Some Thoughts on the LaCour Scandal

So as I've learned this week, apparently there is at least one thing that will get me sucked back into reading and writing and thinking about academic work and the controversies therein. And that one thing is an instance of research fraud so massive that it almost defies imagination.

I mean......really, Michael LaCour? You published a huge study in Science with a fancy glittery co-author, and it turns out that you completely fabricated your data? And apparently didn't even bother to get IRB approval for a face-to-face survey until after you already "carried out the interviews?" (Scare quotes intentional, obviously.) And then you faked a few grants and a teaching award, just because the research fakery wasn't enough? And you even stopped to falsify a document of research integrity along the way?

Wow. Wow. That's...astounding.

(For those who don't know what I'm talking about, here is a good overview of both his fraud and of the excellent work by the grad student who uncovered it.

Or just google LaCour's name. Even if you think you're done reading about academia, this scandal might just suck you back in for an hour or two or ten. Or maybe that's just me.)

Anyway, many people smarter and more engaged in these issues than me have done great work writing about the underlying issues about research ethics and coauthor relationships, etc., that are related to this fraud. I don't have much to add on those issues since I haven't done research in almost five years, so I'll leave it to others to dig in on those important and relevant topics.

I do have a few things to say about this scandal, though, from the "postacademic, cynical-about-academia" side of the aisle.

Reason I'm Leaving #8: Endless Criticism and the Quest for "Perfection"

I've been working on this post for awhile, but can't seem to make it crystallize around a really salient take-home point that's any catchier than "I'm tired of the endless review/criticism cycle and quest for an unattainable level of perfection in one's academic work." Man, how jargony is that???

But yeah, that's how I feel. It's not that I can't handle criticism. I'm just damned tired of the never-ending cycle of reviews and criticism in academia, and of the quest for a level of perfection in one's work that is impossible to obtain. I'm tired of the expectation that academics have to treat every piece of criticism from any source with reverence. And I'm tired of the mythical notion that any work one produces will ever (or could ever) be perfect to all readers.

Even though I can't come up with a catchy title for it, I'm saying it: I'm tired of the work cycle of academic research - its criticism and its unrealistic expectations.

Reason I'm Leaving #6: I Need Tangible Outcomes

This reason is one that crept up on me, I'll admit it. I've mentioned periodically that I loved grad school for awhile, and grew to hate it only once my MA and my qualifying exams were over.

I think part of that reason was because it was at that point that the day-to-day, tangible outcomes of the work I was doing generally disappeared. I've hinted at this before, but it's time to give this reason its own post.

Your Tuesday Funny

I've mentioned before that if I'd continued down the academic path, I would wish that my research would have some effect on the public (or at least reach a public audience). However, at the same time I've often noted that research findings that get disseminated to the public aren't always reported clearly.

To that end, I ran across this comic strip today and found it pretty hilarious ... and accurate. If you're someone who's ever compared research findings to the way they're reported in the media, you may also enjoy it.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174

Ah, the divide between academic research and real-world understandings of said research. Will we ever breach it? :)

Reason I'm Leaving #2: I Hate my Research

I don't mean that I hate research in general. I don't hate figuring out how to address a problem, collecting and analyzing data, or writing up my results. I don't mind research.

I hate academic research. And my academic research in particular. And I think that by the time you're in the dissertation stage, if you hate your research with a passion and can't motivate yourself to work on it at all, you should consider other options. Because that is what you will be working on for the foreseeable future. And while you may not love your future job like crazy, it's ridiculous to think that you have to take a job in which you utterly despise the major task you will be doing. Especially if you have options - and with an advanced degree, you do have options.

Academia - It's Where You Read/Write/Think about "Anything!" - Myth/Reality #4

Myth: You should get a Ph.D. because then you can spend your life reading and writing about a wide variety of things that interest you.
Reality: Not exactly ... at least not for a large chunk of your working life.

I was one of the people who went to graduate school because I loved reading, writing, and thinking about ideas (broadly defined), and loved my discipline.

In short, I was the kid who went to graduate school because I loved college, and wanted "more college." More learning. More reading and writing. I was barely even thinking about a future career, other than some vague ideas that I'd like to teach. Really, though, I just wanted to keep going to college.

On Journal Rejection

I got a rejection recently on a paper I'd sent into a journal, before making the decision to leave.

I'm going to resubmit it to a different journal, since I think it's a good paper, and would like to be out there somewhere for others to reference. And since "quality of journal" isn't as important to a non-academic as it is to someone trying to land a TT job.

But getting this rejection got me thinking. Before submitting the paper, I had about 10 colleagues - grad students and faculty - read it, including the person who came up with the theory from which I drew my argument. All thought it should be published in a good journal. I also presented versions of it at two major conferences, to generally favorable comments from about 5-8 people who are very well-known in our field.

I then sent it to a high-powered, competitive journal in my field, where 1 of 4 reviewers/editors liked it and the others had criticisms and recommended it not be published. So it was rejected.