Berk Özler at Development Impact has a very interesting and thought-provoking post about senior researchers blogging about, and critiquing, research work by junior researchers. Özler wrote:
The objection is that senior people should not be criticizing papers by juniors. The latter, whether grad students or assistant professors may have a fair amount riding on the work in question and the platform that the senior person has and the inequality in power makes such criticism unfair. But this is deeply unsatisfactory: can a senior researcher, however defined (by tenure, age, success in publications, otherwise fame, etc.), never discuss the work of junior people publicly? I don’t think of myself as senior but, very unfortunately, others do. I’d like to shed this persona and just be “one of the researchers,” who can excitedly discuss questions that I am geeked about with anyone of any age, gender, etc. But increasingly, the ideas are taking a back seat to who is voicing them, which makes me do a double take.
The related issue, terminology, that comes up is “punching down.”
Regular readers of this blog will know that I regularly critique the papers and books that I read. Even with papers that I like, and where I think the authors have done a good job, there's often some aspect of it that I wished they explained better, or where I would have approached things differently. If the authors are junior, am I "punching down"? I (usually) treat the critiques on this blog with the same care and attention as I do as a journal reviewer (and I do a lot of reviewing), offering neither fear nor favour to the things I read, regardless of who are the authors. I have adopted the same approach in my new role as Associate Editor at the Journal of Economic Surveys. I'd like to think that I'm tough, but fair.
As for "punching down", that would assume that I am somehow elevated above the authors of the paper or book I am critiquing. I certainly don't have an outsized platform through this blog, given that the regular readership when I am not teaching could comfortably fit in a minivan. However, I am 15 years out from my PhD, and longevity in the profession brings with it a certain amount of experience. Özler makes that point that he doesn't "think of [himself] as senior but, very unfortunately, others do". Possibly I am in that position as well. And the question that Özler raises is particularly important in economics, which has been subject to severe (and warranted) criticism for its negative culture in recent times.
This presents a challenging dilemma for senior researchers. On the one hand, it is unfair when a senior researcher uses their platform (however modest) to attack the work of a junior researcher unfairly. On the other hand, the quality of research overall suffers if (even relatively good) research by junior researchers is immune to any form of criticism. Is there a way forward? Özler offers some further thoughts, from his perspective:
This does have an effect on me as a long-time blogger: how do I stay an effective public intellectual, which means, borrowing from Henry Farrell’s “In praise of negativity” in Crooked Timber, “no more or no less than someone who wants to think and argue in public.” That’s me! The other day philosopher Agnes Callard said “ARGUING IS COLLABORATING.” My best papers involved countless hours of vehement arguing with my co-authors: if you’re right, you can’t sleep because you want to convince your colleague. If you’re wrong, you can’t sleep because you can’t believe you missed that point. Either way, though, you get up the next morning and go talk to your colleague – either to argue more or to concede that you were wrong. So many times, a co-author and I slept on a discussion, only to meet the next day intending to take up the other’s position. It’s fun to argue about important development research topics in public – that’s why I blog and, more importantly, that’s how I mostly blog. If I have to worry about the potential blowback after a post because I blogged about a junior person’s paper, it is a significant disincentive for me to write.
I have some sympathy for that view. I am part of the community of researchers interested in particular topics. I advance my views on specific research because it interested me, usually based on topic, or sometimes based on the research methods employed. For the most part, I blog for myself as much as I do for others. Otherwise, I would likely choose different topics to blog about (note the difference in topics between when I am teaching, and my audience shifts to predominantly first-year students (as it will in July), and when I am not teaching). Blogging about research creates an aide memoire for later reference. I've lost track of the number of times I've been in conversation and thought, "I've read something on that", and a quick search of my blog has served as an effective reminder and a link to relevant research. Storing my critiques as part of that process creates an efficiency, as I don't have to carefully re-read a paper to recognise its weaknesses.
Is it "punching down" for me to critique papers I have read? I don't think so, and the comments to date at the bottom of Özler's post haven't changed my mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment