Talk:Academic bias

Removing bad sources and misrepresentations of usable sources

The recent reversion of my edits was not a good idea. Obviously they were bold, but I don't think "you didn't ask first" alone is a reason to revert; what did you object to about them, TMDrew? They removed a number of poor sources (Academic Questions and Issues in Law and Medicine aren't real scholarly journals, and David Horowitz is a notable fringe figure), instances of original research (simply assuming that scientists being irreligious creates bias, when the source doesn't say so; other essay-like material), and outright misrepresentations of sources (the Zipp piece says the opposite of what it's being cited for; Slife and Reber aren't talking about religious psychologists not being hired or anything like that, and my summary of their paper is more accurate). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's let CaptainCS give an explanation before we adjust the article. --TMD (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, Please define your conditions for what you consider to be "fringe". Throwing around this kind of rhetoric is meaningless if not defined. Thanks. --Bobby 02:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apologeticsaurus Rex (talk • contribs)

The sources in Academic Questions and Issues in Law and Medicine have been cited in peer review journals. I can provide citations if someone wants to look them up to confirm them. If they are good enough to be cited in peer-review journals then they should be good enough to be cited in Wikipedia unless we are prepared to say that all citations in Wikipedia must come from peer-reviewed journals. Furthermore the citations generally support what is already supported in peer-review work, which is that academic is disproportionately progressive and irreligious or making a general argument such as the possibility that academic bias exists in a certain cultural context. Horowitz is a public figure and is represented as such. He is not represented as a scientist or scholar. I do not agree with his arguments but he does have a following that should be represented in a discussion on academic bias since he has brought this issue to the forefront in his work. The Zipp piece is not used to argue for academic bias but to document that academics are disproportionately progressive. I do not understand how anyone can look at how they are cited and think otherwise. Likewise the sentence containing Slife and Reber is clearly arguing that they content that the bias against theism limits psychology. The sentence says nothing about employment discrimination. This entry contains several sources with different points of view. The inclusion of those sources in no way implies that this source agrees with all of the arguments of the other sources in this entry. Yet, this seems to be implied in your critiques. Thank you TMDrew for bring this to my attention to clear up these misconceptions. CaptainCS (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not about peer review or the lack thereof necessarily, it's about the fact that Academic Questions and Issues in Law and Medicine are demonstrably bad sources - they come from agenda-motivated organizations with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. I disagree that we need to represent a poorly sourced fringe view simply because it exists; if Horowitz's view is notable or important, reliable sources will discuss it. The Zipp article states outright that claims of significant disproportionate political progressiveness are inaccurate. Please explain what you find wrong with my summary of Slife and Reber. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally disagree with your representation of academic questions and issues in law and medicine. Do you have any evidence of your claims or it it merely your opinion. And you may not like Horowitz but he has played a role in the controversy of academic bias and it would be neglectful to ignore that reality. His inclusion merely states that he is part of the debate. I gotta go for now but latter I will address your other arguments. CaptainCS (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh, you can verify using such hard-to-use Internet resources as Google or Wikipedia that Academic Questions isn't a scholarly journal but rather the publication of a rightist think-tank. Issues in Law and Medicine is harder to dig up data on, but it also appears to come from a political organization, not a scholarly source. Again, can you find a real source that supports the inclusion of Horowitz's views? "It exists" is not enough reason to include something on Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't our responsibility to verify your claims. Just telling us to "look it up on Google" isn't demonstrating the veracity of your claim. Do your own work and prove your claim. Also, according to the hard-to-use Internet resource Wikipedia... Academic Questions is "a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal"ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again I never claimed either to be a peer review journal. But neither is the Huffington Post, The Nation or the Weekly Standard and they are cited all the time in Wikipedia. The pieces cited are generally actual studies and brought up by researchers such as Zipp. If only scholarly peer-review sources are welcomed at Wikipedia that is news to me and there are a lot of other entries that need to be rewritten. Zipp and Fenwick argue that political representation of progressives is not as distorted as people think. Indeed some of their methods (such as merging moderate conservatives with conservatives) are controversial. But they do not deny that progressives are overreperentated. They argue that there is a trend towards more political moderation but as of their last survey in 1997 even with their measures they find that over half of academia is liberal and about a quarter is conservative. This is even when including "conservative" fields such as business. Unless you have a source that shows that there are twice as many progressives as conservatives in the general public then clearly progressives are overrepersented in academia. And that is all the original sentence says. The fact that even someone who argues against the research showing progressive overrepersentation produces data that illustrates that overrepersentation makes the point all the more certain. As it concerns Slife and Reber, the original sentence merely used them as an example of implicit bias, not as an example of employment discrimination. This is clear from their abstract where they state: The authors then provide practical examples of this prejudice in the following: (1) mainstream psychology and its history, (2) research design and explanation in the psychology of religion, and (3) interpretations of important philosophers and scholars relevant to psychology. I see no reason why the original sentence is inaccurate. I cannot see the changes you made on them so I cannot evaluate them. If you put on the talk page what those changes are I may agree but right now I am comfortable with it as is. Finally as it concerns Horowitz he clearly represents a perspective held by many on academic bias. He has published multiple books on the topic. I could seek a reference to someone like Dennis Prager or Charlie Sykes who also talk about this subject but he has written more from that perspective than anyone else. It is pretty clear in the entry that he is not treated as an expert but as someone with an argument and one that represents a certain perspective and one that is relevant for this topic. Once again I do not agree with him but neither do I agree with some of the others cited here. Including him, or at the very least someone like him, is valuable for providing balance. CaptainCS (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you for a third time to find a real source that supports the inclusion of Horowitz's views. The fact that they exist in the world is not sufficient to include them on Wikipedia. I've also already pointed out that you're attacking a strawman in insisting that not everything needs to be peer reviewed. Not everything needs to be peer reviewed, but that doesn't mean that some sources aren't still unreliable because they come from organizations that are obviously agenda-based and lacking an interest in accuracy.

I didn't read past the Zipp abstract, but I'm not sure why the authors would state something in the abstract that is the exact opposite of what they say in their article. The abstract says that the claim of a disproportionately liberal faculty and consequent academic bias comes from bad data. Are you sure you're not reading your own original conclusions in here?

My summary of Slife/Reber: "Brent D. Slife and Jeffrey S. Reber write that the application of naturalistic thinking to science, specifically psychology, has the effect of bias against theism. Neutrality towards theism rather than the embrace of theism, say the authors, results in discrimination." This is a clearer summary of the article, which does not give the impression that we're talking about employment discrimination, unlike the original version. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay we are going to drop the Zipp conversation since you have not read the article and I have. Have you read the Slife and Reber article or did you just skim the abstract on that as well. I think my original sentence is simpler, easier to read, and is just as accurate as your sentence. But in the spirit of compromise I will agree to change that one sentence to the one you have and only that one sentence if that is the only change we make. As it concerns Horowitz you have to be more specific about what sort of evidence you want. You claim Horowitz to be a fringe figure yet he has his own Wikipedia page and as I have pointed out multiple books on the subject. You make the claim he is a fringe figure and thus it seems to me that you have the responsibility to show this is the case even though he is well known. I can also assume that the concern about Academic Questions and Issues in Law and Medicine have been answered by ReformedArsenal unless you can provide positive evidence that they are unreliable sources. So if you agree to drop everything else go ahead and change that one sentence to the one above and I will not protest it or try to revert it back. I think that is fair. CaptainCS (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think holding a sentence that even you hold to be perfectly acceptable hostage in exchange for continuing to use obviously unacceptable sources is going to work. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The source is only "obviously unacceptable" to you. You're welcome to call for a RFC if you like, but as of right now you clearly don't have concensus. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I tried to be fair. Given that you have made a number of claims and substantiated none of them I feel no inclination to make any changes much less the one I offered. If you can provide me with more evidenced than your opinion I will remain open-minded. Otherwise I vote to keep this as it is. CaptainCS (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Luckily, the article does not belong to you, even though you created it, and your opinion of it is not the only one that matters. Other users who care about reliable sourcing and neutral point of view can improve it for you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We do care about it, but do not think that undermining his point counts as "improving" the article. --TMD (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty funny Roscelese, since you're the only voice right now that is expressing any sort of dissent. You're welcome to call for an RFC if you like, that will bring more voices to the discussion. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, Roscelese is trying to push edits against consensus. I recommend that if this persists, we notify the admin board and get the account blocked from editing this page.--TMD (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the sources you removed is published by the Princeton University School of Public Affairs... hardly a bastion of conservativism. You're clearly hacking at this article from a place of bias. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Which one is that? The American Council of Trustees and Alumni? Was the unsourced paragraph secretly cited to a Princeton source? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread the edit record. However you did remove sourced published materials by Yancey (published by Baylor) without cause, explanation, or consensus. You keep trying to hatchet at this, it is like you think we won't notice... ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I removed any Yancey material in this go-round. Obviously I still think it's unreliable, but I left it in the article while discussion continues. Is there something that you think is important that was altered or removed in my re-organizing the article structure? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Just remembered that I did remove one thing. It was a repetition of material included and cited elsewhere in the article, presented in a synthetic way as though to undermine another source. Yancey's claim that conservatives are discriminated against, using that source, is still in the article in the appropriate location. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Academic Questions

There's a pretty robust view among previously uninvolved editors at RSN that the Academic Questions sources shouldn't be used unless the views in question are going to be ascribed to the authors. The material relying on those sources shouldn't be re-added unless they're re-written along those lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a qualifier of: According to Academic Questions, a (insert brief description of journal as reported by reliable sources), followed by the content, should do the trick. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Better to ascribe to the writer(s), I think -- unless the article is written by the journal editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not both? George Yancey, writing for the right-wing Nat'l Assn of Scholars, says... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That could work, but I think it's probably not always necessary to name the author, but could be at times, especially if a wiki page exists for the author. This is a peer reviewed journal, but apparently a right wing journal. Something along the lines of "According to Academic Questions, a peer-reviewed right wing journal.....but "right wing" might need to be tweaked for neutrality. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, what's the basis for saying it's peer-reviewed? I haven't seen anything definitively establishing this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been described as peer-reviewed on RSN and on the Wikipedia page for Academic Questions. Do you dispute it's peer-reviewed? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, Springer Science+Business Media, which apparently publishes open access peer-reviewed journals online, says Academic Questions is peer-reviewed. http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/higher+education/journal/12129 --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

See, that's just it: the link at Springer doesn't say it's peer reviewed. If it were peer reviewed, I'd strongly expect the journal webpage at Springer to say so -- so I do doubt that it is peer-reviewed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that page says the journal covers peer-review issues, and doesn't specify, but I was under the impression all journals published by Springer in this forum had to be peer reviewed. Does anyone know how to verify if this journal is or is not peer-reviewed?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Oy. I kind of just assumed that when people at RSN said they'd found a source claiming peer review, they were telling the truth. Should have been more cynical. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it might actually be peer reviewed -- but I don't think we know that yet. Of course, even if it is, it's still an ideological vehicle -- not the usual sort of academic journal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

At the discussion of relevant sources I pointed out several articles in AQ and showed how scholars referenced them in literature review of scholarly material. No one has responded why we should not take those articles seriously. I also find the changes wanted by Roscelese to be butchery rather than looking at each article to see if it is an opinion piece or whether it is the result of research. Roscelese even takes out work by one of the authors in AQ (Yancey) that is contained in a book by an academic press. If this is to be rewritten it should be rewritten careful and looking at each citation to see what it claims as well whether it is used to point out a viewpoint or to discuss research evident in that article.CaptainCS (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not removing stuff from AQ while the discussion continues. Have you even looked at the edit you're reverting? As I've already stated, the only thing from AQ I removed was a repetition of something presented in a synthy way to deliberately undermine another source. The original presentation of the claim is still there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

These edits have gutted well-cited information from the article. You cannot simply gut the information from Ames and the like and expect us to accept it. The April 9 edits are unacceptable.--TMD (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have removed literally nothing from Ames. What kind of bizarro world are you editing in? You need to stop this petty sniping right now and actually discuss the edits and the sources. You are not going to continue reverting indefinitely out of nothing but sheer spite at a "skeptic." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I basically agree with the reversion to the earlier version, as the edit warring had gotten out of hand, but I added "according to Academic Questions, a quarterly journal with a conservative point of view" to content referenced by this journal per RSN discussion.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

In the Slife and Reber abstract it states "This neutrality has long provided the justification for psychological science to inform and even correct theistic understandings." The article goes on to discuss the implicit bias against theism. My claims about clearing up what is actually said in the article is well-founded.CaptainCS (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

And is that the same as "provides the justification for religious discrimination"? Perhaps you could explain that that's what you meant to say, Dr. Slife. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a fair compromise BoboMeowCat and I apologize for reverting your minor edits. I am still learning how to do be an editor in Wikipedia.CaptainCS (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hello? *crickets, tumbleweeds* –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Confused by your edit summary for this vague crickets comment where you said, "this utter refusal to discuss is very frustrating for people who would actually like to improve the article" Discussion has taken place and the sources that were in contention have had qualifiers added or ascribed to authors. The article has been cleaned up by multiple editors and seems substantially improved. What further discussion/improvements are you looking for specifically? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If people are going to repeatedly revert such edits as removing obviously unreliable sources like ACTA, removing synth, and fixing weight issues for sources that remain, it would be nice to have some indication of why they object to the edits. It is impossible to address these users' concerns if they refuse to identify or discuss them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I could only find one sentence attributed to ACTA in current version. It seems well qualified and balanced to me. Is this the sentence you object to? I'm including the following sentences for context:

"Research by a conservative group, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, argues that course curriculums betray a progressive bias.[21] However, John Lee argues that this research is not based on a probability sample and uses a research design that cannot rule out explanations other than political bias.[2] Furthermore, research suggests little or no leftward movement among college students while they are in college.[22]"

If this is what you're objecting to? Also, I'm not clear what you are referring regarding synth and weight issues. If complaints were more specific, they'd be easier to address. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think obviously subpar sources should be used even if they're rebutted. WRT synth and weight, that's exactly my point. I can't address the objections of other users if I have no idea what they are. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems if we are going to have an article about the conservative claim that conservatives experience bias, conservative commentators and researchers that claim this will be part of the article. Honestly, I'm still not clear what your objection is regarding synth and weight. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if reliable secondary sources talked about ACTA's claims, it might be appropriate to include them. Simply having a point of view is not enough to get that point of view represented on WP. I've already explained the synth issue; it's unnecessary and inappropriate to repeat Yancey's thesis after the sourced statements about discrimination based on non-political factors in an attempt to undermine those statements. The weight issue seems obvious; the article goes into a lot more detail about the studies that supposedly find academic bias than those that do not - even those that come from poor sources, like Academic Questions! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It does seem this article is heavily based on the research of one individual, George Yancy. He is a PhD who is published in a variety of sources, including a book published by Baylor University Press, but it does seem the article should probably better stress that the claim of academic bias is researched primarily by George Yancy. Maybe he needs a qualifier too, similar to qualifiers for source Academic Questions. Who is he anyway? This article is the first I'd heard of him. I found this youtube lecture from him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7jlKcGo_zc and his faculty page at University of North Texas https://faculty.unt.edu/editprofile.php?pid=1525#6--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

We could stress the fact that this is largely coming from one source, yes. How about the rest of my edits? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Still not clear on exactly what your objections are. Maybe it could help if you copied and pasted text from article you consider synth or copied and pasted text which you think represents undue weight explaining why.

To respond to what I think was your earlier objection regarding Yancey’s research, is the last sentence of this paragraph what you objected to as unnecessary and inappropriate repetition of Yancey’s thesis? : “There is some evidence that academic bias can be based in non-political and non-religious dimensions. At least one study suggests that perception of classroom bias may be rooted in issues of sexuality, race, class and sex as much or more than in religion.[26] On the other hand, the willingness of academics to discriminate against colleagues indicate little appetite for such discrimination unless the target is religiously or politically conservative.[14]”

If so, that last sentence seems on topic and reliably sourced, but certainly seems like it could benefit from editing to word it more encyclopedically.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion of the last sentence appears to be for the sole purpose of undermining a reliably cited statement. The content is already stated earlier in the article. This is an encyclopedia, not an essay; editors shouldn't be using it to try to prove things. We might just as well add to the earlier section "On the other hand, evidence shows that classroom discrimination is based on race, class, sex, and sexual orientation, not on religion."

So you really can't articulate any objections to my edit at all? Determined to give me the runaround anyway? (It's better than it used to be earlier on, thanks to the contributions of other users, so I'd have to take a look to see if there are still so many problems, but what you're describing is fundamentally not how BRD works.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't get the "determined to give you runaround" comment or why you think I'm not adhering to BRD. I'm personally only minimally involved in article. I didn't add the disputed content or restore it when it was previously deleted, but looking it over, it appears reliably sourced. This is the ref:

Yancey, George A (January 2011), Compromising Scholarship: Religious and Political Bias in American Higher Education, Waco: Baylor University Press, ISBN 978-1-60258-268-2, retrieved 2014-01-24

If reliably sourced information “undermines” other reliably sourced information, that actually seems to me like a good argument for inclusion under WP:NPOV. Additionally, the information does not appear to be redundant because I can find no place else in the article which specifies that according to social science research, academics tend to abhor discrimination, except when the discrimination is against the religious and/or conservative, except for that one sentence.

If you have a reliable source that says: "On the other hand, evidence shows that classroom discrimination is based on race, class, sex, and sexual orientation, not on religion.", I think that should definitely be added to the article. The current text and source cited doesn’t go that far and only says, “At least one study suggests that perception of classroom bias may be rooted in issues of sexuality, race, class and sex as much or more than in religion.” ref: Boysen, Guy A; Vogel, David L; Cope, Marissa A; Hubbard, Asale (2009), "Incidents Of Bias in College Classrooms: Instructor and Student Perceptions", Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 2 (4): 219–231,doi:10.1037/a0017538, ISSN 1938-8934

Stronger evidence against religious discrimination would be on topic and if reliably sourced seems like it definitely belongs in article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"If reliably sourced information “undermines” other reliably sourced information, that actually seems to me like a good argument for inclusion under WP:NPOV" - Not really, or at least not how it's being presented here. This isn't a case of, say, "one medical study says a thing, AMA standards disagree" or "newer Study B in source of equal or better quality specifically points out that Study A is superseded." Again, imagine if we were to flip the section and write "While George Yancey says that discrimination is just against conservatives, this study shows that discrimination is largely due to race, sex, etc." If not, perhaps you could find me the place in the Yancey source where he says these other axes of discrimination are irrelevant and justify the superiority of that source over the other one.

Re ACTA, I'm not sure if you've changed your mind. Do you agree now that it is inappropriate to include this self-published unreliable source? I'd like to go ahead and remove that now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly you are arguing that the Boysen et al. study is superior to the Yancey study but I do not see where you base the argument on. In the Yancey study several different groups were tested and for the most part prejudice was only documented against conservative groups. I would leave it up to academics to debate the merits of both studies and the way it is expressed in the article the results of both studies are acknowledged. That seems to be a balanced approach to me. CaptainCS (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the furthest I'm going presently is that the Yancey study isn't better, but it's presented in the article as though it refutes Boysen. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not see it that way. I see it as both studies are presented and the information in them do not match up and thus they are both mentioned. CaptainCS (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Then, again, consider as a thought experiment, presenting the information the other way: "Yancey says there's no discrimination except against conservatives. This study found that in fact there's discrimination based on sex, race, etc. but conservatism isn't a significant factor." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Technically significance is a statistical term and that would not be quite accurate. I looked up the article and they did not run T-test or what you would need for making claims of significance. How about this. Instead of starting the last sentence with "However" let's start it with "On the other hand". That way neither study is seen in this entry as superior to the other but merely that we have conflicting findings.CaptainCS (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide (on the talk page) a quotation from Yancey where he makes this claim at all? I don't have access to the book and given the amount of original analysis present before I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't just extrapolation from Yancey claiming that there's discrimination against conservatives, so before I can give my opinion on what portrayal of Yancey's work is appropriate, I'd like to know what it says on this topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are looking for a word for word quote it will take me a couple of days to look up Yancey's book, but as I remembered the only groups that were significantly (and Yancey did use the statistical tests to warrant that claim) more likely to be rejected based on their group membership were conservative political and religious groups. The transgendered were a little lower in acceptance than average for a couple of disciplines but I do not remember if that was a significant difference or not. I am pretty confident in remembering the major findings but give me a couple of days if you want some sort of direct quote from the book.CaptainCS (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC) I was able to take a look at the book. Really the entire book builds to the point of conservative groups face a bias that progressive groups do not. However for a word for word quote this will do as well as any on page 150 "This tendency can shape scientific inquiry in a way so that the interests of religious and political progressives are promoted at the expense of political and religious conservatives" I also did a quick look at the tables and did not see any significant findings that the transgendered are disfavored over other groups although they did score a little lower than average. CaptainCS (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"Political diversity will improve social psychological science"

Duarte et al. have a newish paper out which might be interesting/useful.

• Duarte, José L.; Crawford, Jarret T.; Stern, Charlotta; Haidt, Jonathan; Jussim, Lee; Tetlock, Philip E. (2014). "Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science". Behavioral and Brain Sciences: 1–54. doi:10.1017/S0140525X14000430. ISSN 0140-525X.

Fteyg (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a great and helpful article on this topic.TMD Talk Page. 01:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Academic bias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217043411/http://www.aft.org/pdfs/highered/facultybiasstudies1106.pdf to http://www.aft.org/pdfs/highered/facultybiasstudies1106.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Related AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political views of American academics. One of the proposed outcomes there is a merger with this article, so if you have an opinion on whether or not that merger would be a good idea, please comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The Political views of American academics article has taken a different direction than this one, so merging would not work in my opinion.AnaSoc (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: FYSH

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 September 2022 and 5 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mlouis03 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Amyhuynh23 (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)