SophiaPretty
$14/per page/Negotiable
One obvious lesson of this week's modules could be summed up as "mistakes happen, researchers are only human." Hence, the need for transparency, documentation, paper trails, and all of the other elements that serve to make research reproducible.
While some researchers do all that they can to make their research reproducible - by documenting major and even minor decisions at all stages of the research - there are many reasons why this practice is not always followed perfectly (or at all). In these cases, we may never be able to evaluate with certainty how much credence to give to the original research.
But, then there are cases in which the original researchers did make their research reproducible. Sometimes this occurred at the time the research report was published; other times it was the result of intense pressure from skeptical colleagues or institutions. In either case, some of this research ultimately shows itself to be reproducible (others following the same methods with the same data reach the same or similar conclusions), while some is found to be non-reproducible (others could not generate the same results).
For this week's advanced task, I would like you to choose one press release or news item from a website called "Retraction Watch" that is devoted to cataloging retractions (formal requests by authors or editors to have a research report removed from circulation, usually due to a major error or flaw in the research). Most of the studies profiled on this site have been found to contain errors - some large, some seemingly small - that were enough to cast doubt on the original findings.
When you have selected an article using the links at the end, I'd like you to read it and then reflect on the role of reproduction in the events described. Answer the following questions for credit:
1.) In 1-2 sentences, summarize the major claim of the original research.
2.) In 1-2 sentences, summarize the major problem identified with the research.
3.) In 1-2 sentences, describe the role of reproducibility (good documentation, paper trails, and record keeping) in identifying the problem. For example, was the error discovered by other researchers attempting to replicate or reproduce the original findings? Only after a request was made for additional documentation? If reproducibility was involved, summarize what happened. In some cases, reproducibility may not have played a role. It's fine to state that if it's true.
4.) Include a complete APA-style reference to the original article at the end of your submission. Only if you cannot locate the original article (most are linked from the Retraction Watch site), include a complete APA-style reference to the actual retraction watch article in its place. One or the other is sufficient.
Below, you will find direct links to the Retraction Watch Archives for several popular Social Science disciplines. The last link is to a listing of all articles (including many from the physical and biological sciences and medicine) that involved reproducibility.
As a general request, try hopping back a few pages in time using the "older articles" link at the bottom of each page so that you are not all writing about the first article listed. As a bonus, look for a story that really interest you (there are hundreds and hundreds).
I hope you enjoy reading about these rare, but important, instances of scientific retractions and thinking about the sometimes under-appreciated role of good record keeping, documentation, and paper trails in the progress of social science.
Click on a link to see a listing of articles by subject (and pick one to write about):
http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-subject/business/ (Links to an external site.)
http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-subject/economics/ (Links to an external site.)
http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-subject/education/ (Links to an external site.)
The following is the post from one of my classmates.(just take a look.)
Kyle
The main argument of this research paper is that the impact of geographic distribution of R&D expenses shows a inverted-U Shape and that the effects of innovation on firms are heterogeneous. The diversity of resources and intraorganizational linkages tend to influence firms’ ability to benefit from increased geographic scope. The major problem found by a group of PHD students in the paper is the “empirical anomalies” in data analysis and interpretations. The reproducibility of this paper is good, because when the error was found, a committee worked with the author to reproduce the results based on the data and programming codes shared by the author. The error was confirmed and was immediately addressed to avoid retraction.
Lahiri, N. (2010). Geographic Distribution of R&D Activity: How Does it Affect Innovation Quality? The Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1194–1209. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.54533233
Attachments: