Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu...
by jakelazaroff on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @02:22PM
(#31671845)
Suggesting that the authors intentionally omitted the main result of their study from the abstract and hid it under layers of obfuscating details for sharp-eyed readers to uncover is basically a conspiracy theory. The far more straightforward explanation is that the authors saw it as one fact among many that contributed to their overall conclusion stated in the abstract.
Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu...
by car_analogy on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @02:33PM
(#31671998)
It's not a conspiracy theory, but an empirically validated fact, as the study in my link showed. It is not the only one with such findings:
Ceci et al. (1985) found a similar pattern. Research proposals hypothesizing either "reverse discrimination" (i.e., against White males) or conventional discrimination (i.e., against ethnic minorities) were submitted to 150 Internal Review Boards. Everything else about the proposals was held constant. The "reverse discrimination" proposals were approved less often than the conventional discrimination proposals. - https://jsis.washington.edu/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/...
Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu...
by jakelazaroff on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @02:50PM
(#31672225)
This quote has to do with research proposals, not study results.
Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu...
by abeyer on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @02:56PM
(#31672304)
But study results are only published if the study is done, and the study is often only done if it gets institutional approval for the proposal.
Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu...
by jakelazaroff on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @03:07PM
(#31672438)
Yes, but a study's conclusion isn't preordained. It's entirely possible for authors to end up disproving their hypothesis. So it doesn't follow that, because more research proposals about "reverse discrimination" were rejected, then more studies concluding "reverse racism" (holding all else constant) would be rejected.
Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu...
by car_analogy on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @03:39PM
(#31672897)
Yes, both are covered. Studies that specifically look for inconvenient facts don't get funded, and studies that accidentally find them don't get published.
Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu...
by zozbot234 on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @02:33PM
(#31671999)
It's suggesting a disagreement as to what counts as "main result". That's quite normal and need not imply any conspiracy.
Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu...
by jakelazaroff on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @03:17PM
(#31672582)
OP confirmed in a reply that they meant the authors were doing this intentionally.
It's the most straight-forward and objective measure. That the main result of a paper would be omitted from the abstract and "highly-contextualized" is not surprising, given social science's bias. If a study gets the 'wrong' findings, it tends to be rejected:
The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. - https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi...