It’s just hard to promote that kind of risk-taking when funding is so precarious.

I have great respect for those sociologists who have developed projects in other countries, and trained students on them. (That includes my colleagues at Maryland doing the India Human Development Survey – these are often demographers.)

12. What’s the biggest mistake you see sociologists make? (You can interpret this in any way you wish.)

I don’t know whether it’s a mistake, but I don’t think a lot of academic sociologists take advantage of the privilege we have of studying whatever we want. My dissertation was on labor market inequality. Since then, I’ve written academic papers on children’s disability rates, divorce, gender and color preferences, Regnerus, race and genetics, and pornography – none of which I studied in grad school. And for my textbook I researched and wrote 15,000-word chapters on subjects I knew nothing about to start, such as family violence and sexuality. Wow! I love my job.

Thanks for inviting me to do this!

2 Comments

Filed under Me @ work

New data on gender-segregated sociology

Four years ago I wrote about the gender composition of sociology and the internal segregation of the discipline. Not much has changed, at least on the old measures. Here’s an update including some new measures (with some passages copied from the old post).

People may (or may not) want to be sociologists, they may or may not be accepted to graduate schools, thrive there (with good mentoring or bad), freely choose specializations, complete PhDs, publish, get jobs, rise to positions of leadership, and so on.  As in workplaces, gender segregation in academic sociology represents the cumulative intentions and actions of people in different institutional settings and social locations. It’s also the outcome of gender politics and power struggles. So, very interesting!

A report from the research folks at the American Sociological Association (ASA) got me thinking about this in 2011. The conversation revived the other day when someone asked ASA Vice President Elect Barbara Risman (a friend and colleague of mine), “What do you make of the fact that increasingly the majority of ASA election candidates tend to be women?” As we’ll see, the premise may be wrong, but the gender dynamics of ASA are interesting anyway.

#1: ASA leadership

The last four people elected president of ASA have been women (Ruth Milkman, Paula England, Annette Lareau, and Cecilia Ridgeway), and the the next winner will be either Michele Lamont or Min Zhou, both women. That’s an unprecedented run for women, and the greatest stretch of gender domination since the early 1990s, when men won six times in row. Here is the trend, by decade, starting with the decades before a woman president, 1906 through the 1940s:

sociology segregation.xlsx

Clearly, women have surpassed parity at the top echelons of the association’s academic leadership. ASA elections are a complicated affair, with candidates nominated by a committee at something like two per position. For president, there are two candidates. In the last nine presidential elections, six have featured a man running against a woman, and the women won four of those contests. So women are more than half the candidates, and they’ve been more likely to win against men. That pattern is general across elected offices since 2007 (as far back as I looked): more than half the candidates are women, but even more women win (most elections have about 36 candidates for various positions):

sociology segregation.xlsx

The nominating committees pick (or convince) more women than men to run, and then the electorate favors the women candidates, for reasons we can’t tell from these data.

These elections are run in an association that became majority female in its membership only in 2005, reaching only 53% female in 2010. That trend is likely to continue as older members retire and the PhD pool continues to shift toward women.

#2: Phds

Since the mid-1990s, according to data from the National Science Foundation, women have outnumbered men as new sociology PhDs, and we are now approaching two-thirds female. (The data I used in the old post showed a drop in women after 2007, but with the update, which now comes from here, that’s gone.)

sociology segregation.xlsx

Producing mostly-female PhDs for a quarter of a century is getting to be long enough to start achieving a critical mass of women at the top of the discipline.

#3: Specialization

These numbers haven’t been updated by ASA since 2010. The pattern of section belonging at that time showed a marked level of gender segregation. On a scale of 1 to 100, I calculate the sections are segregated at a level of .25.

sociology segregation.xlsx

#4: Editors and editorial boards

Finally, prestigious academic journals have one or more editors, often some associate editors, and then an editorial board. In sociology, this is mostly the people who are called upon to review articles more often. Because journal publication is a key hurdle for jobs and promotions, these sociologists serve as gatekeepers for the discipline. In return they get some prestige, the occasional reception, and they might be on the way to being an editor themselves someday.

Journal leadership is dragging behind the trends in PhDs, ASA members, and ASA leadership. I selected the top 20 journals in the Sociology category from the Journal Citation Reports (excluding a few misplaced titles), plus Social Problems and Social Forces, because these are considered to be leading journals despite low impact factors. The editors of these journals are 41% female (or 40% if you use journals as the unit of analysis instead of editors). Here is the list in two parts — general journals and specialty journals — with each sorted by impact factor. For multiple editors I either list the gender if they’re all the same, or show the breakdown if they differ:

Book12

It looks like the gender gap is partly attributable to the difference between journals run by associations and those run as department fiefdoms or by for-profit publishers.

For editorial boards, I didn’t do a systematic review, but I looked at the two leading research journals — American Sociological Review and American Journal of Sociology, as well as two prestigious specialized journals — Sociological Methods and Research, and Gender and Society (which is run by its own association,Sociologists for Women in Society, whose membership includes both women and men). Here’s the update to my 2011 numbers:

sociology segregation.xlsx

I removed a couple board members I know to have died in the last year, so these lists might not be that up to date.

Note on the journals that SMR and AJS are fiefdoms with no accountability to anyone outside their cliques, so it’s not surprising they are decades behind. ASR and G&S, on the other hand, are run by associations with majority-female memberships and hierarchies, in the case of G&S with a feminist mission. (ASA demands reports on gender and race/ethnicity composition from its editors.) AJS has no excuse and should suffer opprobrium for this. SMR might argue they can’t recruit women for this job (but someone should ask them to at least make this case).

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Stop me before I fake again

In light of the news on social science fraud, I thought it was a good time to report on an experiment I did. I realize my results are startling, and I welcome the bright light of scrutiny that such findings might now attract.

The following information is fake.

An employee training program in a major city promises basic job skills and as well as job search assistance for people with a high school degree and no further education, ages 23-52 in 2012. Due to an unusual staffing practice, new applications were for a period in 2012 allocated at random to one of two caseworkers. One provided the basic services promised but nothing extra. The other embellished his services with extensive coaching on such “soft skills” as “mainstream” speech patterns, appropriate dress for the workplace, and a hard work ethic, among other elements. The program surveyed the participants in 2014 to see what their earnings were in the previous 12 months. The data provided to me does not include any information on response rates, or any information about those who did not respond. And it only includes participants who were employed at least part-time in 2014. Fortunately, the program also recorded which staff member each participant was assigned to.

Since this provides such an excellent opportunity for studying the effects of soft skills training, I think it’s worth publishing despite these obvious weaknesses. To help with the data collection and analysis, I got a grant from Big Neoliberal, a non-partisan foundation.

The data includes 1040 participants, 500 of whom had the bare-bones service and 540 of whom had the soft-skills add-on, which I refer to as the “treatment.” These are the descriptive statistics:

fake-descriptives

As you can see, the treatment group had higher earnings in 2014. The difference in logged annual earnings between the two groups is significant at p

fake-ols-results

As you can see in Model 1, the Black workers in 2014 earned significantly less than the White workers. This gap of .15 logged earnings points, or about 15%, is consistent with previous research on the race wage gap among high school graduates. Model 2 shows that the treatment training apparently was effective, raising earnings about 11%. However, The interactions in Model 3 confirm that the benefits of the treatment were concentrated among the Black workers. The non-Black workers did not receive a significant benefit, and the treatment effect among Black workers basically wiped out the race gap.

The effects are illustrated, with predicted probabilities, in this figure:

fake-marginsplot

Soft skills are awesome.

I have put the data file, in Stata format, here.

Discussion

What would you do if you saw this in a paper or at a conference? Would you suspect it was fake? Why or why not?

I confess I never seriously thought of faking a research study before. In my day coming up in sociology, people didn’t share code and datasets much (it was never compulsory). I always figured if someone was faking they were just changing the numbers on their tables to look better. I assumed this happens to some unknown, and unknowable, extent.

So when I heard about the Lacour & Green scandal, I thought whoever did it was tremendously clever. But when I looked into it more, I thought it was not such rocket science. So I gave it a try.

Details

I downloaded a sample of adults 25-54 from the 2014 ACS via IPUMS, with annual earnings, education, age, sex, race and Hispanic origin. I set the sample parameters to meet the conditions above, and then I applied the treatment, like this:

First, I randomly selected the treatment group:

gen temp = runiform()
gen treatment=0
replace treatment = 1 if temp >= .5
drop temp

Then I generated the basic effect, and the Black interaction effect:

gen effect = rnormal(.08,.05)
gen beffect = rnormal(.15,.05)

Starting with the logged wage variable, lnwage, I added the basic effect to all the treated subjects:

replace newlnwage = lnwage+effect if treatment==1

Then added the Black interaction effect to the treated Black subjects, and subtracted it from the non-treated ones.

replace newlnwage = newlnwage+beffect if (treatment==1 & black==1)
replace newlnwage = newlnwage-beffect if (treatment==0 & black==1)

This isn’t ideal, but when I just added the effect I didn’t have a significant Black deficit in the baseline model, so that seemed fishy.

That’s it. I spent about 20 minutes trying different parameters for the fake effects, trying to get them to seem reasonable. The whole thing took about an hour (not counting the write-up).

I put the complete fake files here: code, data.

Would I get caught for this? What are we going to do about this?

BUSTED UPDATE:

In the comments, ssgrad notices that if you exponentiate (unlog) the incomes, you get a funny list — some are binned at whole numbers, as you would expect from a survey of incomes, and some are random-looking and go out to multiple decimal places. For example, one person reports an even $25,000, and another supposedly reports $25251.37. This wouldn’t show up in the descriptive statistics, but is kind of obvious in a list. Here is a list of people with incomes between $20000 and $26000, broken down by race and treatment status. I rounded to whole numbers because even without the decimal points you can see that the only people who report normal incomes are non-Blacks in the non-treatment group. Busted!

fake-busted-tableSo, that only took a day — with a crowd-sourced team of thousands of social scientists poring over the replication file. Faith in the system restored?

11 Comments

Filed under In the news, Research reports

Not all trigger warnings are the same

Print

I follow the debate over trigger warnings only loosely. Please feel free to add information in the comments.

In what I see, the debate over trigger warnings is hampered by ill-defined terms and unhelpful hyperbole. I want to give a very basic description of what I think should be a relatively simple approach to the issue, call out a gender problem, and then offer my own example.

To show you where I’m coming from: What prompted me finally to write this was the combination of this popular op-ed by Judith Shulevitz, this essay about the problem of teaching about rape in law school, and the flap over Christina Hoff Sommers’s anti-anti-rape-culture campus tour. I noted that a letter to the editor in the Oberlin Review about her upcoming talk began with this: “Content Warning: This letter contains discussion of rape culture, online harassment, victim blaming and rape apologism/denialism.”

Impending discourse

There are three kinds of relevant warnings that I would group together under the category of “impending discourse notification.” That is, warnings that take the form: something is about to be discussed or displayed. Keeping these three things straight would be really helpful.

1. Warnings of content likely to be disturbing to many people in the audience.

For example, graphic images of violence during a regular TV news program, descriptions of rape on NPR’s Morning Edition, or sociology classroom lectures that contain images of Blacks being lynched. In these cases, a warning of the impending discourse is something like common courtesy. It says, “we are about to see or hear something important enough to risk disturbing the audience, and potentially disturbing enough that you should gird yourself.” In these discrete cases warnings are not controversial in principle, though of course individual applications may be off target or offensive. Many settings carry an implied warning: A horror film can be expected to surprise you with specific acts of violence, but you know something bad is coming; a sociology class on racial inequality should be expected to include discussions of lynching, though some students have no idea about lynching; a history documentary on war is expected to show people being killed. Warnings in these cases seem optional.

2. Warnings of content that may trigger post-traumatic stress responses.

I am not expert on this, obviously, but my understanding (from, e.g., here) is that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was included in the DSM III in 1980, partly based on the experience of Vietnam War veterans. The condition was understood to involve reliving memories of trauma, avoiding reminders of trauma, and hyperarousal that can lead to high levels of distress. There are many kinds of traumas that can lead to PTSD, but some are much more common than others, especially violence, sexual abuse, and existential threats. You can’t expect to prevent all triggering events, but you can take steps to avoid common ones, or warn people when you are going to show or discuss something to an audience likely to be include people with PTSD. Again, war movies are expected to show graphically violent war scenes, but lectures to audiences of combat veterans about disability benefits should not. This is a question of sensitivity and awareness, not blanket prohibitions and censoring. And this is about shocking or graphic imagery, not mere mention of a topic. We just can’t have a democratic discourse without mentioning bad things, sometimes spontaneously. The Oberlin newspaper warning above is wrong. And I don’t agree with another Oberlin essayist who says trigger warnings should be treated as disability accommodations, “as common as wheelchair ramps.” (Of course, I would make an accommodation for a specific student — and I have — who asks to opt out of a specific class session based on the topic).

3. Warnings of obnoxious, offensive, disagreeable, or dangerous ideas.

These warnings are unnecessary and wrong. If someone wants to say the problem of campus rape is exaggerated, that Black men are genetically aggressive, the Holocaust is a myth, or Creationists are stupid — let them. Hand out flyers or picket at their talk, discredit them in the Q&A, denounce them on Twitter, or ignore them. If they are receiving honorary degrees or other accolades (or money) from governments or universities, that’s political fair game to protest. But protecting people from hearing bad ideas is a bad idea (outside of incitement to violence). On campus or in the classroom, exposure to bad ideas is essential to critical intellectual development. If you’re never offended in college you aren’t learning enough.

A gender problem

I have complained elsewhere that the non-criminal procedure for responding to campus rape “downgrades sexual violence from a real crime to a women’s issue.” Something similar is going on with trigger warnings. Although PTSD-type responses can be triggered by many kinds of experiences, it looks like sexual violence is the main arena of debate over campus trigger warnings. Why? This should not be reduced to a “women’s issue.” My admittedly limited exposure to this debate often makes me cringe at what seems like a demand for special protection — from discourse — for women. Women are in fact more likely to experience PTSD than men, but that’s only partly because they are more likely to be sexually assaulted. Men are more likely to experience other potentially traumatic events, including accidents, nonsexual assaults, combat, or witnessing violence, all of which can lead to PTSD. People with sensitivity to trauma-related triggering deserve respect and sensitivity. But women — like any subordinate group — need to exert leadership in the discourse surrounding that inequality, and that doesn’t come from avoiding the topic or silencing their opponents. If the only people discussing rape are people who have never been raped, the dialogue is likely to be male-dominated. We have to work on maintaining the line between offensive and unpleasant on the one hand and truly trauma-inducing on the other. If it’s necessary to avoid the latter, it’s all the more important for those who are able to engage the former.

How did I do addendum

I think we can learn a lot from these discussions. They have raised the question, “What if we acted like sexual assault is actually common?” That reality is hard to grasp — for people who are victims or not — because the experience is so often private.* In the chapter in my book about family violence and abuse, I didn’t include an impending discourse notification, but — after opening with a detailed story of violent abuse — I raised the issue of how discussing the topic might affect students:

The subject of family violence and abuse is personal and painful. Instructors and students should pause at this point to consider the possible effects of discussing these topics, especially for those who have experienced abuse in their own lives. Because this kind of victimization still is so common in the United States, most of us will know someone who has been touched by it in one way or another. However, because families often are protected by a cultural—and sometimes legal—expectation of privacy and a shroud of secrecy, those who suffer usually do so in isolation. That leaves us with the complexity of a problem that is widespread but experienced alone and often invisibly. Such isolation can make the experience of abuse even worse. One benefit of addressing the issue in this book is that we can help pierce that isolation and encourage victims to realize that they are not alone.

I think advising people in the classroom to “pause to consider” before launching into the topic is reasonable — it’s a common experience with a known risk of traumatic effects. But I didn’t write that just to protect people who might have a traumatic reaction to the topic, I did it because it’s a learning opportunity for everyone.

* In the book I tried to put rape in normal-experience terms: experiencing rape (18% of women by one reasonable estimate) is more common than using the Pill for contraception (17% of women currently), but less common than smoking cigarettes for young-adult women (22%, ages 25-34). Does that help?

11 Comments

Filed under In the news, Me @ work