Fake sexism: Why fake research exposes authors, not science
In early October, three American scientists told, as they wrote twenty one fake articles on various social topics in a year: seven of them were published, seven more were being reviewed at the moment when the prank was revealed. The studies of James Lindsay, Helen Plakrouz and Peter Bogossian were often deliberately absurd (one of them was called “People’s reaction to the culture of rape and sexual orientation in Portland, Oregon,” another turned out to be a slightly paraphrase of Adolf Hitler’s book) and the data underlying them are falsified. However, neither the editors of the journals who published the articles, nor the reviewers of the studies, suspected anything. The fake authors themselves say that their experiment proves that the American scientific community is biased, engaged and ready to miss any nonsense that meets the agenda of the day.
Dmitry Kurkin
Opinions about the large-scale academic prank divided. Some immediately summarized the results of the experiment to the conclusion that gender sociology in its current form cannot be trusted at all. Others point out that fake studies are unethical and argue that their publication does not eliminate the need to carry them out, but only says how harmful falsification is to science.
How are gender studies conducted? And how does the system of academic publications, which managed to deceive the three scientists-pranker? We asked about this to tell Anna Temkin, a sociologist at the European University at St. Petersburg, co-director of the program for gender studies.
What will the publication of fake research
Of course, in the Western and Russian context, the publication of fakes (as well as plagiarism) is an example of absolutely unethical academic behavior. We talk a lot about the ethics of research, we have quite strict rules, and for me as a teacher this story is an excellent example to demonstrate: ethics is not an empty word, but a specific thing.
The fake authors played very talentedly on topical issues of gender studies. Both in the West and in Russia there is a clearly marked conservative turn against significant gender changes, and at the same time against gender studies. Any attempt to compromise gender research is perceived by a large part of the public with a bang. We live in an era of changes in gender order: gender roles, parenthood, partnership, sexual practices change, attitudes towards homosexuals change. And to many, this seems to be a threat - the family, society, the state, the traditional moral order. The fake writers played up these fears very well. Antigender panic is different in Russia and in the West, but this story fits into both contexts simultaneously.
I think fakie will not undermine any basis for the production of knowledge. However, talented liars got into very painful points, and at the same time several at once. We already knew where these points were: this is the problem of neoliberalism in universities, the problem of sweatshop publishing system, especially for young scientists, and the problem of journals that are overloaded with this and cannot always control the quality, and the problem of controlling research in general. Now the system risks becoming even more stringent, and it will become even more difficult for us - but maybe this is right.
This is not ethical, but not so scary. Because gender theory constantly and very strongly criticizes itself. Any of its foundations quickly become a subject for internal academic - and not just external - criticism. So it develops for fifty years. Thanks to fakes, there is another field for self-criticism.
This story adds weight to critics of politics of identity, and supporters of questions that, however, are very acute in an anti-gender conservative climate. Researchers show that gender is a kind of “symbolic glue” that can be used for anything: problems of social and critical sciences, neoliberal politics at universities and omnivorous scientists and journals, the identity of privileged groups and irritation in their doubts, post-Soviet authoritarianism (distracted on gender), horror before LGBT.
Gender issues are rather poorly developed in Russia, critical social sciences are on the margins. In Russia, there is a sharp lack of gender expertise, if only to raise the question: why are we so worried about the fakes of gender and queer studies, gender postmodernism in Western journals, which almost no one has ever heard of.
How are gender studies conducted and how “objective” are they?
Gender studies are conducted just like any other academic studies. Regardless of their methodology, there are some general principles. These principles - the formulation of a research question, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data - are taught, ideally they are controlled by the expert community - and in this sense, gender studies are no different from, say, research on political preferences.
But there is some specificity. In world sociology, there are directions that focus on causal explanations of objective phenomena. There are those that are aimed at understanding or interpreting phenomena of an intersubjective nature, that is, meanings shared by people who occupy certain social positions. There are studies focusing on the changes of the world - this is a critical thought.
Different methodologies and research methods flow from different views on social reality. Those who, even with reservations, recognize the existence of objective reality, mainly use quantitative methods, conduct opinion polls and through these polls seek to obtain objective data about reality. Those who believe that we still will not get to objective reality seek to understand how people attach meaning and significance to certain social practices or contexts and how these contexts (social structures) limit such practices.
Talented liars got into very painful points, and simultaneously in several
We are primarily interested in how people interpret what they do, what they live in, the social contexts that limit them. This does not mean that gender studies do not conduct surveys - on the contrary, they are now much more carried out, because reliable statistics are needed, for example, about the position of men and women in the paid employment market and gender differences in attitudes to health - this requires surveys.
But if we need to understand how a woman is experiencing the experience of pregnancy, childbirth illness or loss of a child, then no survey will help. We need those methods that will allow us to learn about her experience and the experience of this experience. In this case, the experiences of one woman or one partner couple is not enough. We will conduct detailed interviews with different people in order to recreate from different perspectives an intersubjective reality, in which for us the most important thing is not what a particular woman is experiencing, and what social structures and mechanisms are behind the experiences of this experience. For example, how it is influenced by family resources, access to medical and psychological assistance and support networks.
Gender studies in many respects perceive themselves as critical social sciences, they have the promise to explore inequality and injustice. Research results influence public knowledge, and it can sometimes help to change injustice.
All social sciences are biased. In the critical social sciences there is a certain advantage: they understand that they are biased, and understand what dangers are associated with these. There are no general recipes, but ideally the community controls a constant balance between engagement and theoretically and empirically reliable research results.
What filters work in scientific journals and why fake authors managed to get around them
While the person is doing the research, he / s discusses his design and data collection with colleagues (if he studies with leaders), who criticize his work and explain what is not taken into account, which is interpreted unreasonably. This is a long, tedious and multistage process. Then a person writes draft notes and starts speaking at conferences where the research is also critically perceived, and if it is not completed, it is unconvincing or contradictory, if the argument is not developed, colleagues will find it out.
Then it comes to publications. When a person is preparing a publication, it is usually read by people familiar with the topic, give critical comments and after that give the manuscript to a journal or another publication. Further the article is read by the editor - depending on the rating of the magazine, he can reject half or more articles that come. And it will reject, most likely, because of frankly poor quality or because of inconsistency with the topics of the journal. If the editor has accepted the article, it is sent to two or three “blind” reviewers: who do not know who the author of the article is, and the author does not know who his “blind” reviewers are. They write a review: either "turn away" or "accept, but with revision", or simply "accept" - the latter is quite rare. And this is an important stage, but it is also a problem one, because “blind” reviewing is absolutely voluntary work.
We often work with sensitive topics that people find difficult, difficult and painful to talk about.
I receive about ten to fifteen requests to write reviews of articles on gender issues a year, and in two thirds of cases I refuse, because this is too much of a burden. And when the editors are denied by one expert, the second, the third, then it is likely that the study will be reviewed for review by someone who is not well acquainted with the subject matter. That is, the mechanism as a whole works, but it, of course, gives failures. In Russia, it is still fairly new, and the better the magazine, the stricter the "blind" review in it. Although this mechanism is not unconditional, it is criticized, and the fake story has shown that it has weak points and needs a lot (or some other) work of editors and peer reviewers to cope with the problem. Probably, something in it should be re-adjusted, there are even offers to refuse it altogether.
To build an academic career a person should publish a lot in decent magazines. As a result, journals are inundated with manuscripts, and people are forced to submit them, not having yet passed the "grassroots" control and not being confident in the quality of their work. They must do this, otherwise they will be subject to sanctions in the institutions where they work. This is how neoliberal mechanisms work in science.
The journal policy concerns Russian scientists, but the problems of plagiarism are much more acute than the problems of peer review who missed fakes. “Disserta” has just discovered the plagiarism of dissertations in almost half of Rosobrnadzor’s examining experts. Here is this our problem is much more acute, serious and topical.
Ethics Issues in Gender Studies
In gender studies, we constantly emphasize the sensitivity of our projects. We often work with sensitive topics that people find difficult, difficult and painful to talk about. Loss of a child during pregnancy. Breast cancer Relationship between spouses after divorce. The relationship of the doctor and patient in which the patient complains about the doctor, and the doctor considers the client to be a slanderer.
There are not only sensitive topics, but also sensitive groups whose life is deprived of their liberty compared to other social groups: HIV-positive, drug-addicted people, and many single mothers. In these topics, the moral dimension is acutely felt, these problems hurt, evoke emotions. There is nothing terrible in this if we understand what we are doing. If we constantly return to the questions: "What follows from this?", "How should the researcher respond to this?". But that is why in gender studies ethical requirements are even more stringent than in other areas.
One last thing: why, after all, are we keenly reacting to what we are literally not concerned with? Probably because we feel a natural part of the global West-centric community, although our academic practices are quite different from it. And the current discussion in the Russian segment of the Internet clearly shows that we are keenly reacting to the problems that, it would seem, offend us only tangentially.
PHOTO: Madame Fancy Pants
