Science organizations spoke out forcefully Tuesday in response to President Trump's executive order to unravel Obama administration climate policies.
The order directs the Environmental Protection Agency to rewrite the Clean Power Plan, a federal rule that set targets for carbon emissions targets.
"The EPA has a legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to curtail global warming emissions to help limit the impacts of climate change," said Union of Concerned Scientists President Ken Kimmell. "The Clean Power Plan cost-effectively addresses one of the nation’s largest sources of carbon dioxide emissions -- power plants -- and gives states the flexibility to tailor the plan to their needs. The executive order undercuts a key part of the nation’s response to climate change, without offering even a hint of what will replace it."
The executive order also orders the Interior Department to end a moratorium on new coal mine leases on federal land and nixes guidance requiring that climate change be considered in planning infrastructure projects, among other concessions to industry.
Scientists have been increasingly vocal since Election Day about Trump's personnel choices and policy steps involving research, health and the environment. Tuesday's executive order was his clearest step yet on environmental policy.
Rush Holt, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said the scientific research is clear that climate change is happening as a result of human activities and affecting people and the environment.
"Scientific research helps us better understand climate change and society’s potential responses, including decisions by individuals, communities, businesses and federal agencies," he said. "There is much our nation can do to address the risks that climate change poses to human health and safety, but disregarding scientific evidence puts our communities in danger."
Holt also offered to have scientists meet with policy makers to discuss the science of climate change and the degrees of understanding about the research.
David Wilder, 61, was killed by a shooting in Cleveland when he was caught in the crossfire as three other men engaged in what authorities called "a running vehicular gun battle," Cleveland.com reported. Wilder was a long-term adjunct at Cleveland State University, Cuyahoga Community College and John Carroll University -- and he was a leader in efforts in Ohio and nationally to gain more rights for those who teach off the tenure track. His fellow adjuncts are noting his contributions to their cause -- and raising money to help cover his funeral expenses.
Ithaca College’s new non-tenure-track faculty union reached a tentative contract agreement with the institution this week, averting a threatened strike. Terms of the contract are generous compared to many other contingent faculty agreements. They include an established path to pay parity for part-time faculty members, with immediate raises, followed by annual raises totaling $1,025 per three-credit course for the life of the contract.
Other gains are more stability for full-time, non-tenure-track faculty members included in the new bargaining unit; they’ll be eligible for two-year appointments after three years of teaching at the college and three-year appointments after five years of service. Part-timers, too, will be eligible for two-year appointments after three on campus, and they’re guaranteed a $1,300 “kill fee” for any course canceled at the last minute. All unit members get earlier notice of appointments and the right to interview and be considered for full-time positions.
The unit affiliated with Service Employees International Union said in a news release that it “won on everything.” Nancy Pringle, college senior vice president; Linda Petrosino, provost; and Gwen Seaquist, professor of legal studies, said in a joint statement they are “confident that this new contract is fair, that it addresses the concerns of our valued faculty members and that it enables the college to maintain excellence in a fiscally responsive manner.”
Every university has a list of A journals, those it considers to be the most prestigious in its field. Even the journals that rank institutions have such lists, and many universities use them to measure their impact. As a result, academics establish their credentials by publishing in these journals, and universities grant tenure and promotion for the same. Various institutions even pay their professors a bonus (what some people would call a bribe) for publishing in such select journals.
This is warping the scientific process by narrowing the scope of impact to one type of journal, which reaches one type of audience using one type of content and style. The situation became so bad that Randy Schekman, a Nobel laureate in cell physiology, announced in 2013 that his lab would no longer send research papers to what he calls the “luxury” journals of his field -- Nature, Cell and Science -- because of their distortive encouragement of research that pursues trendy and mainstream lines of inquiry instead of more self-directed and innovative directions.
I have seen that firsthand, working with junior faculty who say they cannot publish in a particular journal because it is not on their institution’s A list and therefore will “not count” toward their accomplishments. This is anti-intellectual. As Russell Jacoby warned in his book The Last Intellectuals, it “registers not the needs of truth but academic empire building.” Academic publishing is becoming more about establishing a pecking order and less about pursuing knowledge. And that has several unintended consequences.
A limited audience. It is time to recalibrate our research norms over who we are trying to reach with our work, to re-examine our notions of impact through outlet and audience. A good research portfolio has a mix of A and B journals, each used for its own purpose. The target of A journals is typically a narrow audience of other disciplinary academics. But that misses entire swaths of audiences. Many B journals reach a broader set of academics, many with a more empirical focus. And some journals reach beyond the walls of academe to speak to policy makers, nongovernmental organizations, businesses or the general public. Further, they are not all traditional outlets. Blogs and other forms of social media are now becoming part of the academic portfolio.
Does our work actually result in real-world change? In the A journals, that is a question that is rarely, if ever, asked. Many academics, in fact, would argue that the question is irrelevant to their pursuit of knowledge. But certainly our work is meant for more. In a recent decision to include social media and digital activities in its criteria matrix for academic advancement, the Mayo Clinic's Academic Appointments and Promotions Committee announced, "The moral and societal duty of an academic health-care provider is to advance science, improve the care of his/her patients and share knowledge. A very important part of this role requires physicians to participate in public debate, responsibly influence opinion and help our patients navigate the complexities of health care." This is a compelling challenge to move away from a narrow focus on A journals.
Less creative and diverse research. Beyond audience, publishing only in A journals can limit creativity and diversity, as they are one type of channel with one set of criteria for what constitutes “good” research. But is that the only criterion?
In some fields (such as mine, management), the A journals are generally theory driven, whereas the B journals are generally phenomena driven. That has led Donald C. Hambrick to offer the critique that the former have a “theory fetish,” where practical relevance takes a backseat to theoretical rigor, and empirical evidence is used to inform theory, rather than the other way around. As papers go through the review process, he warned, “The straightforward beauty of the original research idea will probably be largely lost. In its place will be what we too often see in our journals and what undoubtedly puts nonscholars off: a contorted, misshapen, inelegant product, in which an inherently interesting phenomenon has been subjugated to an ill-fitting theoretical framework.”
Hambrick continues, “In academic management we have allowed obsession with theory to compromise the larger goal of understanding. Most important, perhaps, it prevents the reporting of rich detail about interesting phenomena for which no theory yet exists but which, once reported, might stimulate the search for an explanation.”
These are the foibles in the management A journals, but each discipline has its own issues. In the A journals of any field, what constitutes good research is only that which propels the research tracks of the moment. It blinds the field to the interesting ideas that may lie outside those tracks, and only a few brave scholars would deviate from those tracks for fear of risking tenure.
Yet such nonconformity can lead to real payoff. For example, Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate in economics, published some of his best papers in B journals because, he told me, “They were rejected by A journals!”
Krugman’s story is a cautionary tale for young academics in the midst of the great explosion of publishing outlets. Today, there are just under two million articles published annually in an estimated 28,000 journals. Some are in what are considered A journals, but the vast majority are in B journals. Add to that growing landscape the world of social media. Many academics are now using blogs to test and crowdsource their ideas with peers and the general public. In short, future academics can publish in a broad portfolio of outlets to increase the creativity and impact of their life’s work.
Guaranteed irrelevance. How long does it take between submission and publication of an article? One study found that publication lags range from nine to 18 months, with the shortest overall delays occurring in science, technology and medical fields and the longest in social science, arts/humanities and business/economics. Such long lag times virtually guarantee the practical irrelevance of a paper’s research.
Moreover, as the number of researchers and papers grows over time -- according to another study, the number of scholarly papers is growing at a rate of 3.26 percent per year, or doubling every 20 years -- you could fairly hypothesize that much this growing volume of research will be aimed at the short and fairly static list of A journals, thus leading to ever-longer publishing lag times.
As this lag time increases, think about the number of hours an average academic will spend over the course of the one to four years necessary to publish an A paper. One study estimated that the cost of a single scholarly article written by business school professors was as much as $400,000.
Is that really the best use of so much high-powered mental capacity? Is the outcome and payback really appropriate to the effort? How could that time be better spent? In some cases, the same paper could be submitted to a B journal, accepted and published more quickly, with time remaining to disseminate the results in a blog, a media interview or some other format -- and with the next paper begun.
Questionable impact. Regardless of such sobering statistics, academics are still directed to pursue the A journal for academic status. And that pursuit disregards another sobering statistic on who actually reads them. We can take this issue in two parts.
First, let’s consider a journal’s impact factor, which is the ratio of (a) the number of citations in the current year to articles published in the previous two years divided by (b) the number of substantive articles and reviews published in the same two years. So an impact factor of 5.3 for a top-tier A journal in my field, Administrative Science Quarterly, means that the average paper is cited 5.3 times annually over its first two years. The five-year impact factor only raises that number to 7.5. Is that real impact?
Looking more deeply, the distribution is not normal, leading to what some call the 80/20 phenomenon, where 20 percent of articles may account for 80 percent of citations. A 2005 editorial in Nature noted that 89 percent of the journal’s impact factor of 32.2 could be attributed to 25 percent of the papers published during that time period. In a larger study, only 0.5 percent of 38 million articles cited from 1900 to 2005 were cited more than 200 times.
And that leads to the second way to look at the question. Citation counts are our primary measure of a paper’s scholarly impact, and yet citation counts on average are distressingly low. By one count, 12 percent of medicine articles were never cited, nor were 27 percent of natural science papers, 32 percent in the social sciences and 82 percent in the humanities. Another study found that 59 percent of articles in the top science and social-science journals were not cited in the period from 2002 to 2006. It is time to question our primary reliance on citations and journal impact factors for measuring impact.
B journals that reach nonacademic audiences are cited much less by academics (if at all) and are therefore ignored as having impact. Further, social media is starting to enter the academic portfolio and is again ignored, even though increasing numbers of the public, politicians and even fellow academics find their information about science there. How does a blog with a half million views compare in impact to the average academic paper that was cited only 10.81 times between 2000 and 2010 (that number drops to only 4.67 for the social sciences), according to Thomson Reuters?
Further, some preliminary research is beginning to show a positive value from social media, like Twitter, for increasing visibility (even citation counts) for academic papers. And some organizations, like the American Sociological Association, are exploring metrics and models for rigorously measuring the impact of alterative outlets. It is time to reconsider whom we are trying to reach and how we measure the extent to which we are reaching them.
What Are We Becoming?
In 1963, Bernard Forscher published a letter in Science magazine, lamenting that academic scholarship had become fixated on generating lots of pieces of knowledge -- bricks -- and was far less concerned with putting them together into a cohesive whole. In time, he worried, brick making would become an end in itself.
Perhaps his critique has now come true. We are becoming a field of brick makers, and the narrow focus on A journals is one factor among several that is helping to guide us there. That is truly dangerous as we may, as a result, be courting irrelevance. We need to be re-examining how we practice our craft, not challenging the rigor of what we do, but recalibrating and expanding our focus. Returning to the sentiments expressed by the Mayo Clinic: “As clinician educators our job is not to create knowledge obscura, trapped in ivory towers and only accessible to the enlightened; the knowledge we create and manage needs to impact our communities.”
Andrew J. Hoffman is the Holcim (U.S.) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan, with appointments in the Ross School of Business and the School of Natural Resources and Environment.
Olga Perez Stable Cox, the professor of psychology who was secretly recorded telling her students that Donald Trump’s election was an “act of terrorism,” will accept Orange Coast College’s faculty member of the year award, but she won’t deliver the commencement speech that customarily comes with the nod, The Orange County Registerreported. A spokesperson for the college originally stated that Cox would not accept her colleagues’ nomination because she didn’t want to pull attention away from students at graduation, according to the Register, but the same spokesperson said Friday that she would accept the award.
Cox has become polarizing on campus and off since the video hit the internet last fall -- as has the college, which first said it would suspend the student who recorded Cox and then backtracked. A committee of 10 faculty members and administrators selected Cox as 2017’s full-time colleague of the year. Rob Schneiderman, president of Orange Coast’s American Federation of Teachers-affiliated faculty union, told the Register that Cox won’t be a commencement speaker because “she did not want to distract from the students” and that the choice was “consistent with her nature as a faculty member.” Joshua Recalde-Martinez, a leader with the campus College Republicans, which posted the video, said the decision “only serves to resurrect past tensions against both her and the College Republicans.”
Submitted by Emily Tate on March 27, 2017 - 3:00am
Faculty at Kentucky State University last week voted no confidence in the Board of Regents and its chairwoman, The State-Journalreported.
The board received 39 votes for no confidence and 36 for confidence, while the chairwoman, Karen Bearden, fared worse. Fifty faculty members voted no confidence in Bearden’s leadership, while 30 asserted their confidence.
The vote was first suggested in late February, when faculty voiced concerns over the board’s handling of the presidential search as well as issues with the budget, tenure, promotion and raises, according to The State-Journal.
In addition to the votes of no confidence, the Faculty Caucus of Color was also formed at Kentucky State last week. The group will seek to address the limited number of African-American faculty members at the historically black university, which has led to the “systematic and de facto alienation, marginalization and disempowerment within both the institution and the Faculty Senate’s shared governance and decision-making processes, protocols and mechanisms,” the interim president of the caucus said in a statement.
A spokesperson for the Board of Regents said the board will use the vote of no confidence “as a catalyst for change.”
Submitted by Emily Tate on March 27, 2017 - 3:00am
A paper (abstract available here) published by the National Bureau of Economic Research studies the link between hometown connections in China and the rate of fellow selection into the Chinese Academies of Sciences and Engineering. Hometown ties increased the likelihood of a candidate’s selection by 39 percent during the in-person interview stage, indicating that the connection very likely plays a role in the fellow-selection process. Furthermore, those candidates elected with hometown ties “are half as likely to have a high-impact publication as elected fellows without connections,” the abstract says. Members in the Chinese Academies of Sciences and Engineering are more likely to hold institutional leadership positions and to receive additional funding -- about $9.5 million annually -- for their institutions.