What advanced degrees really mean

When members of the public, even those who are educated and have advanced degrees, complain about “ivory towers” and snooty professors, there is some truth to their complaints. Many professors are arrogant, they like to brag about their experience and credentials, they use confusing language and terms and many of them look down upon students, peers and others not in their field of study.

These academics are unfortunate.

At the same time, having a graduate degree puts students into an educated class that few can claim. A doctorate, even more so. This does not make them better people, it doesn’t mean they are infallible, it doesn’t even mean they are more intelligent, but it does mean they (should) know far more in their subject area than most other people.

Comparatively few can claim this kind of academic expertise. Most folks, however, can claim expertise in other areas – parenting, working on cars, carpentry, electronics, ranching, serving a political position, whatever – all things I know very little about.

I don’t write this to make a value judgment – believe me, my wife and I wish I knew more about carpentry, plumbing and electrical work – but more to make the point that academia creates specific kinds of expertise you most often don’t find in the rest of society.

But society doesn’t always express value for academic expertise, especially in states like Nevada, where historically it was possible to make a good living in unskilled industries. Research shows, however, that communities gain tremendously from academic institutions most directly from the economic impact such institutions provide communities. Higher education literature shows over and over that societies with higher learning opportunities also have stronger democracies, lower levels of domestic violence, more equal rights, increased civic participation and, overall, greater life satisfaction. (Similarly, my advisor’s research shows that societies that fund education at low levels get students with low educational outcomes.)

Yes, there is an ivory tower. And that’s often a good thing.

To be continued.

My research

What a doctorate is

Getting a PhD (doctorate of philosophy) should not be mysterious. In terms of actual work, I found my bachelor’s degree to be the most strenuous of each of my degrees. Five years, classes covering subjects for which I had zero interest, and students who did not want to be there, was a laborious experience at the time and even in hindsight.

Comparatively my master’s degree was a breeze. It took three years (60-plus credits, a non-thesis degree). That was all coursework and interning in schools, plus working half-time.

Getting a doctorate is a completely different experience. By the time of completing your master’s degree, you are in fact an expert in your subject matter. Experts are technically different than the word thrown loosely about on social networks and in lay books and publications. In academia, an expert is defined; in social media, an expert is anyone who claims to be one.

A master’s degree indicates mastery over a subject. Typically master’s degree students write a research thesis, either qualitative or quantitative. Based on approval of a faculty committee, this thesis gives a master’s degree designation.

A doctorate is much the same process but far more in depth. Master’s degree students often do the research of their major professor. Doctoral students may have greater opportunities to do their own research. It depends on the school, the field of study and the professors. Getting a doctorate typically means doing a lengthy – many years, in some cases – research project followed by writing the results of that research, the dissertation.

This process is ultimately hyper-focused. The student is expected to zero in on a topic – or more likely, a subtopic and even more condensed topics within a broad field of research – and study it in depth. The end result is usually a fairly knowledgeable person in one specific area of expertise. This somewhat entertaining list of dissertation titles, from UNR’s Social Psychology Club, gives examples of how specific dissertations can be.

To be continued.

As early as the eighth grade I knew that I wanted to get a higher degree. There was no question, really, just something instilled in me. Having two parents with graduate degrees was likely a huge reason.

Also, growing up in an area that didn’t seem, culturally, to value and advance higher learning, also motivated me to do something more than what I imagined many of my peers would not do – continue in school past K-12.

Getting my bachelor’s degree in 1995 almost put an end to my academic career. I was burned out and job prospects were slim. After 20-some-odd resumes sent out, and rejections or non-responses for each, I was demoralized. After meeting with the then dean of the journalism school at Nevada, who not so politely discouraged me from applying to the graduate journalism program, I placed some amount of blame on my alma mater.

That changed four years later, when I began my masters program.

I ended up getting my masters in 2001, which motivated me to continue two years later into my doctorate. Both are in the education field, but both degrees continued to be inspired by my journalism degree. I ended up in graduate school because of a job opportunity. I had dabbled in education after my bachelors – substitute teaching, being a teacher’s aide – and enjoyed working with the students.

By the time I graduated with my masters, however, I was working at the University. Circumstance led to me getting an assistantship, upon the recommendation of my advisor, doing journalism-based work. I ended up being the public relations arm of a fundraising team for the College of Education. I had a blast, learned a lot and it felt natural. I was hired full time in 2001 working then for another college.

That position led to 10 years of living and breathing administration, leadership and public relations. It wasn’t all pretty but it was a journey worth sharing.

To be continued.

How punk rock evolved as a subculture is a study not free from controversy. Punk, forever ingrained ideologically as anti-mainstream has, since its inception, been granted credibility by the very mainstream it takes strides to loathe. The Sex Pistols, The Clash, and The Ramones, easily the top punk bands of their day, were all on major record labels and achieved relatively high levels of commercial success.

It is, therefore, common for youngsters—usually those filled with angst and rebellion from circumstance, familial fallout, or just normal adolescent restlessness—to get a taste of punk from mainstream culture only to then gravitate toward the aggressive sounds of punk rock also predominant in underground, subcultural circles where, adherents maintain, the more authentic punk rock is found.

For many who make the effort to follow or participate in the underground punk scene, there is available a punk-based intellectualism that is grounded in the anti-authoritarian and Do-It-Yourself ethos offered by punk rock outside of the mainstream of music—punk or otherwise. The music, the message, and the social outlook offered by punk rock can be energizing, attractive, and cause for long term investment for many of punk’s adherents, who play in bands and produce their own magazines, records, and CDs.

The punk-influenced paths of many have led to different callings: politics, activism, education, and, for Dr. Greg Graffin, lead singer of the band Bad Religion, academia. But there has never been a strong, concerted effort to publicly link punk rock and science in the way that Graffin does with his book, co-written by Steve Olsen, Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God.

It’s about time. Graffin, reflecting on his growth as a person inspired by punk rock, details his parallel paths in life: one steeped in fronting Bad Religion, and the other in the academic world as a student, field worker, researcher, and ultimately, a part-time professor. Anarchy Evolution is a document, partly an autobiography, of Graffin’s interest in punk rock that also led to the pursuit of a doctorate in zoology from Cornell University.

Read the rest of this review at Skeptic.com.

Comments like these make me wonder

We hold these beliefs in part because our livelihoods depend upon delivering good publicity and buzz. Despite protests of many in the profession, me included, public relations is not publicity. The common assumption is that it is, though, and it is an assumption with cling to whether or not we outwardly agree with it.

At the end of the day, much of what we do takes the form of publicity, while less visible aspects of our jobs – strategy and planning, for example – frequently go unnoticed. They are aspects of PR that are not nearly as sexy as making our clients look good.

We are our own worst enemies in enhancing this perception. A case in point is the recent PRSA counterpoint to the article about the value of negative publicity in the New York Times. The actual research discussed in the article found that in some instances negative publicity can have a net positive effect on the bottom line, such as increased sales of products despite bad press. Michael Jackson and Seinfeld’s Michael Richards are two convincing examples.

But rather than take on peer-reviewed research, published in the September-October issue of Marketing Science, PRSA instead tossed out red herrings and protested about the NYT article merely because it didn’t like the conclusion – that negative press can actually have a positive effect in some instances.

PRSA’s Garry McCormick responds: “But whereas bad publicity can initiate or rekindle interest in a celebrity, negative publicity is potentially more harmful to a company or brand.”

Guess what? The research article in question says the exact same thing, in so many words. The first line of the article is: “Negative publicity often hurts.”

The research was further clarified:

“Using a combination of experimental methods and econometric analysis, we demonstrate that the effect of negative publicity depends on existing product awareness. Although negative publicity hurt products that already had broad awareness, it helped products that were relatively unknown…”

McCormick, in protesting the NYT article, does not argue the research results (because he can’t); rather, he is protesting what he views has “false stereotypes and myths regarding the value of public relations….” The NYT article barely mentions public relations, if at all, unless McCormick is subtly equating publicity, the topic of the article, to public relations. If so, eyebrows should raise.

He does suggest that “it’s also doubtful that many C.E.O.’s are telling their public-relations staff to help the company’s publicity effort by trashing the brand’s reputation in order to increase sales.” Again, the NYT never suggested such a thing. The protest therefore comes across as off-point and bewildering.

The Marketing Science article was a nice opportunity to advocate for peer-reviewed research in a profession emboldened by feel-good assumptions that need to be challenged; instead, PR responds with unfounded, and characteristic, protests that fail to actually tackle the matter at hand.

Like clockwork, the Environmental Working Group — an apparently well-funded and certainly well-applauded — activist group, which claims to be a scientific research organization of sorts, recently sent out their latest fear-mongering news release around the globe.

This time, sunscreen is not safe for you, according to the reporting in all manner of news media and the blogosphere (with rare exceptions), reporting which was based on EWG’s latest foray into anti-chemical hyperbole.

The devil is in the details, as is usual with EWG. The group excels at generating fear over potential unknowns and minute amounts of chemicals and naturally occurring elements.

Minute concentrations of chemicals and elements may or may not be harmful — frequently, they are not — but that doesn’t stand in the way of EWG’s promotion of the speculative: “Any amount of a chemical must be bad because the chemical itself is bad,” is the position the group exists to make.

Regular readers of The Good, The Bad, The Spin hopefully will remember EWG just months ago promoted a similar perspective, that tap water was harmful to consumers because of trace amounts of chemicals in the water. The group’s pitch was dovetailed nicely by the New York Times, which handily took EWG’s dubious data, republished it without verification by official sources, and was rewarded for this work with an interview on NPR.

The problem at that time is that many water purveyors that were given a black eye by the EWG /New York Times punched back, at one point putting an EWG representative on the defensive. Her response was to encourage consumers to drink bottled water. This was despite the group’s insistence in its previous news release campaign, a year prior, that bottled water was harmful to consumers.

So here we are again.

Neglected or buried in the reporting of EWG’s anti-sunscreen exaggerations is the most salient of points: Sunscreens, which may or may not contain harmful chemicals, are far better for you for what they are designed to do — prevent skin cancer, something that is known and is well-supported by research — than any potential side-effect from what is in sunscreens.

Never mind. The EWG mission was fulfilled. At the end of Susan Carpenter’s rewrite of the EWG news release in the LA Times is this clever dose of salesmanship:

“Most consumers continue to purchase traditional products. Indeed, natural sunscreens currently account for only a tiny percentage of the sun-care market, according to Karen Grant, global industry analyst and vice president of beauty for the NPD Group, a market research firm. ‘It’s still very niche. We haven’t seen a lot of products from the big players in this area,’ said Grant, adding that Bare Escentuals is the only mainstream, high-end sunscreen manufacturer she’s aware of that produces a natural sunscreen.

“Natural products are primarily available online and at specialty stores and grocers such as Whole Foods.”

This of course assumes there is a universally accepted definition of what constitutes natural — there isn’t — and that what we call natural — even if we have no idea what that means — is inherently better for you than what is not called natural.

It also assumes the Environmental Working Group is correct. But when industry is forced to defend itself against EWG’s claims, it probably should not take three guesses as to where objective news reporters will focus their attention.

"In January 1969, as the Nixon administration took office, oil leaking from a well on a Federal Outer Continental Shelf lease in the Santa Barbara Channel off California blackened nearby beaches and threatened marine life. Studies by a task force including Survey geologists and engineers led to new and more stringent operating regulations to prevent or control such incidents in the future. The Santa Barbara oil spill was a catalyst in the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act in January 1970." -- USGS (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1050/age.htm)

At the risk of creating confusion — as I did with the Brand Crisis post, in which my more steadfast critics seemed to confuse observation about crisis response rules with prescriptions for how to respond — times necessitate discussion about brand crises being played out in the media. Most notable of course is the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf.

By most indications, BP is taking complete responsibility, so it is prejudicial to fault, at this point, the handling of the crisis by BP, despite some misstatements by its CEO and other personnel. What we should be concerned about, though, is what led to the devastation we’re seeing.

Like many crises, this one was unforeseen despite warning signs that such an event could occur. We saw this with 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the housing bust of 2007 and the severe economic recession of recent years. Hints that something was to come, or something major could happen, were not sufficiently acted upon until it was too late. What actions occurred seemed inadequate in comparison with the consequences of the crises.

Public response to the BP oil spill is somewhat predictable. Understandable outrage and sadness have ignited passion to the point that reason is being thrown out the window in many instances. If, say, a dramatic boycott of BP were to occur, it would only negatively impact the company’s ability to mitigate the natural resource damage. Already officials are on record saying that BP’s resources are necessary to work to solve the problem; BP, to its credit, has said it will clean up every last drop of oil.

But the situation should have never occurred in the first place. And the reason why it did should cause certain unease among the rational-minded. If we honestly assess what led to the oil spill, we must consider global and historical contexts. After-action reports about this crisis will most certainly fault BP, government agencies and other powers that be for allowing such a technology to be created that had no readily functioning off switch.

But societal pressures, which support corporate productivity and expansion, contribute to these human-influenced disasters. Anthropologists have long cited the size of human systems — the main ones being based around bands and tribes, numbering about 40 to 150 people, for the bulk of human existence — as determinants for societal functioning. The larger the human culture, the more complex it is, which enhances the potential for more devastating problems. Human civilization, what we perceive as a normal fact of life, is an aberrant human system, one with roots only about 10,000 years old as opposed to about a 400 to 250 thousand years of human history.

Spurned by the gradual but widespread conversion of human cultures from tribal organizations to agriculturally based societies has led to remarkable technological advancement, increased food production, fast population growth, the industrial age and, now, technological revolutions.

What’s both fascinating and scary is that human systems are now so large and complex that they are beyond the control of the individual. We can not wish-away the BP crisis, nor can we honestly lay sole blame on the company or federal regulators.

What led to this situation was a rapid evolution of the human condition in relatively recent modern times. Collectively we have consented to our cultural growth beyond the point of easy remedy when problems arise because of the need for that growth, and each of us is a contributor to this process, as each of us is a member of this global, experimental culture — even the most adamant of protesters and critics.

While I do not have a simple remedy, honestly acknowledging how we came to be in the position is perhaps a first step when looking at massive crises. Until then, critiques and suggested solutions will forever be cast in the here-and-now, ignoring the ultimate forces of change that led to the disasters in the first place.

—
Like this post? Buy the book. Available in paperback or as an eBook. Or download the Kindle version.

There’s a nice discussion at Bill Sledzik’s blog about research productivity in the academy. I partly agree and disagree with Bill’s assessment, which is about the value research institutions place on blogging about issues relevant to one’s profession. This is my response to Bill (which has been edited to correct grammar and improve readability).

It is important that regular blogging, with blogs like ToughSledding, be counted toward scholarly activity especially since much else in the journo professions is of far lesser quality coming from various institutions.

On the other side, I think poking fun at research and peer review devalues Bill’s point. The problem isn’t so much that the traditional model, as he puts it, is flawed, it’s that researchers do a poor job of communicating their research results and relevance. Journalism research in particular is in dire need of reaching the masses more than it has. It’s doubtful most journos even known what peer review is or why it is relevant, especially when nonsensical advocacy makes the news far more readily than peer-reviewed science.

Research is an incredibly valuable tool to get at the heart of matters our brains aren’t always best equipped to figure on our own. My take on the 2008 Twitter Vote Report used a t-test to look at Nevada’s TVR output to find that, despite claims of the project, the TVR was, at least in Nevada, meaningless. Sure it wasn’t peer reviewed (had I been on a tenure track, I would have turned it into a full-on study, as social media presents a wealth of readily available data), but using statistical tools can help aid the points we may otherwise make, or perhaps may change our views of things if we are ready to be honest about what our data reveal.

While I think Bill made an excellent case for his blog in the PR/social media world, I’m not sure I can disagree that those who blog and conduct solid research are weakened by joining these endeavors.

It’s perhaps imperative that researchers develop a mindset of communicating the relevance of their work; conversely, bloggers can benefit from research mindsets in order to offer the world higher quality content.
—
Like this post? Buy the book. Available in paperback or as an eBook. Or download the Kindle version.

“Let’s give ‘em something to talk about.”
– Bonnie Raitt

NOTE: This post has been updated, revised and is available in paperbook or ebook.

In 2002 a relatively unknown study about consumer perceptions of food safety was published (1). In it, three researchers discovered a startling point: Given the choice between information delivered by experts and views offered by activists, consumers overwhelmingly sided with negative information, despite the credibility, or lack thereof, of the source.

The study went like this: A sampled audience was given descriptions about the process of food irradiation to examine the effects of how the information was presented. Participants were grouped into ten groups of six to twelve. Each participant received a neutral description of food irradiation based on current scientific literature. Some groups received additional positive information from a consumer education association, other groups received negative information from a consumer advocacy group and finally, the rest of the groups received both the positive and negative information about food irradiation.

The results showed that “even though the scientific evidence is favorable, claims by opponents, even if they are inaccurate and only suggest potential risks, will tend to reduce consumer demand” (p. 192). Negative information, in other words, dominated the test subjects’ perceptions leading to changed perceptions of food irradiation that disfavored the scientific information.

The researchers concluded:

“The surprising result is that when we presented both positive and negative information simultaneously, the negative information clearly dominated. This was true even though the source of the negative information was identified as being a consumer advocacy group and the information itself was written in a manner that was non-scientific.”

The public, therefore, is more easily swayed by emotional appeals and potentially misleading or incorrect information from non-scientific sources even when expressed simultaneously with scientific information.

* * *

Nearly four weeks ago an email was sent nationwide. In it, a New York Times reporter, Charles Duhigg, was asking representatives of state agencies to submit “any and all” data pertaining to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act for the years 1998 to the present. The data request would, at least for Nevada, amount to 1.5 to 2 million data points.

The asked-for deadline was November 30, eight days later.

What was not indicated in this email was that the reporter was already working with data from both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental Working Group. EPA information is fairly extensive and available online. The Environmental Working Group and its data appear to be another matter entirely.

The same day the resulting drinking-water-quality story was released and published in the New York Times (yesterday), EWG sent a solicitation email requesting donations from its supporters. It was signed and promoted by Bonnie Raitt and Erin Brockovich, who both apparently had the time to read the lengthy New York Times story, examine its data and sidebars and also craft and deliver a colorfully designed message to supporters by 9:21 a.m. PST.

In the email, both say that the EWG’s release of information was with the New York Times.

“I’m blown away by everything EWG does. Just this past week, they released, with The New York Times, the latest update to their National Drinking Water Database. You can use the database to look up the chemical pollutants in your tap water and learn what you can do to protect your family against them. Who would do all this research if EWG wasn’t around?” [Emphasis in original text.]

Actual researchers, that’s who. It turns out what EWG does is not research, not subject to the benefits of peer-review and apparently has little basis in reality. But that doesn’t stop the group from being well-funded and well connected.

EWG has a history of inflammatory public relations tactics that, generally, appear to be well received. (It should be noted that the group’s executive editor, Nils Bruzelius, is a member of the National Association of Science Writers, which maintains as its constitution a principle to “foster the dissemination of accurate information regarding science and technology in keeping with the highest standards of journalism.”)

What sets apart this situation was that the New York Times was using the Environmental Working Group’s data for its story, despite warnings from others, such as the American Council on Science and Health, about EWG’s repeated scare tactics and misleading claims.

Despite the tenor of the stories – EPA regulations are not enough to protect average consumers from what EWG calls a “cocktail of contamination” and what the Times calls “toxic waters” – both draw dubious conclusions.

The Times, using EWG’s data for only two years, claims that Truckee Meadows Water Authority has exceeded legal limits of both arsenic and tetrachloroethylene. Yet, records clearly show TMWA has never exceeded legal limits nor has it had health-based violations, “especially for arsenic,” according to TMWA’s Paul Miller(2).

That does not stop the Times from making the claim that “communities where the drinking water has contained chemicals that are associated with health risks include Scottsdale, Ariz.; El Paso, Tex., and Reno, Nev. Test results analyzed by the Times show their drinking water has contained arsenic at concentrations that have been associated with cancer.”

The New York Times’ use of data supplied by an activist group that has a well-documented history for misusing scientific information, and which has an obvious agenda, has contributed to a firestorm of media coverage not just here in the Truckee Meadows, but all around the country as water purveyors have scrambled to counter the misinformation supplied by EWG and lapped up by the news media.

And this is exactly what the Environmental Working Group wants.

Bonnie Raitt and Erin Brockovich spell it out:

“(EWG is) not afraid to shake things up if that’s what it takes to give people the information they need to make this world a better place.”

Even if it means using scare tactics and the peddling of misinformation. EWG likes to send out inflammatory news releases, but when countered on claims, or called onto the carpet for withholding information about its motives, suddenly the group gets more honest – or nasty – about its intentions.

An EWG representative summed it up:

“We’re trying to move Congress and the EPA to set tougher standards for drinking water across the country so we don’t end up with situations where people drink water with 10, 20 or 30 different contaminants in it, and have the authorities say that that’s safe.”

Meanwhile scientists and regulators are forced to counter a glut of irresponsible claims while consumers watch perplexed, wondering if in fact their water is safe to drink. If the food irradiation research study of 2002 is any indication, consumers are more likely to be swayed by EWG’s fear mongering.

It’s the consequence of misinformation.

* * *

This series of posts, called “And they call US spin doctors?” examines how business-as-usual journalism is fraught with potentials for misinformation, leading to the conclusion that information shapers of all stripes — in particular, reporters and their editors — are unwittingly, or not, significant players in the process of misleading the public. The series is extensively researched and uses real-life, current examples of news outlets deliberately misconstruing news to be more salacious. The series runs for six weeks. Read part 1, 2 and 3.

Sources

(1) Hayes, D. J., Fox, J. A. & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Experts and activists: How information affects the demand for food irradiation [Electronic version]. Food Policy, 27, 185-193.

(2) Information was taken from emails and a personal conversation with TMWA’s Paul Miller, who said that the New York Times data are definitely incorrect. Paul said he spoke with the Times reporter, Charles Duhigg, who was trying to verify a number about arsenic. Paul’s response: Prior to 2006, the TMWA system-wide average was just over 3 ppb (parts per billion) when the arsenic regulations were a limit of 50 ppb. The regulations were then changed to the current standard of 10 ppb. Paul said the system-wide average is now just under 3 ppb, but the New York Times chart shows TMWA’s “average result” to be 7.09 ppb (EWG claims it is 7.06 ppb). The Times also only shows data from 2004 and 2005, when the limit was 50 ppb, even though the legal limit listed by the Times is the current limit of 10 ppb.

Like this post? Buy the book!

Available in paperback ($18.98) or as an eBook ($7.49).