The Author List: Giving Credit Where Credit is Due….

Posted on by
2
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

phd031305s.gif GIF Image, 600 × 260 pixels.

Author lists SHOULD demonstrate scholarship and the advancement of knowledge. They should NOT be about politics. They ESPECIALLY should not be about paying ‘homage’ or stroking egos.

Sadly, and, more and more, they are. I realize this is typical. That doesn’t make it right.

I’ve always thought that ONLY people who actually contributed intellectually to the paper should have their names attached.

I’ve never thought being the head of the lab should be worth publication credit. They deserve thanks in the acknowledgements. They shouldn’t be authors.

There are people who insist their name go on everything that comes out of their lab  (subtly sometimes, but the pressure is there just the same). I have NO respect for those people, and neither should you. Sure, they have money to pay grad students to do work for them, and that’s great. That does not (at least, it should not) qualify anyone for authorship on the publication of a scholarly work.*

When I talk to students about scholarship and publication, there are a few things I tell them to watch out for.

  1. Someone with a very large number of publications. Chances are very good that all they contributed was money (which includes equipment and space). I know more than a few who probably couldn’t understand the contents of the paper that bears their name, even if they DID read it (which they likely didn’t). They for sure didn’t write any of it. If paying the researchers actually qualified someone for authorship, then every taxpayer ought to be listed on every paper. After all, their money made the work possible.
  2. Someone who NEVER publishes as sole author. Theses, book reviews, and articles written while editors of journal don’t count. If this person never publishes alone, you really need to wonder why? Are they actually doing their share of the work or just hanging off of someone else’s coat tails? Are they even capable of the work? Maybe all they have to contribute is funding; in other words they are BUYING authorship, which should not be worth scholarly credit. Maybe their chief talent is in convincing others to do work and write it up. If you are an academic, mentoring others is part of your job. It should not earn you your name on a paper.
  3. Someone who ONLY publishes as sole author. It is quite possible this person doesn’t play well with others. Scrutinize their work VERY carefully.

Those few who actually do original research and who actually have original ideas should be the ones getting credit for those ideas. I realize this may an overly idealistic view, but scholarship should be about the advancement of knowledge – not politics, or economics.

BAH!!

* Unless of course, you adopt the medicine model, in which case EVERYONE who had anything to do with the work gets their name added to the list. Then it’s fair again. I got my very first publication this way – I wrote the SPSS programs to run the stats. The statistician who analysed the data also got his name on the paper.

1 person likes this post.

Unlike

Sandy Hook Shooting: Video Game Violence Isn’t to Blame | TIME.com

Posted on by
1
Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

Sigh.

Sandy Hook Shooting: Video Game Violence Isn’t to Blame | TIME.com. Dec. 20, 2012

Yesterday, Senator Jay Rockefeller introduced a bill calling on the National Academy of Sciences to “study” video game violence on children. Speaking of the recent Brown v. EMA Supreme Court decision, which criticized the existing research as inconsistent and methodologically flawed, Rockefeller stated, “Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get it. They believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians and psychologists know better. These court decisions show we need to do more and explore ways Congress can lay additional groundwork on this issue. This report will be a critical resource in this process.”

This sort of knee jerk reaction isn’t new, of course. It happened long before there were videogames – even long before electricity. The development of the printing press brought with it dire warnings about how access to the Bible by “ordinary people” would ruin society.

Why do we insist on trying to blame the latest new media development for society’s ills? Are we really that dumb? Or are we just that lazy?

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Are MOOCs the answer?

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

Worth Reposting….

Clay Shirky is our MP3 » FOLLOWERS OF THE APOCALYPSE.

For those who don’t know, Clay Shirky talks and writes about the Interwebs. He’s faculty @ NYU . He likes to make predictions about the future.

He’s now claiming that Higher Education is being disrupted by MOOCs.

Udacity and its peers try to answer some new questions, questions that the traditional academy – me and my people – often don’t even recognise as legitimate, like “How do we spin up 10,000 competent programmers a year, all over the world, at a cost too cheap to meter?”

Udacity may or may not survive, but as with Napster, there’s no containing the story it tells: “It’s possible to educate a thousand people at a time, in a single class, all around the world, for free.”

Once you imagine educating a thousand people in a single class, it becomes clear that open courses, even in their nascent state, will be able to raise quality and improve certification faster than traditional institutions can lower cost or increase enrolment.

Now, I do believe that formal education is broken, but the problem is NOT that we can’t “educate” sufficient numbers. The biggest problem is precisely the thing that Shirky seems to be claiming will solve the problem – the “massification” of education. Education is not, and should never be a “business”, folks. And a university education is (or should be) more about growing up and learning to be than about the “content”. If all you are getting out of school is “content”, then, by all means, don’t bother with college. If THAT is all that your college can offer you, find a different college.

Really.

From David Kernohan‘s article:

To think that all a university experience can be is a bunch of lectures and some essay questions. To think that the availablity of a new format that suits some peoples needs a bit better means that nothing else is viable. To think that a degree is something that you purchase and experience, not something you work for with a great degree of pain and personal change.

The needs that MOOCs satisfy are the needs of a bunch of middle-aged men (and it is – nearly – always men) who are comfortably tenured but seek the thrill of being on the cutting edge of technology and “innovation” (whatever that is – looks to me like inventiveness with all the fun sucked out of it). They make for great TED talks. Wonderful blog posts. But they are nothing more than a surface solution to the surface problems a non-specialist observer could see in higher education.

The problems Higher Education does face is that it is a marketplace when it doesn’t need to be. We spend billions of dollars forcing universities to compete without any evidence whatsoever that this leads to a better or cheaper product. We spend more on HE than at any point in our history whilst departments are closing, services are withering and talented young academics are leaving in droves because they have reached their mid 30s without finding anything other than temporary hourly-paid work.

 

University is about more than training people for today’s jobs. It’s supposed to be about educating people for their future, whatEVER that may hold.

 

p.s. I got news for you – “spinning up” COMPETENT programmers takes a whole lot more than teaching them how to write code.

 

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Where I’ve Been Online (to December 15 2012)

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

  • Game Developer Salary Survey 2012 – GameCareerGuide.com

    [Originally published in Game Developer magazine’s free Career Guide issue, this annual survey provides a comprehensive breakdown of salaries and job prospects for entry-level game developers and beyond.]

    Every year, we ask thousands of Game Developer and Gamasutra readers to tell us how much money they made last year, along with a slew of related questions. We get everyone from established developers to newbies to tell us their base salaries, benefits, additional compensation, and other work information so we can show you what to expect if you decide to pursue a career in the game industry.

    tags: game developer salary survey

  • Social Science Palooza III – NYTimes.com

    Social Science Palooza III
    By DAVID BROOKS
    Published: December 10, 2012 69 Comments

    Facebook
    Twitter
    Google+
    Save
    E-mail
    Share
    Print
    Reprints

    Elections come and go, but social science marches on. Here are some recent research findings that struck my fancy.

    tags: social science research studies

  • A Tale of Transhumance: Herding Sheep with Livestock Guardian Dogs – Environment – Utne Reader

    “Shepherds of Coyote Rocks” reveals the broad spectrum of the human relationship with nature, from harmony to rugged adventure. Author Cat Urbigkit offers interesting reflections on the role of pastoralists around the globe and on the controversial issue in Western American lands—private livestock herds being run on public space.
    Cover Courtesy Countryman Press
    Article Tools
    Image Gallery
    Print
    E-mail
    Comments
    RSS

    Writer and photographer Cat Urbigkit got to know public lands in the Upper Green River Basin by living the practice of transhumance—herding sheep across the seasons—by living with livestock guardian dogs and joining the ancient tradition of the shepherd. In this excerpt from the first chapter of her book Shepherds of Coyote Rocks (Countryman Press, 2012), read about the beginning of this communion with the outside world.

    tags: tale sheep livestock guardian dogs environment

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Global Edmonton | Lynden Dorval weighs in on proposed school board policy

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

Global Edmonton | Lynden Dorval weighs in on proposed school board policy.

I’ve been following this story since Mr. Dorval was first suspended. I hope this passes.

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Where I’ve Been Online (to December 8 2012)

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

  • Why Games Don’t Teach

    From Angry Birds to World of Warcraft, the charismatic popularity of entertainment games is the envy of every trainer teaching information security 101 or facilitating new hire orientation. Multiple articles, webinars, and conference presentations have touted the potential of incorporating the addictive and immersive features of commercial games to create “serious games” for workforce learning. In other words games have emerged as one of trainers’ most seductive silver bullets.

    tags: learning gamification

  • Terra Nova: Micro rewards have weird effects on decisions

    Micro rewards have weird effects on decisions

    by Edward Castronova
    on November 30, 2012

    1195422416303492988johnny_automatic_mathematician.svg.medMost games use a sequence of little rewards to nudge players around. This is very different from most salary and hiring and review structures, which are big rewards in big intervals. Much has been made about the power of the games approach and how it should be used everywhere. To date (I haven’t been looking very hard), I’d not seen a hard analysis of how a sequence of little payments might affect the quality of decisions. Do they help people solve new problems? Do they help people remember what they are doing, and transfer the learning to other situations?

  • Scientists Create GM Corn Which Prevents Human Conception >> Four Winds 10 – Truth Winds

    Still unknown is who funded this original research (UPDATE, major funding was from the USDA) . But once the Epicyte gene, which irreversibly sterilizes humans who eat it, was patented, Monsanto and DuPont bought the company in order to “commercially exploit” the Epicyte gene. That means they had a customer for this product! Who is buying this gene and where is it being used? After ten years, how many GMO products have included this human-sterilization gene?

    tags: scientists corn GMO

  • Assholes are killing your project

    slideshare

    tags: bullying mobbing

  • Research Paper Planner – University of Saskatchewan

    The research paper planner will provide you with resources and helpful tips to guide you through the steps of the research and writing process. To start, simply enter the dates that you plan to work on your paper:

    tags: research paper planner university

  • Are violent video games harmless fun or a dangerous pastime? | The Sun |Fun|Gaming

    As far back as the ’70s there were claims that arcade gaming was damaging impressionable youngsters.

    And there were fresh outcries in the ’90s as hi-tech consoles moved into homes, with improved graphics making violence more gruesome.

    But new research by Brock University in Canada claims to have found the first clear link between teenagers playing graphic titles and displaying aggressive behaviour in real life.

    Researchers said games like Grand Theft Auto could be teaching kids that aggression is an “appropriate way to deal with conflict and anger”.

    tags: video video games games violence

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Learnlets » Vale David Jonassen : A Sad Day in Ed Tech

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

It’s curious how hearing of the passing of some people seems to hit hard, even if you’ve never met them
I never got the chance to meet David, but I think Ed Tech has lost someone important.

Learnlets » Vale David Jonassen.

This is from Clark Quinn’s Blog:

David Jonassen passed away on Sunday.  He had not only a big impact on the field of computers for learning, but also on learning itself.  And he was a truly nice person.

I had early on been a fan of his work, his writing on computers as cognitive tools was insightful. He resisted the notion of teaching computing, and instead saw computers as mind tools, enablers of thinking.  He was widely and rightly regarded as an influential innovator for this work.

I also regularly lauded his work on problem-solving. The one notion that really resonated was that the problems we give to kids in schools (and too often to adults in training) bear little resemblance to the problems they’ll face outside. He did deep work on problem-solving that more should pay attention to.  He demonstrated that you could get almost as good a performance on standard tests using meaningful problems, and you got much better results on problem-solving skills (21st century skills) as well.  I continue to apply his principles in my learning design strategies.

I had the opportunity to meet him face to face at a conference on learning in organizations.  While I was rapt in his presentation, somehow it didn’t work for the audience as a whole, a shame. Still, I had the opportunity to finally talk to him, and it was a real pleasure. He was humble, thoughtful, and really willing to engage.  I subsequently shared a stage with him when he presented virtually to a conference I was at live, and was thrilled to have him mention he was using my game design book in one of his classes.

He contributed greatly to my understanding, and to the field as a whole.  He will be missed.

Here’s another from Preston Parker

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Don’t Believe Everything You Read. REALLY. Stop It.

Posted on by
2
Approximate Reading Time: 3 minutes

I came across this today (Thanks to Jeremy Hunsinger):

Second, we have become painfully aware of how badly (or how little) some of our colleagues read. Articles are too often cited, by authors and by referees, as making the exact opposite of the argument they actually advanced. Long books are noted, with a wave of the rhetorical hand but without the mundane encumbrance of specific page or even chapter references; and highly relevant literatures, even in leading political science journals, are frequently ignored. We may have fallen victim to an occupational disease of editors, but we have often found ourselves moaning, “Doesn’t anybody read anymore?” It is cold comfort that this sloppiness extends well beyond political science. A recent study has shown that, even in “gold standard” medical research, articles that clearly refute earlier findings are frequently ignored, or even cited subsequently as supporting the conclusion they demolished.

So we advise our successors to maintain, and even expand, vigilance against jargon and murkiness; and we advise authors, referees, and readers generally to further and broaden the conversation, not least by reading seriously what has been, and is being, written.

Notes from the Editors, American Political Science Review, Vol. 106, No. 3 August 2012

Interesting that this would come to my attention just a few days after I had my own experience with exactly the kind of thing they are complaining about. I was working on a paper for an assignment in a course I am taking. (NOTE: This isn’t even for publication! It’s for an ASSIGNMENT.)

I spent the last 1 1/2 hours trying to track down a 1985 teacher education paper. There are 100’s of references to this article: I got a copy and read it, TWICE and could not find the thing everyone was referencing. Why? Turns out, all the citations I checked are citing THE WRONG PAPER. Ultimately, I found the paper that actually had the idea they are referencing. It ‘s not even the right year. Doesn’t anyone check the things they are citing to make sure it actually says what they are saying it says?

I try very hard to be honest in all I do, fully realizing that this actually puts me at a disadvantage most of the time. It irritates me no end, but I am not prepared to sell out my principals for greed. I come across people ALL THE TIME who have what to me is a frighteningly plastic definition of “white lie”. They will, of course tell you that they are also honest, while at the same time justifying their dishonest actions:

  • “It’s complicated.”
  • “Everyone else is doing it.”
  • “It ‘s the only way to get ahead.”
  • “It’s no big deal.”

and other bits of bullshit.

As far as I’m concerned, there is NO excuse for dishonesty (with the possible exception of saving someone else from genuine and serious harm). In the Academy, THERE IS NO EXCUSE. If you lie, even just a little, you forfeit ALL credibility.

In case you’re interested the paper that everyone seems to be citing incorrectly is this one:

Katz, L. G., & Raths, J. D. (1985). A Framework for Research on Teacher Education Programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(6), 9-15. doi: 10.1177/002248718503600602.

The CLAIM is that this paper defines something called “The Goldilocks Principle”, which, according to Katz is  called the

“Goldilocks” problem of dissemination, namely, the idea that the use and adoption of ideas and concepts may be related to their “size.”

THIS quote comes from this paper:

Katz, L. G., & Raths, J. D. (1985). Dispositions as goals for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(4), 301-307. doi: 10.1016/0742-051x(85)90018-6.

None of the papers I looked at actually cite this paper.

I was unable to get a copy of the original source (I am still trying), but I am willing to trust the author when she says she said it herself in a previous publication, so the ORIGINAL source is this one:

Katz, L. G. (1984). Some Issues in the Dissemination of Child Development Knowledge. Newsletter of the Society for Research in Child Development(Fall).

By the way, being wrong is NOT the same as lying. It’s OK to be wrong. Lying is when you say something you KNOW is not true.

Not bothering to check does not make it OK. It makes it dishonest.

 

2 people like this post.

Unlike