Civility in Research

[BobbyO]

I'm sure some of you will appreciate this, whilst maybe some other may not, no names mentioned..;)

 

https://www.sigmaxi.org/news/article/2016/10/03/civility-in-research 

Civility in Research

October 03, 2016

Researchers, being people, have the frailties of all human beings. Some are tempted to indulge in ad-hominem personal attacks, reputational smears, bullying, name-calling, and defamation. This unpleasant underside of research is more than embarrassing and confusing to the public. Uncivil behavior is an obstacle to progress in science. 

The origin of the expectations for researchers’ behavior lies in the privileged social status of those who practiced science in past centuries. Science was once a gentlemanly avocation, pursued almost exclusively by men of a privileged and wealthy upper or middle class. Such people, it was assumed, would never think of violating the code of honesty, integrity, and personal rectitude expected of a “gentleman.” 

The democratization and globalization of research in the late 19th century and through the 20th century was profoundly good and necessary, but class-based assumptions of “gentlemanly” behavior lost some of their force. In a pluralistic, skeptical (sometimes cynical), and increasingly competitive world, appropriate behavior cannot be taken for granted.  

One might think that comportment would not matter—that science, being objective, could easily rise above crude and prejudicial behavior and dysfunctional relationships—or that personal conflict might even enhance critical acuity in research. Uncivil behavior, however, is not just unpleasant; it can be highly destructive for science. Personalizing a difference of opinion tends to shut down rational discourse, puts up barriers to discussion, and raises defensiveness. 

A historical example of how uncivil behavior interferes with science was the alienation of Hugh Sinclair, the Oxford scientist whose predilection for spite arguably set back the field of human nutrition in the 1950s. A more recent example is the “nano-imaging feud” in which a dispute over interpretation of an image at the limits of resolution led to personal attacks in the blogosphere and recriminations. And, of course, there is constant, egregious, vituperative name-calling over climate science, directed toward anyone with the temerity to study the topic. 

Certainly, such behavior is profoundly dispiriting and misleading to students and trainees, and it gives ammunition to those who question science’s special role as a way of knowing the material world. The research community, however, cannot deal with uncivil behavior the way it deals with misbehavior and fraud. Uncivil behavior in research, like unruly speech in a democracy, occurs in a privileged and protected space that allows unrestricted free expression; liberty is always the higher value.

Researchers continue to assume that civility in science will be learned passively by diffusion. This is a naïve assumption. We must actively teach our students and each other by example about responsibility and civility in relationships in research, not only because it makes life more pleasant but also because boorish behavior holds back the advancement of science and engineering. 

- See more at: https://www.sigmaxi.org/news/article/2016/10/03/civility-in-research#sthash.8R5tfXGX.dpuf

Edited October 7, 2016 by BobbyO
change font size

[MIB]

"Bite me!"                                            <-- supposed to be ironic humor, not offense!

 

... but seriously, yes, the lack of civility is a serious hurdle to progress.   There is something positive to be said about a politely skeptical contingent that brings up the questions and doubts that could otherwise be glossed over and ignored but really are important.   The snarky, ridiculing scoftic cadre do not.   Their purpose is not to improve the research but to derail it.   They're fairly effective.   On the other hand, by the forum guidelines, this is a discussion forum, not a research forum, so jackwagons that disrupt progress my irritate the membership but so long as they keep the keys clicking, they meet the management objective.  

 

MIB

Edited October 7, 2016 by MIB

[hiflier]

Comportment is vital to progress. Eliciting the help of scientists working in the same field as well as those in various other disciplines do help promote a focus on subjects that involve multi-disciplinary interests. In fighting creates roadblocks where scientists sometimes find themselves working in isolation. The gentleman who proposed the mega flood across the PacNW because of a giant lake that let go via melting comes to mind here. 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

6 hours ago, hiflier said:

Comportment is vital to progress. Eliciting the help of scientists working in the same field as well as those in various other disciplines do help promote a focus on subjects that involve multi-disciplinary interests. In fighting creates roadblocks where scientists sometimes find themselves working in isolation. The gentleman who proposed the mega flood across the PacNW because of a giant lake that let go via melting comes to mind here. 

There was a mega flood, it's a science fact, assumed to be your meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz

Edited October 8, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[hiflier]

Yes, CM, that was my meaning. because his peers shunned the idea and him along with it any research into the event had to wait for decades. Was he the one that told his son he had outlived all of his former detractors or was that someone else?

[Guest giantman]

I agree with the general thrust of the OP and it worries me not only in this field of Bigfoot research but in research in general.  The scientific method of inquiry IS warped and damaged by our human ego's, by dishonesty, and by the need to prove ones own position based on feeling threatened emotionally and not just based on the facts.  I think we all do it to some extent and it is the elephant in the room in most debates and MANY internet forum discussions.  People tend to hide all of this behind the pretense of logic....

 

I think civility is a great starting point but honestly if the underlying motives behind incivility are not rooted out then much of the problem will still remain, but just hidden better.  In order for our sciences to flourish we all need to grow spiritually, or psychologically and emotionally if you prefer.

[MIB]

Growth .. perhaps correct.    Perhaps "orientation" of a sort.

 

There's a difference between participation for personal curiosity and understanding vs participation for personal gain of one form or another.   Gain could be monetary, gain could be fame, a need for oneupsmanship, or gain could even be restoring lost reputation or a need to "in your face" to those who've ridiculed you.   Not everyone is truly honest with themselves about their motives.  

 

MIB

[hiflier]

It's the Human condition. It is often said that we have better technology but that doesn't translate into making US better. As a creature we have not really changed all that much. So we have to make laws to control us. A world without laws would mean we had turned the corner and reached the next level of our evolution. Altruism would be the rule of thumb in that kind of society. We have a looooong way to go in that and I doubt out animal side could ever become completely reversed in that manner. Would that dynamic turn us all into Mr. Spocks where we are governed and conduct ourselves through pure logic? I don't think so.

[Guest Waggles]

This article is silly, even when it was a"gentlemanly Pursuit",which meant people have the money and time to pursue it which was basically a college education back then which was confined to the upper class for the most part, there were still huge disagreements it was just socially unacceptable to go outside certain parameters of social behavior but there's always been disagreements and still are too many theoretical constructs. but I'm glad Bigfoot is winning this one humans are too stupid to deal with Bigfoot much less the science of anthropology now has been degraded so badly by political correctness for the past 20 years it's basically a religious orientation not a true science any longer it's up for the few of us who are interested in the true science which leads to Politically Incorrect conclusionsto try to maintain at least a smidgen of scientific integrity LPS unfortunately we must be Underground or at least those who are in the mainstream Academia have to do all this Underground because attracting attention is a sure way to lose one's job and even tenure has been threatened going against the grain of what our University tenure is supposed to be for, if one is lucky enough to have it.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

When the ego gets involved it's usually downhill for there.

I guess civility is a way to keep from dragging one's own ego or the egos of others into the fray.

By the time your emotions get involved any response will be the wrong response.

 

Time heals all wounds and wounds all heels as my Gram used to say.

 

[JustCurious]

Civility is lacking in more areas than just science!  I actually belong to an organization that facilitates civil conversation between people of opposing views and it's amazing what comes out in the course of a dialogue.  BUT, it is something that is taught and facilitated, so I wholeheartedly agree that it is something that needs to be taught.  I could go on and on about this topic, but I won't.

 

I agree with the points made by MIB and hiflier because it echoes my thoughts.  In my experience, people mistake civility for agreement.  It is entirely possible that there can be disagreement and civility.  Civility is more a matter of how people interact rather than an outcome.  And expressing why you think the way you do about a subject can be very enlightening because of the introspection required.  Civility also requires a deeper level of listening to the other, which doesn't happen in the usual "I'm right, you're wrong" mindset. 

 

I find especially interesting those who have such a compulsion to fix others that they come to the BFF to argue with those who are proponents. 

[FarArcher]

Civility.  Comportment.  Mannerly.

 

All overrated.

[Guest giantman]

18 hours ago, JustCurious said:

Civility is lacking in more areas than just science!  I actually belong to an organization that facilitates civil conversation between people of opposing views and it's amazing what comes out in the course of a dialogue.  BUT, it is something that is taught and facilitated, so I wholeheartedly agree that it is something that needs to be taught.  I could go on and on about this topic, but I won't.

 

I agree with the points made by MIB and hiflier because it echoes my thoughts.  In my experience, people mistake civility for agreement.  It is entirely possible that there can be disagreement and civility.  Civility is more a matter of how people interact rather than an outcome.  And expressing why you think the way you do about a subject can be very enlightening because of the introspection required.  Civility also requires a deeper level of listening to the other, which doesn't happen in the usual "I'm right, you're wrong" mindset. 

 

I find especially interesting those who have such a compulsion to fix others that they come to the BFF to argue with those who are proponents. 

 

I've even all but given up on the idea of debate.  I have found that conversation where each side is genuinely interested in gaining insight into the others viewpoints is much more productive.  On the part in red-- I almost never even engage with people who are arguing against something I know to be true or real.  I love to hear peoples perspectives but dislike arguing against them.  Its just not worth my own time or theirs either.  

 

 

[hiflier]

On ‎10‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 6:39 AM, JustCurious said:

I find especially interesting those who have such a compulsion to fix others that they come to the BFF to argue with those who are proponents

 

One can perhaps assume that's the true purpose of it  Most of us doubt it. Nice of you to give those folks the benefit of the doubt though. 

8 hours ago, giantman said:

I've even all but given up on the idea of debate.  I have found that conversation where each side is genuinely interested in gaining insight into the others viewpoints is much more productive.  On the part in red-- I almost never even engage with people who are arguing against something I know to be true or real.  I love to hear peoples perspectives but dislike arguing against them.  Its just not worth my own time or theirs either.  

 

And all too often I've seen the grudge factor as the outcome. There may be some commonalities between this thread and the recent one I've started to get to the bottom of why the subject of Sasquatch has been virtually held back. Sure there are pockets of folks good doing things but it would appear that the reason folks are giving for the lack of progress is because in the past there was early incivility among the early pioneering investigators. Something I dare say is NOT a valid reason for today's state of affairs.  

[JustCurious]

On 10/9/2016 at 11:28 PM, FarArcher said:

Civility.  Comportment.  Mannerly.

 

All overrated.

 

I'm very curious about what your experience has been that leads you to think these attributes are overrated.  Can you expound upon this post?