In defense of Sherkat?

A few notes on Regnerus, Sherkat, science . . .

At this point I will acknowledge a contradiction found in my previous post on Sherkat and the Regnerus study: despite my rhetoric, I agree with Sherkat, in this case. Regnerus’s study effectively equates to “science,” whatever that is, from the point of view of the editor and publisher, and so retraction isn’t called for.

First, Regnerus’s paper was peer-reviewed, in contrast to the recently discredited Reinhart-Rogoff paper, which wasn’t.

Second, science is wrong all the time. Being ok with being wrong is kind of the point. Studies don’t lead to final knowledge. They lead to re-examination and further re-examination. Being wrong is central to the pursuit.

Finally, and more generally, if I were to take the role of the editor, I could think of few circumstances that would lead me to “retract.”

So, while I would not retract, I would do something else: engage with the study’s flaws. The paper’s critics — including Sherkat’s audit — have shown without a doubt that the paper’s research is highly flawed and the language not supported by the data. The only way to salvage the findings and the conclusions is for a do-over. As editor, I would invite further contentious debate.

To this extent, why Regnerus isn’t personally and publicly acknowledging the flaws and calling for a re-examination of the study’s findings (from the beginning) is the question that intrigues me most.

Is he really not convinced the paper has flaws?

My position has been and still is that Regnerus should pro-actively admit the flaws, and set out to do a better study. Basically, he should interrogate his own findings. He should do this for two reasons. One, it would be better public relations. Two, it would be better science.

The best reason I can think for Regnerus not to admit the flaws and not set himself to work on the problem, is that, for reasons of values or interests, he prefers the audience of the conservative movement to the audience of sociology. I am not saying a skilled operator couldn’t have both audiences. I am saying such poorly executed science can’t have the sociology audience.

Maybe Regnerus has already made his decision. Maybe the paper was quite successful, in his mind.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in conservative movement, Media and knowledge, politics, sociology. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to In defense of Sherkat?

  1. “Maybe Regnerus has already made his decision. Maybe the paper was quite successful, in his mind.”

    “More seriously, Mark alluded to the fact that his academic interest in family formation trends and processes had arisen while still an evangelical and his recent entrance into the Catholic Church has shaped his own thinking about fertility and family life. While only a brief exchange, his comments highlighted potential intersections between Mark’s personal engagement with his Catholicism and his research on sexual behavior. It also hinted at future contributions that his academic research could potentially make to the larger Catholic Church.
    University of Notre Dame
    Instituite for Church Life
    Dec 30, 2011
    http://icl.nd.edu/initiatives-projects/catholic-social-and-pastoral-research-initiative/researcher-highlights/

  2. Pingback: Protecting Science From Harm, Protecting Against Harmful Science | my sociology

  3. Pingback: Conditionally Accepted | Protecting Science From Harm, And Against Harmful Science

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s