Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.soft-sys.business.sap > #22

Doubts About Study of Gay Canvassers Rattles the Field. In other words, "GAYS CAUGHT LYING AGAIN & AGAIN!"

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

He was a graduate student who seemingly had it all: drive, a big 
idea and the financial backing to pay for a sprawling study to 
test it.

In 2012, as same-sex marriage advocates were working to build 
support in California, Michael LaCour, a political science 
researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, asked a 
critical question: Can canvassers with a personal stake in an 
issue — in this case, gay men and women — actually sway voters’ 
opinions in a lasting way?

He would need an influential partner to help frame, interpret 
and place into context his findings — to produce an 
authoritative scientific answer. And he went to one of the 
giants in the field, Donald P. Green, a Columbia University 
professor and co-author of a widely used text on field 
experiments.

“I thought it was a very ambitious idea, so ambitious that it 
might not be suitable for a graduate student,” said Dr. Green, 
who signed on as a co-author of Mr. LaCour’s study in 2013. “But 
it’s such an important question, and he was very passionate 
about it.”

Last week, their finding that gay canvassers were in fact 
powerfully persuasive with people who had voted against same-sex 
marriage — published in December in Science, one of the world’s 
leading scientific journals — collapsed amid accusations that 
Mr. LaCour had misrepresented his study methods and lacked the 
evidence to back up his findings.

On Tuesday, Dr. Green asked the journal to retract the study 
because of Mr. LaCour’s failure to produce his original data. 
Mr. LaCour declined to be interviewed, but has said in 
statements that he stands by the findings.

The case has shaken not only the community of political 
scientists but also public trust in the way the scientific 
establishment vets new findings. It raises broad questions about 
the rigor of rules that guide a leading academic’s oversight of 
a graduate student’s research and of the peer review conducted 
of that research by Science.

New, previously unreported details have emerged that suggest 
serious lapses in the supervision of Mr. LaCour’s work. For 
example, Dr. Green said he had never asked Mr. LaCour to detail 
who was funding their research, and Mr. LaCour’s lawyer has told 
Science that Mr. LaCour did not pay participants in the study 
the fees he had claimed.

Dr. Green, who never saw the raw data on which the study was 
based, said he had repeatedly asked Mr. LaCour to post the data 
in a protected databank at the University of Michigan, where 
they could be examined later if needed. But Mr. LaCour did not.

“It’s a very delicate situation when a senior scholar makes a 
move to look at a junior scholar’s data set,” Dr. Green said. 
“This is his career, and if I reach in and grab it, it may seem 
like I’m boxing him out.”

But Dr. Ivan Oransky, A co-founder of “Retraction Watch,” which 
first published news of the allegations and Dr. Green’s 
retraction request, said, “At the end of the day he decided to 
trust LaCour, which was, in his own words, a mistake.”

Many of the most contentious particulars of how the study was 
conducted are not yet known, and Mr. LaCour said he would 
produce a “definitive” accounting by the end of next week. 
Science has published an expression of concern about the study 
and is considering retracting it, said Marcia McNutt, editor in 
chief.

“Given the negative publicity that has now surrounded this paper 
and the concerns that have been raised about its 
irreproducibility, I think it would be in Michael LaCour’s best 
interest to agree to a retraction of the paper as swiftly as 
possible,” she said in an interview on Friday. “Right now he’s 
going to have such a black cloud over his head that it’s going 
to haunt him for the rest of his days.”

Only three months ago he posted on Facebook that he would soon 
be moving across country for his “dream job” as a professor at 
Princeton. That future could now be in doubt. A Princeton 
spokesman, Martin Mbugua, noting that Mr. LaCour was not yet an 
employee there, said, “We will review all available information 
and determine the next steps.”

Critics said the intense competition by graduate students to be 
published in prestigious journals, weak oversight by academic 
advisers and the rush by journals to publish studies that will 
attract attention too often led to sloppy and even unethical 
research methods. The now disputed study was covered by The New 
York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, 
among others.

“You don’t get a faculty position at Princeton by publishing 
something in the Journal Nobody-Ever-Heard-Of,” Dr. Oransky 
said. Is being lead author on a big study published in Science 
“enough to get a position in a prestigious university?” he 
asked, then answered: “They don’t care how well you taught. They 
don’t care about your peer reviews. They don’t care about your 
collegiality. They care about how many papers you publish in 
major journals.”

The details that have emerged about the flaws in the research 
have prompted heated debate among scientists and policy makers 
about how to reform the current system of review and 
publication. This is far from the first such case.

The scientific community’s system for vetting new findings, 
built on trust, is poorly equipped to detect deliberate 
misrepresentations. Faculty advisers monitor students’ work, but 
there are no standard guidelines governing the working 
relationship between senior and junior co-authors.

The reviewers at journals may raise questions about a study’s 
methodology or data analysis, but rarely have access to the raw 
data itself, experts said. They do not have time; they are 
juggling the demands of their own work, and reviewing is 
typically unpaid.

In cases like this one — with the authors on opposite sides of 
the country — that trust allowed Mr. LaCour to work with little 
supervision.

“It is simply unacceptable for science to continue with people 
publishing on data they do not share with others,” said Uri 
Simonsohn, an associate professor at the Wharton School of the 
University of Pennsylvania. “Journals, funding agencies and 
universities must begin requiring that data be publicly 
available.”

Mr. LaCour met Dr. Green at a summer workshop on research 
methods in Ann Arbor, Mich., that is part education, part 
pilgrimage for young scientists. Dr. Green is a co-author of the 
textbook “Field Experiments: Design, Analysis and 
Interpretation.” He has published more than 100 papers, on 
topics like campaign finance and party affiliation, and is one 
of the most respected proponents of rigorous analysis and data 
transparency in social science.

He is also known to offer younger researchers a hand up.

“If it is an interesting question, Don is interested,” said 
Brian Nosek, a professor of psychology at the University of 
Virginia who has collaborated with Dr. Green.

Mr. LaCour, whose résumé mentions a stint as the University of 
Texas Longhorns’ mascot “Hook Em” as well as an impressive list 
of academic honors, approached Dr. Green after class at the 
workshop one day with his idea.

His proposal was intriguing. Previous work had found that 
standard campaign tactics — ads, pamphleteering, conventional 
canvassing — did not alter core beliefs in a lasting way. Mr. 
LaCour wanted to test canvassing done by people who would 
personally be affected by the outcome of the vote.

His timing was perfect. The Los Angeles LGBT Center, after 
losing the fight over Proposition 8, which barred same-sex 
marriage in California, was doing just this sort of work in 
conservative parts of the county and wanted to see if it was 
effective. Dave Fleischer, director of the center’s leadership 
lab, knew Dr. Green and had told him of the center’s innovative 
canvassing methods.

“Don said we were in luck because there was a Ph.D. candidate 
named Mike LaCour who was interested in doing an experiment,” 
Mr. Fleischer said.

Money seemed ample for the undertaking — and Dr. Green did not 
ask where exactly it was coming from.

“Michael said he had hundreds of thousands in grant money, and, 
yes, in retrospect, I could have asked about that,” Dr. Green 
said. “But it’s a delicate matter to ask another scholar the 
exact method through which they’re paying for their work.”

Dr. McNutt said that for Dr. Green to be “in a situation where 
he’s so distant from the student that he would have so little 
opportunity to really keep tabs on what was happening with him 
and with this data set — it’s just not a good situation.”

The canvassing was done rigorously, Mr. Fleischer said. The LGBT 
Center sent people into neighborhoods that had voted against 
same-sex marriage, including Boyle Heights, South Central and 
East Los Angeles. The voters were randomly assigned to either 
gay or straight canvassers, who were trained to engage them 
respectfully in conversation.

Mr. LaCour’s job was to track those voters’ attitudes toward 
same-sex marriage multiple times, over nine months, using a 
survey tool called the “feeling thermometer,” intended to pick 
up subtle shifts. He reported a response rate of the 
participants who completed surveys, 12 percent, that was so high 
that Dr. Green insisted the work be replicated to make sure it 
held up.

Mr. LaCour told Dr. Green that the response rate was high 
because he was paying respondents to participate, a common and 
accepted practice. After he told that Dr. Green a second run of 
the experiment had produced similar results, Dr. Green signed on.

Mr. Fleischer said that sometime during the project, “Mike had 
the strong opinion that we would find that the gay canvassers 
were doing much better.”

Mr. Fleischer said he was doubtful that would be the result, 
noting that same-sex marriage advocates differ on whether gay or 
straight people are better at persuading opponents.

The LaCour-Green findings electrified some in the field. Joshua 
Kalla, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, 
Berkeley, saw the study presented before it was published.

“It was very exciting, and partly because it wasn’t just 
theoretical, it was something that could be applied in 
campaigns,” he said.

He and a fellow student, David Broockman, who will soon be an 
assistant professor at Stanford, decided to test the very same 
approach on another political issue, also working with the Los 
Angeles LGBT Center. Mr. Fleischer of the center said the issue 
was transgender equality in Florida. Mr. Kalla and Dr. Broockman 
paid participants as they thought Mr. LaCour had, but their 
response rate was only 3 percent.

“We started to wonder, ‘What are we doing wrong?’ ” Mr. Kalla 
said. “Our response rate was so low, compared to his.”

There are now serious questions about whether Mr. LaCour 
achieved the high response rate he claimed. He has acknowledged 
that he did not pay participants as he had claimed, according to 
Dr. Green and Dr. McNutt, the Science editor in chief.

In a letter that he sent through his lawyer, Dr. McNutt said, 
Mr. LaCour said he had instead allowed participants the chance 
to win an iPad, saying “that was incentive enough.” Dr. McNutt 
said the supposed payments had convinced the reviewers that the 
response rate was as high as the study reported.

Dr. Green asked Mr. LaCour for the raw data after the study came 
under fire. Mr. LaCour said in the letter to Dr. McNutt that he 
erased the raw data months ago, “to protect those who answered 
the survey,” Dr. McNutt said.

She said that it was possible some voters had responded to some 
surveys, but that it was most likely that too few had done so to 
provide enough data to reach persuasive conclusions.

Survey data comes in many forms, and the form that journal peer-
reviewers see and that appears with the published paper is the 
“cleaned” and analyzed data. These are the charts, tables, and 
graphs that extract meaning from the raw material — piles of 
questionnaires, transcripts of conversations, “screen grabs” of 
online forms. Many study co-authors never see the raw material.

Mr. Kalla, trying to find out why he and Dr. Broockman were 
getting such a low response rate, called the survey company that 
had been working with Mr. LaCour. The company, which he declined 
to name, denied any knowledge of the project, he said.

“We were over at Dave’s place, and he was listening to my side 
of the conversation, and when I hung up,” we just looked at each 
other, he said. “Then we went right back into the data, because 
we’re nerdy data guys and that’s what we do.”

On Saturday, they quickly found several other anomalies in Mr. 
LaCour’s analysis and called their former instructor, Dr. Green. 
Over the weekend, the three of them, with the help of an 
assistant professor at Yale, Peter Aronow, discovered that 
statistical manipulations could easily have accounted for the 
findings. Dr. Green called Mr. LaCour’s academic adviser, Lynn 
Vavreck, an associate professor, who confronted Mr. LaCour.

Dr. McNutt of Science said editors there were still grappling 
with a decision on retracting.

“This has just hit us,” she said. “There will be a lot of time 
for lessons learned. We’re definitely going to be thinking a lot 
about this and what could have been done to prevent this from 
happening.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/science/maligned-study-on-gay-
marriage-is-shaking-trust.html?_r=0

--
Homosexuality is the sole mental illness removed from the 
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM, on 
the basis of a voice popular vote with absolutely zero medical 
and scientific evidence or peer review.  The voice vote was 
conducted by Dr. John P. Spiegel, the President-Elect of the 
American Psychiatric Association in 1973, himself a closeted 
homosexual with an attraction to young boys.      

Back to comp.soft-sys.business.sap | Previous | Next | Find similar

Thread

Doubts About Study of Gay Canvassers Rattles the Field. In other words, "GAYS CAUGHT LYING AGAIN & AGAIN!" "S. Downey" <sdowney@chapman.edu> - 2015-06-07 11:22 +0200

csiph-web