In this month's Carnegie Perspectives looks at the difficulties of evaluating work done with input and assistance from others. It is by Lee Shulman, president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The posting is #40 in the monthly series called Carnegie Foundation Perspectives. These short commentaries exploring various educational issues are produced by the CFAT
Regards,
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: The Power of Play in Teaching and Learning
If you are going to give a talk at a scholarly meeting, do you need new material?
That's the question being debated in political science - as evidenced by a series of articles in the new edition of the journal PS: Political Science and Politics. While the journal finds a range of views on whether the trend is understandable or regrettable, the authors agree that it is real, and that attitudes appear generational.
As Nelson C. Dometrius, a professor of political science at Texas Tech University, writes in his introduction to the journal's debate, when he raised the question with senior faculty members, he received mixed reactions, with people quickly outlining special cases where they viewed such "double dipping" as justified. When he posed the same question to graduate students, Dometrius relates, "the modal reply was a blank stare - a lack of comprehension that presenting the same paper as many times as you wished would be viewed by anyone as an unusual or questionable practice."
Many senior faculty members say they first were discouraged from the practice in grad school - as often through subtle instruction as through any formal list of rules. In the PS articles, scholars consider the question of whether this shift in attitudes is one to fight or accept. Why, Dometrius wonders, is it now acceptable to do what was once "bad form"? (Via e-mail, he said that while he hasn't rechecked every paper he has given, he does not believe he has ever double dipped.)
While noting that the practice has become visible largely when reviewing job applications, Dometrius wanted to quantify it, so he assembled 114 vitas from political science departments at seven regional universities. The pool was made up of 87 faculty members and 27 graduate students, and departmental or institution-specific conferences were excluded, so the focus was only on conferences to which scholars regionally or nationally might apply to present or would travel to attend. He counted as "double" any paper with the same title or substantially the same title (although he notes from experiences that some who may be more ashamed of the practice try to hide it with substantially different titles for the same paper, so he may be undercounting).
In his sample, he found not a single case of double presentations prior to 1992. Then in the mid-1990's, he finds a paper or two a year, and by this decade it becomes fairly common - even if there is still a ton of new material out there. While double presentations are pretty much a non-factor for those who earned Ph.D.'s through 1985, the attitude is quite different now.
Consider the following table showing double presentations by year doctorate was received. (The numbers for the most recent group may appear low, but that is primarily because these scholars have had less time to make presentations of any kind, let alone doubles, and the percentage suggests that their figures will rise considerably.)
Duplicate Presentations, by Year Doctorate Received
Year of Doctorate % Who Have Double Dipped Duplicates as % of All Papers Presented
1960-1985 14.8% 0.5%
1986-1995 46.7% 4.1%
1996-2005 52.6% 6.7%
2006 - present 25.9% 7.4%
The traditional reason given for double presentations - getting feedback and then revising - remains a strong justification, according to the articles in the journal. But many question whether in fact such revisions are taking place, as opposed to other motivations (such as CV padding). A variety of ethical issues are raised: Is this fair at a time that major conferences are turning away record number of paper proposals? Do those who fill resumes in this way gain an unfair edge over those who give fewer (but perhaps more original) papers? Do those who double dip have an obligation to flag the practice?
Lee Siegelman, a professor at George Washington University and immediate past editor of American Political Science Review, raises the question of whether such double presentations make some professors hypocrites, in light of the direction they provide students.
"Suppose that in a course you are teaching on the presidency during the spring semester, a student seeks your permission to submit, for full credit, a paper on the veto power for which or she already received credit in a course on Congress during the fall semester, or perhaps a somewhat reworked version of that paper. Would you grant the requested permission? I am betting that you wouldn't. Indeed if you 'caught' a student doing what this student has sought permission to do, you may even bring him or her up on plagiarism charges."
Others, however, defend the duplicate practice. For starters, defenders note that many conference sessions have remarkably small audiences - so if 2 of the 15 audience members at a regional meeting of the discipline heard the same paper at the national meeting, it's not like hundreds of scholars are being denied anything.
Two political scientists at Michigan State University - Saundra K. Schneider and William G. Jacoby - write jointly to "confess" to duplicate presentations and to defend them. They note several reasons: With more political scientists out there, "research productivity requirements" are growing, and graduate students are expected to present earlier in their academic careers. These trends create "enormous pressure" to present at scholarly meetings when possible and it is "unrealistic and undesirable" to expect completely new work for each such event, they write.
Further, they say, papers do get better with feedback, but that sometimes you need multiple presentations before you get good feedback. If the end result is a paper to be sent to a journal or the start of a book, quality should count, and presenting multiple times encourages quality, they write.
In some other disciplines, the norms are different and there is no shame about duplicate presentations, although there are some issues related to how such papers are noted on CV's. Rosemary G. Feal, executive director of the Modern Language Association, said that it is fairly common for scholars to present a paper more than once. "The audience at MLA is going to be different from the audience at the 18th Century Studies Association," Feal said. In fact, she noted that scholars are so accepting of the practice that speakers will acknowledge what they are doing with remarks such as "when I last presented, I received a lot of questions about this point," she said.
And that shows the benefit of the practice, Feal said. Arguments are refined. Issues are clarified.
At the same time, Feal noted that ethical issues are raised if scholars try to imply that that a series of papers - essentially versions of the same work - are all original. The new edition of the MLA Style Manual notes in the plagiarism section the concept of "self plagiarism," in which a scholar repackages earlier work as if new.
Applying this to conference papers and CV's, Feal said that it should be clear - if one comes across a long list of papers on a resume - whether they were all original. Feal said that there is nothing wrong with telling a hiring committee that asks how many papers you gave in the last year that you gave two original papers, three times each at different conferences. But it would be wrong to represent that record as having presented six original papers.
The idea, she said, is "don't misrepresent what you've done."
Scott Jaschik
The original story and user comments can be viewed online at http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/05/20/double.
The posting below looks at the notion of "adaptive leadership," leadership needed when the solution is unknown and participants have to be drawn together to discern a new pathway. It is from Chapter 4, Preparing Leadership for the Future, in the book, Deeper Learning In Leadership :Helping College Students Find The Potential Within, by Dennis C. Roberts. Published by Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741 [www.josseybass.com] Copyright © 2007 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Double Dipping in Conference Papers
The posting below is an interesting look at the acceptance, or not, of teacher-centered vs student-centered classrooms in Mainland China and Hong Kong.. It is by Mei-Yung Leung and Xinhong Lu and is from the Teaching Toolbox, Journal of Engineering Education Selects "Research in Practice" section of ASEE Prism, April 2008 Volume 17, Number 8. © Copyright 2008, American Society for Engineering Education, 1818 N Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036-2479, Web: www.asee.org
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT:
The posting below looks at the importance of academic advising in student learning. It is by By Susan M. Campbell, associate vice president for academic affairs, University of Southern Maine; and Charlie L. Nutt, executive director, National Academic Advising Association. The article is from the Winter, 2008 issue of Peer Review, Volume 10, Number 1. Peer Review is a publication of the Association of American Colleges and Universities [www.aacu.org/peerreview] Copyright © 2008, all rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
Regards,
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: China's Learning Curves
The posting below is a review by Philip G. Stack of the book, Venturing Abroad: Delivering U.S. Degrees through Overseas Branch Campuses and Programs, by Madeleine F. Green, Peter D. Eckel, Lourdes Calderon, and Dao T. Luu. The review originally appeared in Planning for Higher Education. April - June, 2008. Planning for Higher Education. 36(3): 81-82. Copyright © 1998-2008 by Society for College and University Planning (www.scup.org). Reprinted with permission. Planning for Higher Education book reviews appear at: (www.scup.org/phe).
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Academic Advising in the New Global Century
The posting below looks at a "problem" familiar to all of us with medium to large courses, i.e., students multitasking while in class. It by Andy Guess and is from the April 18, 2008 issue of INSIDE HIGHER ED, an excellent - and free - online source for news, opinion and jobs for all of higher education. You can subscribe by going to: http://insidehighered.com/. Also for a free daily update from Inside Higher Ed, e-mail [scott.jaschik@insidehighered.com]. Copyright © 2008 Inside Higher Ed Reprinted with permission.
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Mean And Nasty Academics
The posting below describes an innovative approach that can help all faculty with new course development. It is by Barbara Tewksbury (Hamilton College) and Heather Macdonald (College of William and Mary).
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Hey, You! Pay Attention!
The posting below, while focusing on engineering faculty, has implications for all of us in how approachable we are to students. It is by Christina M. Vogt and is from the March 2008 issue of ASEE Prism, Volume 17, Number 7.
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: China's Learning Curves
The posting below is a review by Patrick Dilley, associate professor of higher education and qualitative research at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, of the book American Places: In Search of the Twenty-first Century Campus, M. Perry Chapman. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers, 2006. It appeared in the March-April, 2008, Volume 94, Number 2 issue of Academe Online [http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/] the bulletin of the American Association of University Professors. 1012 Fourteenth Street, NW, Suite #500; Washington, DC 20005. Copyright ©2008 American Association of University Professors. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
Regards,
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Professors Need to Lighten Up!
The posting below looks at a useful way for faculty to approach the design of new courses. It appeared in the newsletter: Speaking of Teaching, Center for Teaching and Learning, Stanford University - Winter 2004, Vol. 13, No.2, http://ctl.stanford.edu/Newsletter/ produced by the Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning. Reprinted with permission.
Regards,
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: The College as Campus (Review)
The posting below looks at four effective strategies in teaching large, often one night per week, evening courses. It is by Oscar Wambuguh, assistant professor of environmental health in the Department of Nursing and Health Sciences at California State University, East Bay. His e-mail address is oscar.wambuguh@csueastbay.edu. The article is from the January-February, 2008, Volume 94, Number 1 issue of Academe Online [http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/] the bulletin of the American Association of University Professors. 1012 Fourteenth Street, NW, Suite #500; Washington, DC 20005. Copyright ©2008 American Association of University Professors. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
Regards,
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Designing Courses
The posting below looks at how to develop learner-centered environments for online courses. It is from Chapter 1, Design with Learning in Mind, in the book, Conquering The Content: A Step-by-Step Guide to Online Course Design, by Robin M. Smith Published by Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741 [www.josseybass.com] Copyright © 2008 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Regards,
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Teaching Large Evening Classes
The posting below looks at the role of the department chair in conflict management and problem solving. It is by by Carmen L. Taylor, Karen F. Steckol, Patti White, Celia C. Lo, and Judith L. Bonner The article appeared in The Department Chair: A Resource for Academic Administrators, Spring 2008, Vol. 18, No. 4. For further information on how to subscribe, as well as pricing and discount information, please contact, Sandy Quade, Account Manager, John Wiley & Sons, Phone: (203) 643-8066 (squadepe@wiley.com). or see: http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-DCH.html Reprinted with permission.
Regards,
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Design With Learning In Mind
Regards,
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Conflict Management and Problem Solving as Chair