Political science exploded in the news as a grad student and senior prof wrote a piece that made big news and then was revealed (allegedly, apparently, insert legal modifier here) to be fradulent.*
* Indeed, I need to insert a caveat here–I have read the retraction letter and related materials but not the original article nor is this in my area of expertise. I am just discussing what it means for other folks in this business.
The student may have falsfied data, altering existing data rather than doing the work he was supposed to have done–surveys, etc. That the issue involved was attitudes about gays only makes it more salacious and salient for observers. That it happens when the social science funding for the National Science Foundation is under attack makes it ever worse.
For me, the questions being raised about co-authors and advisers are the ones that concern me. Some folks are saying that this guy’s adviser and/or co-author failed the discipline by not discovering the fraud.
My problem with this is: what do we expect advisers and co-authors to do? As I have been in all four spots here (the co-author joining a project, the guy asking folks to join a project, the advisee and the adviser), I have to think a bit about this. So, I am thinking aloud and hoping to figure out via discussion here what one should reasonably expect.
- The point of co-authoring is to have a division of labor so that the various folks involved are not duplicating the efforts of the other(s) that much. One does not expect one’s co-author to lie/cheat/steal or else one would not choose that person. Engaging in intensive oversight over co-authors makes little sense (back to that in a second).
- The job of an adviser is to train, direct and provide feedback. Certainly, the adviser should foster the proper norms/values as well as read the work of the advisee with care, but the relationship involves trust. I didn’t ask my students to provide me with plane tickets, hotel bills, photos of interviews, nor did I plumb the dark depths of their datasets. I did read their work to make sure that their efforts were sound and such, but it again is a relationship of trust. One tries to verify but only to a modest degree.
If one wants to condemn this guy’s advisers and co-authors, I have to ask: what would you have them do? Be on the phone (via teleconferencing) for every or many or some conversations the student has with the survey firm? To attend every, many, some of the focus groups? To travel with and observe the interviews?
This fraud was revealed because other students wanted to use the data and once they worked with it extensively, it became clear that there is something wrong. They notified the adviser and the co-author, both pressed the student to explain, the student provided inadequate explanations. This might all have been ugly, but the system kind of worked.
The point really is that fire alarm forms of oversight are largely reactive and public. Someone notices a problem that already happened, complains, and then folks react. That this system is in place serves as a deterrent in so far as a person’s academic career is trashed if they do something that activates the alarm.
If we used police patrol oversight–constant patrolling and monitoring–we might be better able to deter, but at the cost of much time and money (grant money for profs to accompany students while they are doing field work?) This kind of oversight can be more quiet (or not) and can be more preventative.
We, of course, really do not know enough to judge much of this. But we can think about the process and how we could do it better. Just as some are thinking more today about the pressures facing grad students to publish quickly.
One other thing: what about the money? This was supposedly funded research so either the student didn’t really have the money to do the work OR did but didn’t spend on the survey firm which raises the question of what did he spend the money on OR the money is still sitting in a research account. And, yes, this is a big deal. Fraud over ideas? Bad. Fraud over ideas and abusing research accounts? Much worse–as it brings in cops, auditors, IRS, etc, etc.
If anyone has suggestions of how to mentor better or co-author better yet not foster distrust, post in the comments.
I’m a physical scientist and never have been a professor, but I have supervised a number of graduate research projects. Those projects were always part of my overall work, which usually was oriented to a practical result.
Physical science is subject to dry-labbing from the determination of the period of a pendulum in Physics 101. Sometimes, as in that case, it’s easier than actually making the measurements, but another attraction is that you get the “right” answer, which seems to have been the case with LaCour. Probably his data manipulation was at least as much work as actually getting his own data.
Both when I was a graduate student and with my own students, we had regular group meetings in which progress was reported. That was then subject to general discussion.
When we were ready for a publication, I or another senior person worked with the student to get things together. I would review the student’s work in more or less detail, depending on how many others were involved. That might include reworking calculations, and it always involved talking to the student. I would talk to the other senior scientists involved, who often were co-authors.
What is reported to have been done in this case would be difficult to pick up on that last review alone. But the continuing group meetings would have helped to raise alarms that something off-kilter was in progress.
Honestly, what’s wrong with an adviser or a senior co-author sitting in on some phone conferences or focus groups? Even just one? In this case, it likely would have made all the difference. As a junior faculty member who supervises undergraduate research assistants, I consider it my job to look over the data they produce, at least to spot-check it, and to deal with any issues that arise. Yes, it takes time, but it’s part of my job as a mentor. It also has little to do with trust and a lot to do with recognizing that students are still students and they make mistakes. Take away the hubris that comes with being a Ph.D. student (or a Ph.D. student’s adviser) at an elite institution and the situation here is the same. Likewise, a senior co-author should have much the same responsibility. I’d be more forgiving of the co-author here if he were a fellow Ph.D. student who didn’t grasp the need for due diligence in working with a co-author from another institution.
If a senior faculty member doesn’t have even one hour to set aside to attend one teleconference, focus group, or to examine the raw data provided by a grad student they’re working with, then they shouldn’t be working with that grad student. Full stop. I’m sorry if that means that senior faculty at elite programs can’t continue to tack their names onto dozens of publications at a time. But isn’t it worth it if it makes the discipline as a whole stronger?