Dear Rosan,

It depends on what you mean.

What good would be served by naming the doctoral candidate whose
review of literature can be shown to be entirely deficient in a thesis
after he graduates? Is he to blame or is it his adviser? Wouldn't I do
just as well to describe the problem so that everyone can learn?

If I specifically criticize the thesis of so-and-so's student X, pointing
out that the thesis contains specific errors of fact and a deficient
literature review -- say, claiming that no literature exists when I can
show several thousand relevant sources -- then this affects the graduate
more than the advisor. This seems unfair when the adviser is even more
to blame. But it also affects the reputation and possible enrollment of
the school. In some jurisdictions, this has major repercussions -- including
the possibility of legal action if the school's doctoral enrollment should
go down with someone saying they decided not to attend that school
because of my criticism.

There is a major difference between what I discuss from the published
literature where citation and reference is fair, and what I discuss from
learning things in private, in reviewing unpublished material, in sitting
on committees, etc.

Everyone who knows me knows that I have no problem taking on
a debate. The question is WHEN to do so.

I can see that the issue has repercussions for the field. In the Picasso's
PhD debate, one thesis project I used as an un-named example of bad
work led me to another problem. The problem is this: I predicted that
some of the bad graduates would get jobs simply as a result of having
a PhD in a field where most people don't have them. Some of these
are now research supervisors and thesis advisors. My fear was that
some of these incompetent graduates would damage the lives and
careers of THEIR students. Interestingly, this happened with one of the
specific unnamed cases.

In this instance, a talented doctoral student had a few years of needless
difficulty because of having the bad luck to have one of the bad examples
as an advisor. In this case, the advisor's supervisor and examiner are
still doing damage -- the question is what would happen if I named names
and told the story. The specific case worked out well. The doctoral student
failed a preliminary examination with a skilled tutor who became the
advisor in the next round. The student also had the good fortune to
get some help and advice from several senior scholars in our field.
This student was excellent -- and it seems to me a shame that only good
luck and meeting the right people saved a promising academic career
that would have been derailed by incompetent advising. But then -- Chris
and Beryl also had a point. Why should I blame the advisor when his own
advisors did the damage by allowing him to graduate with a PhD so
that other schools could hire him?

Then comes the next problem -- once I pin the tail on the earlier
generation, all THEIR friends will get into it simply to defend their
friends in a field still in transition. Now everyone is angry at me, and
no one is thinking any longer about the real problem: competent
advising and the skills that a PhD student should master before being
granted a degree that becomes an advising license.

Now it's easy enough to speak of transcending our feelings and our
fears, but some kinds of revelations destroy careers. Let's say that
I discovered a violation of research ethics or a legal violation in an
unpublished paper where I brought this to the attention of the
scholar. Now let's say I observe continuing carelessness or sloppy
methods in this scholar's work -- nothing quite so bad, but still poor
work. The scholar I have in mind subscribes to this list. Some people
admire him for bright ideas while others are put off by his continued
self-assurance despite carelessness.

Now comes a post to the PhD-Design list describing the pattern but not
naming the name. You seem to want names to know whether this is a real
person -- who is it? I know the name. Should I publish it to satisfy your
curiosity? What good would be served? Is this scholarship or prurient
interest? To me, this would be a cross between scholarly debate and
tabloid journalism, publishing the picture of a naked scholar instead
of a Page 3 girl or Brad Pitt swimming nude.

This is a topic that always stirs up uncomfortable feelings. Even saying
that one knows who can be identified makes others anxious, and
rightly so. Or at least it's rightly so for the wise.

I've got to vote with Erik and Kari-Hans on this. If you could show
me what good I would serve by identifying unpublished lapses or
failings on the part of young scholars with bad advisors, I'd be willing
to reconsider.

To be part of a research community DOES require open-ness and
transparency. It also requires sound judgement and appropriate behavior.
Sometimes, it is neither open nor transparent to reveal all that we know.
Privileged information is occasionally privileged for good reason.

What the FIELD needs to know is how to avoid the pattern. Whether
the field needs to know WHO is a matter for careful reflection.

I challenge individuals when specific references or topical debates
require me to do so. I don't think anyone can accuse me of avoiding
a debate. I have often been accused of being too willing to debate and too
blunt in the way I take a debate forward. This may be so. Nevertheless,
I debate to address issues. There is no reason to damage individuals,
particularly not when we can serve the field by discussing problems.

When I discover these kinds of problems in the work of my students,
I discuss them and show them how to do better. I would be shamed
to be one of the advisors who treats students as an income source,
graduating research students who are not prepared to advise their
students or to meet client expectations.

The same holds true when I review, whether double-blind or
open.

Beyond this, I have a large file of correspondence with doctoral students
who come to me for advice and I also get queries from colleagues who
feel free to bring problems to me for an opinion. One reason for this is
the fact that I can keep a secret.

These are privileged communications, and it would be unethical for
me to name names simply to support the fact that the patterns
that bother Cindy and Erik exist.

Someone once told me that the difference between wise behavior
and foolish behavior such cases is simple: "It is foolish to fix the blame
and wise to fix the problem."

Yours,

Ken

--

Rosan wrote:

>dear ken
>
>points taken for the reasons for not 'naming'. but i thought part of being a
>research community is to be open...and that part of  human development through
>education is to transcend the limits of our feelings and our fears. the
>rationale you give, though very human, reminds me of the same
>rationale given by
>the functionally illiterate women whom i know intimately. could we
>expect a bit
>more from us as an intellectual community? our ability to handle criticisms or
>praises productively, i believe, is a tradmark of scholarship.
>
>best. rosan
>


Erik Stolterman wrote:

>Dear Rosan and Ken
>
>I fully support Ken in his argumentation for not naming names. As
>researchers we are interested in ideas, mechanisms, patterns, etc.
>These are, of course, manifested in the actions of people, but a person
>is not a pattern or a mechanism. I cannot see the need for naming,
>instead I do see the need to always improve our descriptions of our
>issues, which to me is at the core of scholarship. To constantly
>examine, explore, challenge, and develop ideas and intellectual
>interpretations of our reality. (Names are of course necessary in the
>referencing of texts.)
>
>Erik

Kari-Hans Kommonen wrote:

>Dear Rosan,
>
>I agree that it could be done a meeting, but I'd say not on a public,
>for eternity archived discussion list on the internet.
>
>The idea that Ken implicitly suggested, of instead of names,
>describing patterns, is in my opinion preferable, and also more
>useful, because it requires more analysis and abstraction that can as
>result also help any readers to apply to their own circumstances.
>
>Of course, case examples are also good, but maybe they should be
>detached from the persons. One can give more specifics of the problem
>while not pointing the finger at a person - again I suspect that this
>will end up having more explanatory value than starting from the
>person, because one can not then rely on anybody's assumed previous
>knowledge of the person and her/his circumstances.
>
>best, kh