Katherine,
I'm curious if you and I have the same notion of "we" in this particular
case. Given that you're in a journalism school, I wonder if your "we"
referred to journalists.
What I mean it this.
Standards are, in principle, good. I have no problem with journalists
deciding that they should have a standard that requires them to always
treat their information sources with some healthy skepticism.
When I used "we" in my post, I was referring to design researchers,
scientists, and, more broadly, academics.
I believe that academics are, on the whole, more ethical with respect to
their professional activities (e.g., publishing their research) than many
other groups; "we" have a pretty good record of regulating ourselves.
Considering that academics generally are members of legally defined
professions (i.e., engineering, medicine, law, nursing, social work, and
other self-regulating groups with legally defined mandates), that's pretty
darned good.
And most of all, I worry about the public's perceptions and the potential
to undermine trust in experts.
There's a bit of a disconnect in the public eye, that perhaps can be
addressed through appropriate education. That is, that even if journalists
(rightly) apply a uniform degree of skepticism to all their information
sources, this is not to be construed as indicative of a uniform lack of
robustness in the information coming from different sources.
\V/_ /fas
*Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.*
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
On 31 May 2015 at 15:36, Katherine J Hepworth <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Filippo and Don
>
> On May 30, 2015, at 4:48 PM, Filippo Salustri <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Assuming that I read it correctly, I have to wonder: ought we really expect
> journalists to treat academics exactly the same as everyone else?
>
> Speaking as someone who teaches in a journalism school: Yes. Absolutely.
>
> Is it really the case that published
> academic work ought to be treated with the same suspicion as a "deep
> throat" informant?
>
> Yes.
>
> In the tradition of I.F. Stone<https://vimeo.com/123974841>
> investigative journalists start their work from the position that all
> powerful people and organizations lie. This of course includes
> universities, professors, and academic publishers.
>
> Katherine
>
>
> ________________
> Katherine Hepworth
> Assistant Professor of Visual Journalism
> The Reynolds School of Journalism
> 1664 N. Virginia St, Reno NV, 89557
>
> Phone: +1 (775) 784 4423
> Website: kathep.com<http://kathep.com>
>
>
> On May 30, 2015, at 4:48 PM, Filippo Salustri <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> I saw that article too, and had a good chuckle.
> But then I had an odd (for me) thought.
> I read the article as suggesting that science writers ought to be doing
> more fact-checking, because that's what a good journalist does on every
> story.
> Here's my logic: If we expect journalists to apply all their usual
> fact-checking standards to academic publications, then one may infer that
> this is because academic publications are no more reliable than other,
> non-academic sources of information.
> I see this as conflicting with what I think would be typical ethical
> expectations in academia surrounding publishing.
> And if it really is necessary for journalists to treat academic
> publications as they would any other publication, what does that say about
> the ability of the public to trust the opinions of experts?
>
> I'm not trying to be elitist about it, but journalists draw information
> from all kinds of different sources. Is it really the case that published
> academic work ought to be treated with the same suspicion as a "deep
> throat" informant?
>
> I worry about this - especially the degradation of the public trust in
> academia.
>
> If the kind of expertise that academia really ought to embody is important
> to society, general well-being, progress, etc. then perhaps we ought expect
> journalists to trust academics more and undertake to ensure a higher
> standard of ethics in academic publishing. Perhaps we ought to be taking a
> harder line against, for instance, "predatory publishers" and peer-review,
> and develop better checks and balances. If journalists can "trust" us
> more, then it should also translate into greater trust by the general
> public. And I think that would be a good thing all round.
>
> \V/_ /fas
>
> *Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.*
> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|