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.

Like

Unlike