By George Leef
Friday, November 01, 2019
If all of the scholars in some field hold the same set of
views about the world, then mistakes are apt to go unnoticed and questions that
would only occur to someone with a different set of views will go unexplored.
Unfortunately, that is the case in numerous academic fields. Criticism and
creativity are suppressed by ideological homogeneity.
In today’s Martin
Center article, Professor Christian Rodriguez of Chile reflects on his
field — social psychology. “Ideally,” he writes, “scientific validity does not
depend on the political or moral values of the scientist, but on the
reasonability of the research process. However, personal values and biases can
affect researchers in multiple ways. They can affect how scientific ideas are
conceived, developed, and tested. One of the biggest effects is in how values
determine research questions.”
Rodriguez gives several examples of the kind of bias
introduced by groupthink. The top journal in his field recently published an
issue filled only with articles on such leftist causes as “ableism” and
“neoliberalism.”
Another instance involves the well-known academic
assumption that religious people are not open-minded. A professor at the
University of Toronto (Keith Stankovich) had done a study that seemed to
support that conclusion, and no one disagreed. But then he thought about his
approach some more. Rodriguez writes, “However, in a highly unusual
publication, Stanovich himself revised his own scales and realized that they
might be intrinsically skewed against religious individuals. Evidence showed
that once the bias in the open-minded scale is corrected, the correlation
decreases noticeably. Reflecting on this, Stanovich wrote: ‘It never occurred
to us that these items would disadvantage any demographic group, let alone the
religious minded. No doubt it never occurred to us because not a single member
of our lab had any religious inclinations at all.’”
Is there any hope of at least ameliorating this problem
of academic groupthink?
Rodriguez makes this solid suggestion: “The key is
dialogue: In the early stages of a research project, social scientists could
reach out to scholars in departments that traditionally do not hold dominant
liberal views (such as business schools, health sciences, or engineering
departments). Even a non-technical discussion of research questions could yield
valuable insights about potential blind spots. Academic institutions could
promote these dialogues to improve scientific research—which is the very reason
they exist in the first place.”
Good idea, but any scholar who does that is apt to find
himself facing the wrath of leftists who decry his willingness to engage with
“bad” people.
No comments:
Post a Comment