May 4, 2007

Fending Off Attacks on Social Science

Hillary Anger Elfenbein recently had her research praised by Army officials as potentially providing insights that would be useful to U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Someone who spent any time studying her research would know that. But Republican lawmakers who apparently didn’t study it (let alone call Elfenbein for an explanation) instead tried to mock the work, and to bar the National Science Foundation from continuing a grant to support it.

Looking for a job?

See all 237 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,501
Administrative: 1,715
Executive: 162
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

Why? Apparently because its title — “Accuracy in the cross-cultural understanding of others’ emotions” — struck them as silly. So with no advance warning, Elfenbein found out that the merits of her research would be discussed on the floor of the House of Representatives Wednesday. In the last Congress, Republicans used this approach to bar funds for research projects they didn’t like or to push federal agencies not to support it, and while the bans were generally lifted later in the legislative process, the action was widely condemned by scholarly groups as anti-intellectual and disruptive to the peer review process.

This year, the social scientists under attack fared better. The House rejected two proposals that would have barred NSF funds from going to a series of grants in the social sciences. The votes came in consideration of legislation to reauthorize the NSF and to create new research and education programs. While there is some quibbling about the exact way to improve the NSF, there is broad bipartisan support for most of the goals of the overall bill.

The attacks on social science projects that had been approved through peer review led various disciplinary organizations to send out alerts to members this week, rallying support. In fact that’s how Elfenbein — a University of California at Berkeley psychology — found out about the questions being raised about her studies.

Rep. John Campbell, a California Republican, cited the budget deficit in going after the social science research, including Elfenbein’s work as well as studies on bison hunting and on sexual politics in Dakar.

“I am sure that some believe that these are very fine academic studies. That’s excellent. Within the realms of academic halls, they may think a number of things are fine academic studies. That’s not the question,” Campbell said on the House floor. “The question before us is, do these things rise to the standard of requiring expenditures of taxpayer funds in a time of deficits, proposed tax increases and raiding Social Security funds?”

Leading the opposition to Campbell was Rep. Brian Baird, a Washington State Democrat who formerly was a psychology professor at Pacific Lutheran University. He stressed the role of peer review and the necessity of actually knowing about the research grants being discussed.

“Prohibiting specific grants sets a dangerous precedent for scientific research that has progressed and advanced for decades through freedom of inquiry into a broad spectrum of subjects,” he said. “While Congressional oversight of federal programs is, of course, important, second-guessing peer review in this way could compromise the fabric of our public research enterprise one thread at a time.”

Baird also offered his guess that Campbell would be surprised to find out that the Army has praised Elfenbein’s research. “When you look at a cursory examination of the title, or an abstract, you don’t have an idea. That’s why we have peer review,” Baird said. “Which particular study am I talking about? I’m talking about the Study of the Accuracy of Cross Cultural Understanding of Others’ Emotions. What we are talking about here is if you’re going to be dealing with people from another culture, and you misread their expression of emotions, it can cost you your life, your buddies their life, or the innocent civilians their lives.... I wonder if the gentleman had looked at chemistry research or physics research in the same way, and do we really want to spend this body’s time, and do you, sir, or you, sir, have the expertise to evaluate these studies? That’s why we have a peer-review process.”

Campbell’s press office did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Howard Silver, executive director of the Consortium of Social Science Associations, said it was “gratifying” to see the research grants protected by Congress this year. Silver said that social scientists face these problems because lawmakers think they can understand a project from its title — something they generally concede they can’t do in the sciences.

Silver joked that he imagines his counterparts in the physical sciences facing a phone call from a member of Congress demanding to know “what is this quark stuff?” but such calls won’t come. “They don’t touch that because they don’t understand it,” he said.

The added irony of Elfenbein as a target is that her work not only is being used by the Army, but can benefit American businesses. An assistant professor of organizational behavior and industrial relations at Berkeley’s business school, Elfenbein said the underlying premise of her work is that while all people have emotions, different cultures express them in different ways. While that may seem simple enough, many people don’t know the signals people may give to indicate anger, fear, excitement or other feelings. Her work involves comparing the way members of different groups generally express certain feelings, not just with words, but with body language, inflections and other movements.

In the corporate world, especially an increasingly multicultural one, this is important for managers to understand. For the military, she said this is especially important with military forces deployed in regions where they do not speak the language, and where the military faces a shortage of translators. “People need to figure out — at the most basic level — are those they are seeing friends or foes?”

Elfenbein is pleased that the House didn’t try to kill support for her work, but she’s angry that no one called to ask her about it. “If anyone had called, I would been happy to explain what this is about,” she said. And she finds herself questioning the way she handled the title of her project. She said that she tried to make it as colloquial as possible, so people could understand, but wonders if that was the best strategy.

For now, she feels relief. “I wouldn’t want anyone else to experience what I did yesterday,” she said.

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

sustaining the information commons

coming to this really late and I doubt if any of the original players are still reading this, but in the interests of future browsers I’ll add a couple of thoughts on Buzz’s remarks, that I don’t think came up in the original flurry of comments back in the spring:

First, I don’t know offhand but I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of major international corporations do in fact pay their fair share of consultants for such things as cross-cultural communication and political risk assessment. The now-popular academic term “glocalization” was, after all, an import from the international marketing strategies of major Japanese firms, interested in tailoring their products and services to diverse markets. But those consultants no doubt benefit from the very public intellectual culture of university research on those topics (just as R&D workers in IT, biotech and pharma benefit from academic research). Thus it isn’t out of line to think that taxpayers might want to contribute a small share (and it is vanishingly small) of their tax dollar to social-scientific research, to maintain a small part of the information commons that makes U.S. corporations innovative and competitive.

Second (and this is something I do know a bit about from first-hand experience), I think you’d be surprised at just how much grant-supported academic research in the so-called “hard” sciences ends up being murky, indeterminate, and utterly irrelevant to immediate practical concerns in U.S. society. That isn’t to say that some day they might not be relevant, but for a lot of pure research, don’t hold your breath.

Disembodied Heretic, assistant professor at a small research university, at 12:40 pm EDT on September 13, 2007

This study is timely.

Charles O, at 6:25 am EDT on May 4, 2007

Lacking logic?

As a political independent authentically concerned about the financially-questionable use of U.S. bonds in Social Security — I found the following creating significant doubts:

” .. In the corporate world, especially an increasingly multicultural one, this is important for managers to understand ..”

If such research is so important for Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, et al. — why aren’t they paying for the research?

Why should those not directly benefiting from such research, pay for such research?

Does that sound fair? Doubtful.

Buzz, at 7:00 am EDT on May 4, 2007

Ignorant political attacks on research grants

Australia suffers a similar affliction, often provoked by simplistic attacks by right wing newspaper columnists. Most recently the previous minister for science Brendan Nelson, currying favour with the right wing extremists in his conservative party, blocked several humanities grants which the philistines couldn’t understand and thus assumed to be either worthless or socialist.

These attacks always seem to come from the right wing; why don’t the left wing politicians complain about funding for neo liberal economic studies?

Gavin, Principal Policy Adviser at Griffith University, Australia, at 7:30 am EDT on May 4, 2007

Studies of differences between cultures and their expectations—even simple features of their varying nonverbal behaviors such as expressions of courtesy and respect, can be enormously helpful in international relations, particularly in relating to non-European cultures. A major feature of American culture is vaguely or frankly negative attitude toward intellectuals as impractical (except scientists who developed teflon, Tang, and cellphone—thanks guys). George Wallace got mileage out of his line about pointy headed intellectuals who can’t even park a bicycle straight (not sure what advantage there is in parking a bicycle that way anyway).

But social scientists also have done silly research demonstrating beyond a doubt that ugly women are rated unattractive by byth ugly and handsome men. It’s hard to take people like that very seriously.

Maybe the social scientists need take a leaf out the PR strategists’ book, and market and package their results—basically translate their findings from the dense language of academe—so as to be understood by the congress, who mostly went to law school.

a social scientst (psychology), at 7:50 am EDT on May 4, 2007

Does that sound fair?

Yes... and the whole complaint that legislative critiques of how public money is spent interferes with the peer review process is ludicrous, at best (and elitist to say the least). If universities, faculty, researchers, corporations, etc. don’t want the people’s representatives to question how the people’s money is spent, refuse the funds and pay for it out of their own pocket. The sense of entitlement here among individuals/organizations receiving public funds is quite disturbing.

K.T., at 9:55 am EDT on May 4, 2007

Republicans pandering to the lowest common denominator

This is nothing more than the current trend of Republicans to garner support among constituents by being increasingly anti-intellectual. The belief is that blue collar voters won’t support representitives who appear to be overly literate—thus do we have attacks on funding for the social sciences, the arts, and for any hard science that these politicians of limited education and no understanding deem to be questionable. Theodore Roosevelt—historian and intellectual in addition to Republican President—must be rolling in his grave.

Scott, at 9:55 am EDT on May 4, 2007

Attack on Social Sciences?

Well, none of this surprises me. One would think that those who attacked Prof Elfenbein’s research would at least take the time to study it, or humbly acknowledge that they were in no position to intelligently assess her work.

And if it is primarily the conservative politicians who oppose her work, one would imagine that they have at least a few conservative scholars well paid by right wing think tanks who are at least capable of reading the work which they wish to trash.

The social scientist mentions the anti-intellectualism of the politicians. Unfortunately, this is a prejudice deeply rooted in American culture, one which sometimes begets a crusading, militant ignorance that is frightening to those committed to the creative intellect.

Too many American political leaders, especially (though not exclusively) on the Right, seem to feel that critical intelligence is subversive.

Contrary to Socrates, who thought that the unexamined life was not worth living, our politicos (and not only them, but they run the country) are people who, as Bertrand Russell observed, “would rather die than think.”

PHILOSOPHER in Baltimore, at 9:55 am EDT on May 4, 2007

What’s Fair?

“Buzz” questions whether it’s fair for someone who does not benefit directly from research to be expected to help pay for it. Let’s see now. Suppose that Buzz is a healthy person, so perhaps he shouldn’t be expected to help support NIH research on cancer. Then suppose Buzz is suddenly diagnosed with a life-threatening cancer. Would he argue that he then should be presented with a bill for his share (as a patient) of the cost of all the research on his disease that NIH has funded? I could imagine that bill running to hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.

My point, obviously, is that our societal investment in research is rather like buying insurance on one’s home. The knowledge that research yields almost certainly will benefit all of us, directly or indirectly and sooner or later. To expect any individual or organization to support only research that will directly and immediately benefit them could have catastrophic consequences.

Don Langenberg, Chancellor Emeritus at University System of Maryland, at 11:10 am EDT on May 4, 2007

The Accuracy of Cross Cultural Understanding of Others’ Research

One of the negative consequences of this kind of political posturing and the defensive response to it is to lose the distinction between applied and basic research. We rush to the defense of research with hints or claims of its applicability, when that is not the point at all. The government, foundations, universities, and etc., have to fund basic research because, in the end, applied research is based in it. Peer review may be flawed in some ways, but it is the best system we have to take risks on the frontiers of knowledge.

An aside, in the “debate” among ten candidates for the Republican Party Presidential nomination last night, three announced that they do not “believe” in evolution. Will questioning of grants in biology, geology and paleontology be next?

Keith Johnson, at 11:10 am EDT on May 4, 2007

Intellectual Twaddle Questioned

Republican lawmakers are the last people on

earth who should question spending money for spurious projects.

However, no one reading this list of comments can honestly support much of the dross which is proposed by minor intellects in our universities.

Too often these research “studies” are stalking horses for a bit of $$ support or an attempt to bulk up a skinny curriculim vitae.

Hubert Smith, at 11:10 am EDT on May 4, 2007

Cross-Cultural Studies

Don’t you get it? If we start UNDERSTANDING our enemies, we might want to stop KILLING them. We wouldn’t want THAT, now, would we?

kgotthardt, at 12:10 pm EDT on May 4, 2007

“Why should those not directly benefiting from such research, pay for sucy research? Does that sound fair?”

Hey, Buzz and K.T.! I love your logic. By the way, I don’t have any kids, so why am I forced to pay school taxes? If I agree to put out any fires that may break out in my house or protect myself against criminals or forgo the borrowing of books, may I stop paying taxes to support the fire department, the police and the county library system? And, while we’re on the subject, if I’d rather not have that which is currently occupying the White House preside over what is left of America or support the lunacy that the U. S. military is continuing in the Middle East, how’s about cutting me a break on my federal taxes? We are a society, for crying out loud. We don’t get to pick and choose where the dollars go to suit ourselves. Otherwise, why even have a society and a government! Get real!

Yrs., E. A., at 12:35 pm EDT on May 4, 2007

Amen, Hubert

Amen,Hubert,

The Republicans are indeed the anti-intellectual party, the modern knownothings. On the other hand, the fact that the US Army likes this person’s study should be a cautionary signal — are these the same army officials that support the illegal war in Iraq? Or who believe in the surge?

D Scott, at 2:10 pm EDT on May 4, 2007

Where were these courses when I needed them?

Some other interesting course titles...

1. Lessons from Lost: A Case Study — Vanderbilt University

2. The Textual Appeal of Tupac Shakur — University of Washington

3. Pornography: The Writing of Prostitutes — Wesleyan University

4. The Science of Superheroes — University of California-Irvine

5. Media & Society: Fake News, Politics & Public Policy — New York University

6. Super Smash Brothers Theory and Practice — Experimental College, Oberlin College

7. Muppet Magic: Jim Henson’s Art — University of California-Santa Cruz

8. Invented Languages: Klingon and Beyond — University of Texas-Austin

9. The Phallus, Critical Theory, and Social Justice — Occidental College

10. Reading Nation and Empire: Hip Hop Eshu, Queeb Bitch Lyricism — Syracuse University

Kevin, at 4:50 pm EDT on May 4, 2007

Apples v. oranges

” .. shouldn’t be expected to help support NIH research on cancer ..”

To be clear: Cancer involves HARD science.

“Cultural” issues involve SOFT, frequently-indeterminate research.

Big difference, to those off the taxpayers’ dime.

Interested in soft-science? One is free to invest one’s own money — and, possibly become rich.

Looking forward to seeing a stampede of academics investing their TIAA-CREF funds in cultural research. That would show real intent and purpose.

Buzz, at 4:50 pm EDT on May 4, 2007

To address the question of why businesses aren’t paying for this research: You do not want companies with conflicts of interest paying for all research. This would produce biased, shoddy research, and would eventually put people’s well being at risk. It may not be a perfect system, but research itself if there to explore possibilities and to add to the understanding of the world. Even if it isn’t directly and currently applicable to the average citizen at this very moment doesn’t mean that 20 years down the road it would become the cornerstone of a new drug, new policy, or new industry. That is how research works: it is the building upon the foundations of others that have published before you that produces the breakthroughs that make out lives better. To cut funding would be short-sighted, to say the least.

An academic librarian, at 4:50 pm EDT on May 4, 2007

Democrats Pander to the stupidest common denominator

Where would be without studies? The fact of the matter is many of these studies are laughable and if universities had to pay for them out of their own pockets, they would not. Many studies, especially in the social sciences, do little to advance our knowledge on any subject, at time thwart what we already know. Mencken once said that an intellectual is a person who will say a stupid thing..twice. Some of these studies prove that in spades.

Pundit, at 7:05 pm EDT on May 4, 2007

Elfenbein is selling science to the Pentagon

I love this story because it highlights just what reactionary nutjobs the Reblicans are.

Here we find Hillary Anger Elfenbein, who might well be accused of engaging in unethical research (given the obvious outcome that the Pentagon will take her research and use it to decide who should and who shouldn’t get headshots from their 19 year old snipers), and what do the Republican’s do? They decide to try and take her down as if she we’re doing their own slimey war mongering bidding.

You’ve got to love this country!

Sgt. Truth, at 7:05 pm EDT on May 4, 2007

Still apples v. oranges ..

” .. To address the question of why businesses aren’t paying ..”

Really? Then —

* Labs such Microsoft Research and IBM Labs (where my uncle allegedly worked for 30 years) do not actually exist —

http://research.microsoft.com/

http://www.research.ibm.com/

* Agencies of the government do not actually buy research —

http://www.arl.army.mil/main/Main/default.htm

Again — if academic librarians and other academicians want to invest their TIAA-CREF funds in “cultural” research and possibly become rich — they are free to do so.

That would show real commitment, using your own money. You go, folks!

As for this — ” .. Even if it isn’t .. applicable .. doesn’t mean that 20 years down the road ..”

Of course — Teflon is just like “cultural” research. How short-sighted of moi.

Buzz, at 7:20 pm EDT on May 4, 2007

Republican Nutjobs?

Amazing! Sgt. Truth calls Republicans nutjobs! Please... Sgt. Truth, read the previous blogs and see what political party is foaming at the mouth with rabid hatred. It"s not the Republicans! After graduating 20 yrs ago, I’ve returned to campus to complete my masters degree. I’ve always had a general idea of what hatred is...but I never thought that it would actually be taught and accepted on college campuses. A

majority of College Professors hate conservatives and they are not afraid to say so. Take your head out of the sand...it’s Democrats and liberals that are nutjobs!!!!

RJ Lash, at 8:20 am EDT on May 5, 2007

RJ Lash is absolutely correct

Truer words were never spoken. I am a retired college instructor (computer-related) and have experienced first-hand the hate and animosity toward traditionalists in an academic environment. Colleges purport to support free speech. True, if your thoughts and ideas fall within the liberal realm, you are free to express your views without retribution. But, if your views are outside the liberal context- watch out. You will be an outcast within your own institution. I have come to realize that many liberals harbor extreme prejudices, and, that they are really not against prejudicial thought per se. They are simply very careful to never express prejudices against any protected class. But, prejudicial thought applied to conservatives, Republicans, Christians, corporate employees, home-schoolers (to name just a few)… no problem.

And, why is there an assumption that social scientists are intellectuals and that an attack on social science is an attack on intellectuals? My undergrad is in social science and while attending graduate school I was told by two professors that I should pursue a doctorate in sociology because I excelled in research methods, writing, and statistical analysis. Yet, I found the coursework laughably undemanding. If you want to experience an intellectual discussion then talk to a mathematician, a physicist, a software engineer, a master carpenter, or a really expert mechanic. Sure, there are some very smart people that are social scientists (not really a science but I’ve offended many of you enough already) but equating being a social scientist with being an intellectual- that’s a stretch. This will bruise your highly inflated egos but some of the smartest people I’ve ever met have been from the business world and specialized trades. If the government stopped funding an apprenticeship program in plumbing would you consider it an attack on intellectuals? Of course you wouldn’t because of your prejudicial views. Do you think the average social scientist is smarter than the average plumber or electrician? If you do you’re wrong.

GF, at 9:45 pm EDT on May 5, 2007

Jobs Related to Fending Off Attacks on Social Science

or search for jobs directly.

Postdoctoral Scholars — California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology
University of California, Irvine

Irvine, CA 92697-2800 CalIT2 California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology Position: Postdoctoral ... see job

Social Sciences Department Faculty and Department Chair Position
Purdue University—North Central

PURDUE UNIVERSITY NORTH CENTRAL SOCIAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT FACULTY AND DEPARTMENT CHAIR POSITION see job

Assistant/Associate Professor Adolescent Education
Cazenovia College

Cazenovia College is an independent four-year coeducational college located in the lakefront historic village of Cazenovia, ... see job

Senior Lecturer/Lecturer in Social Studies Education
University of the West Indies

Applications are invited from suitably qualified persons for the post of Senior Lecturer/Lecturer in Social Studies Education ... see job

Assistant Academic Specialist (112081)
Northeastern University

Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job

Assistant/Associate Professor – Early Childhood Education
Robert Morris University PA

Robert Morris University (RMU), founded in 1921, is a private university with an enrollment of approximately 5,100 students. ... see job

Chair, Public Administration
Southeastern University, DC

Southeastern University PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL PRACTICAL The Department of Public Administration invites nominations and ... see job

Project Coordinator
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Assistant Professor, Social Sciences/Research and Writing
Winston-Salem State University

Winston-Salem State University and the College of Arts and Sciences invite applications for a tenure-track position in the ... see job

Teaching Specialist/Lecturer Blanket Posting for Kinesiology FY09
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities