Crawling Under the Table

In class today, the professor asked what we thought about one particular paper that I found particularly troubling. As my classmates offered perspectives on one aspect of the paper or another, I felt the anger I experienced on the initial reading of the paper once again building. Finally, I couldn't restrain myself. I exploded.

"This paper is crap. The author's approach is worthless, and he demonstrates academic dishonesty in his selective use of material from the papers he cites. The fact that this paper is so influential calls into question the integrity of the researchers who rely on it. Further, I googled this guy and was infuriated to see he is employed by the Hoover Institute. I can't believe he is getting paid to produce this stuff by such an esteemed institution."

The professor responded, "In the interest of full disclosure, I was the academic researcher on this paper. I can tell you that the errors you cite were unintentional." Uh-oh. "Further, the author is actually a very nice man." I had stepped in it big time. But I couldn't retreat. I said, "He may be, but I disagree with the methodology used for this paper." She replied that she could understand that.

I wanted to crawl under the table. I certainly don't think my professor was academically dishonest. And I would never want to publicly embarrass anyone. Yet, this school prides itself on academic rigor, the life of the mind, and vigorous debate. Had I crossed over the line, though?

I have agonized over this all day. I feel bad for the dramatics surrounding my diatribe - but I don't regret what I said. The paper still infuriates me. The fact that my professor helped write it doesn't make me view it in a different light. I don't agree with the methodology. I do think it is crap - although maybe that is the one word I would change. I do get angry when supposed experts are rewarded for shoddy research or misrepresentation in order to advocate for a position.

That does not mean the guy was dishonest. He may really believe his approach is valid. He may also have made honest mistakes in assembling the data. The fact remains that as a result of his paper, there have been very bad outcomes, from my point of view, in the education field. He probably is a really nice guy. Whose bad research led to bad outcomes.

I still disagree with his paper. Next time, though, I will temper my comments. From under the table.