by Stephen Downes
Jun 17, 2015
High-profile academic fraud a symptom of underlying dysfunction
The case under discussion in this article involves a study purporting to show that a brief conversation about an issue with a canvasser dramatically impacts survey results. It turns out there were issues of credibility and the journal retracted the paper. But while the individual involved is certainly responsible, argues the author, so is the system. "If you build a system that rewards this kind of performance then you should expect unpalatable results to emerge. If you want a gamified system, people will find ways of gaming it... We can’t complain about high-profile cases like this without also engaging in some critical reflection on the system in which such incidents can happen. We can’t say we want to hire the best people, when only one particular, narrow version of 'best' is noted and rewarded."
This newsletter is sent only at the request of subscribers. If you would like to unsubscribe,
Know a friend who might enjoy this newsletter? Feel free to forward OLDaily to your colleagues. If you received this issue from a friend and would like a free subscription of your own,
you can join our mailing list. Click here to subscribe.