Honestly, I thought I knew all the answers to the questions posted by our instructor Professor Strong in this learning activity. They were what I had learned from the past two months in this course, and basically, they were pretty much like what our Professor had summarized in the Unit 10 Note. For example, examining whether the articles are peer-reviewed, tracing the reputation of both the journal and the author(s), finding out whether the paper has been presented at conferences, looking for the funding source of the research to see if it is prestigious, evaluating each section of the study through the extremely academic and rigorous criteria provided in the textbook (Plano, & Creswell, 2015), figuring out whether the limitations of the research reveal the reality, analyzing the intended audience, and involving critical thinking in the whole procedure, particularly in evaluating the bias hidden in the study, were the essences and also could be the answers to the questions.
Then I watched the video of TED presented by Ben Goldacre. Initially, I was appreciated that he brought up the notion of epidemiology. Epidemiology is quite common in my country because of the prevalence of the Traditional Chinese Medicine. Apparently, there are a lot of unscientific conventions or statements coming from the Traditional Chinese Medicine, and these conventions are still fooling the people right now, even including those Professors and international students. For example, there is a saying that regardless the season and climate, the women cannot take any shower and brush their teeth for a whole month after they give birth to the babies. If the female touched the water in that month, they would get terrible diseases which will be the nightmare of the rest of their life and cannot be easily cured. Even the newspapers are disseminating and bragging about this “Traditionally superior” saying. After that Goldacre (2011) mentioned that “the real science is all about critically appraising the evidence of somebody else’s position”. I have learned four main factors that can be used additionally in evaluating the studies: looking for the reasons for conducting the research rather than the authorities of the authors, examining if the findings are proper science with proper evidence, figuring out whether there is missing data, and focusing on the ethical issue of the study. After that, many examples were illustrated to demonstrate the information of distorted evidence by him. And I was completely shocked. I know the epidemiology all the time but I have never given any thought about the reasons invisibly supporting this phenomenon. If the researchers intentionally distort the evidence, such as moving away half the data, it might be impossible for us to discern the cheating behaviours through the ways mentioned in the first paragraph.
I thought about this “puzzle” for a whole day, and I have found some answers in my mind. The knowledge points mentioned above are the tools for evaluating the various studies. Tools do not think, but we can. In another word, we can use the tools, but we cannot rely on them. We should rely on ourselves. First, we have to learn as much as we can to be knowledgeable in the domain of the research, not only in the domain of evaluating the research. This would serve as a sound basis for discerning the information of the study and make us confident in thinking critically. Second, we should be extremely careful in evaluating every detail of the research and analyzing the reason behind that detail. For instance, we should figure out whether the number of the participants is appropriate and reasonable, and why the researchers chose these participants. Third, we must be aware of any “weird feeling” originating from the evaluating process and keep them in mind. Because sometimes when a group of researchers are cheating together, it will be hard for us to find out the reality just through reading and evaluating. Although we cannot explicitly tell what is wrong with the study, the feelings will be the hints in the future. We must discern our skeptical feelings which might indicate the untrustworthy part of the study.
Not only the tools we gained from this course but also the ability of critical thinking and discerning are all of high significance.
Question: When the evidence of the study is distort intentionally, what strategy might you adopt to find the truth?
Reference
Goldacre, B. (2011). Battling bad science. TEDGlobal 2011. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science
Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
When the Author of the study is out to propagate an invalid argument it is our duty to question their motive and provide honesty in response to them. We should call their motive into question, and provide examples of more honest research. The point of peer review is to prevent dishonest researchers from propagating myths. When dishonest researchers do this, peers must reveal their dishonesty to the world to prevent the continuation of bad practice.
Hi Layla,
I am glad to hear that you found the skills and tools that you have learned about in this course helpful. I am also glad to hear that you enjoyed the TED talk. It is one of my favorites.
Dr. Strong