Comments on: Do you really want to know “How Professors Think?”

By: Dr. Crazy

Dr. Crazy — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:49:17 +0000

er, this was how the psychology PhD talked. Clearly I need to learn to read back over what I write

By: Dr. Crazy

Dr. Crazy — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:48:19 +0000

Ok, I’ve got to chime in because those two versions of what “research” is that are quoted… Well, let’s just say that if a social scientist (or a political scientist specifically) has research that is rooted in quantitative methodologies/data, it is my experience that this is exactly how they talk about their research and what makes “good” research. Yes, the one political scientist I know of this stripe does believe in “truth” and in things like a “good theory is one of that maximizes the ratio between the information that is captured in the independent variable and the information that is captured in the prediction, in the dependent variable.” I’ll also say that this was how the quantitatively oriented psychology PHD that I dated for a time talked this way, too. So I’m inclined to think that the divide represented here is not a joke – it represents a very real divide between and within disciplines.

By: Indyanna

Indyanna — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:33:32 +0000

Except for a grant *renewal* application, the reviewer is not likely to *know* very much about how much “truth” is “captured” in either variable, right? All you can do is try to look at the plausibility of the proposal. All other things being relatively equal, it stands to reason that the more interesting ones in the eyes of the panel member will get the nod. The other alternative I guess would be to have a big rolling drum like the ones they use to pull out lottery winners and the like. As for the obtaining of awards, the best advice is probably to just keep shooting. I recently served on a preliminary review panel, the obligation of which was one price of having won one of the awards the previous year. I ended up feeling shocked that I had won, but you do come to realize that it’s a pretty capricious process. On either side of the ball, all you can do is try to do a conscientious job.

By: PhDinHistory

PhDinHistory — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:06:39 +0000

Yeah, and who gets more federal funding for their research?

By: susurro

susurro — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:07:44 +0000

funny, I do talk about my research in terms of validity b/c often I am asked to. I have a whole memorized shpeel about how validity was achieved and whenever I don’t take it out for the humanities conferences I go to, I watch eyes glaze over. Whenever I don’t put it in at social science conferences . . . Someone should write a book: Discipline Matters.

That said, I agree, interesting projects whether they pan out or not should be among the projects funded b/c it is the questions that move us to think not just the shiny outcomes

By: Satsuma

Satsuma — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:46:14 +0000

This was a fascinating article, but not surprising. Anytime you get a group of people selecting who gets a grant, I just assume that objectivity doesn’t exist.

I do agree that if a subject is fascinating, it has merit. As for truth, sometimes it takes generations for this to emerge.

Reseach indicates that people make much better decisions collectively, than they do when a small group is involved.

Because we know that professors and “peer” reviews are highly subjective, I think this argues for more not less diversity on the selection committees to begin with.