The scandal involving Harvard Psychology professor Marc Hauser is back in the news. The latest is that he's resigning, after a year on leave. (There is no new information about the misconduct itself.)
Hauser has been found guilty of eight counts of misconduct in his research (inappropriate procedures or even outright fabrication of data), and there is no reason to believe that this is the extent of the problem. The best we can conclude about the rest of Hauser's work is "unproven."
I'm interested in the reactions of different people in the field. These range from Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth (his former advisors), who, though diplomatic in their wording, hung him out to dry, to Steve Pinker, who has vigorously defended Hauser (though interestingly, only on grounds of personal admiration, with no comment on whether he believes the misconduct to be real, or wrong if real).
One can't help wondering (and I get to say this because my blog is anonymous) about the personal world-view that underlies that latter reaction. I think there is a kind of gun-slinging cowboy mentality that says that all's fair in love and war . . . and in building a reputation. Even if such a person hasn't actually engaged in misconduct themselves, they might secretly think, It's not so awfully bad, is it? We could all see ourselves doing something like that, couldn't we?
This is part of a larger complaint of mine, which is that a lot of academics don't get it that building a reputation isn't the main goal. Reputation is, or should be, a by-product of a genuine commitment to furthering science.
Showing posts with label Academia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Academia. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
Plagiarism Scandal
Or is it only a scandal if people know about it and are scandalized?
I caught a grad student plagiarizing in his research writeup. This was not a borderline case. It was massive, egregious, indisputable. Plus, it turns out it's a second offense. He was caught cheating in one of his classes just this Winter. So he's on file with the Grad Division, with a warning that a second offense could result in dismissal.
The student's advisor, who is old, corrupt, and probably in the early stages of senile dementia, claims not to see any evidence of plagiarism. Claims that it's impossible to talk about a technical topic without inadvertently reinventing other people's word choices.
This does not shock me. What shocks me is the Department Chair, who I previously had a lot of respect for. She is sensible, funny, sarcastic, and smart. I thought she had a backbone. But in this case, she decided not to forward the case to the Grad Division, for two reasons:
1) The advisor didn't think it was serious, and she didn't want to go against his wishes (even though he is, by objective standards, wrong).
2) The consequences for the student could be substantial, possibly including dismissal. Uh . . . yeah? Isn't that what the Grad Division is supposed to adjudicate? Why are we trying to shield him?
Part of the problem is the culture of my department. A large portion of the faculty seem to see themselves as the students' social workers. They infantilize the students, give them endless second chances, and naively believe that if we carry our weakest students long enough, they will suddenly mysteriously blossom into independence and excellence. I don't know to what extent the Chair buys into this value system, but she is certainly sensitive to its presence and unwilling to go against the grain.
I wrote back protesting, and laying out my reasons. I eventually persuaded all involved (except the Advisor) that the case should be forwarded. So I guess I won. But I'm deeply discouraged about the situation.
I have simply stopped assigning papers in my undergraduate classes, because the university's Academic Dishonesty process is so dysfunctional, and because I routinely catch between 15% and 25% of my students plagiarizing. My record in one class was 45%.
I have lupus. I simply can't spend all my available energy documenting plagiarism and battling weak-willed provosts. So I made the pedagogically terrible decision not to grade papers anymore. But I can't get away from having to evaluate graduate student work.
I caught a grad student plagiarizing in his research writeup. This was not a borderline case. It was massive, egregious, indisputable. Plus, it turns out it's a second offense. He was caught cheating in one of his classes just this Winter. So he's on file with the Grad Division, with a warning that a second offense could result in dismissal.
The student's advisor, who is old, corrupt, and probably in the early stages of senile dementia, claims not to see any evidence of plagiarism. Claims that it's impossible to talk about a technical topic without inadvertently reinventing other people's word choices.
This does not shock me. What shocks me is the Department Chair, who I previously had a lot of respect for. She is sensible, funny, sarcastic, and smart. I thought she had a backbone. But in this case, she decided not to forward the case to the Grad Division, for two reasons:
1) The advisor didn't think it was serious, and she didn't want to go against his wishes (even though he is, by objective standards, wrong).
2) The consequences for the student could be substantial, possibly including dismissal. Uh . . . yeah? Isn't that what the Grad Division is supposed to adjudicate? Why are we trying to shield him?
Part of the problem is the culture of my department. A large portion of the faculty seem to see themselves as the students' social workers. They infantilize the students, give them endless second chances, and naively believe that if we carry our weakest students long enough, they will suddenly mysteriously blossom into independence and excellence. I don't know to what extent the Chair buys into this value system, but she is certainly sensitive to its presence and unwilling to go against the grain.
I wrote back protesting, and laying out my reasons. I eventually persuaded all involved (except the Advisor) that the case should be forwarded. So I guess I won. But I'm deeply discouraged about the situation.
I have simply stopped assigning papers in my undergraduate classes, because the university's Academic Dishonesty process is so dysfunctional, and because I routinely catch between 15% and 25% of my students plagiarizing. My record in one class was 45%.
I have lupus. I simply can't spend all my available energy documenting plagiarism and battling weak-willed provosts. So I made the pedagogically terrible decision not to grade papers anymore. But I can't get away from having to evaluate graduate student work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)