COMM. 166: Group Exam Study Guide

- Why thinking of the world in terms of "opinions" (and even "facts") is problematic?

The word "opinion" can be problematic because it can be used to denounce someone: "That's just your opinion," or "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion." When using the word "opinion" you need to be mindful and only use it to point out that someone is saying an opinion rather than a claim that has and evidence. "Facts" can also be problematic because science never claims to be 100% making "facts" not always the best word to use because science is not set in stone.

Week 3: Post-Truth

(HEADING)

Week 5: Confirmation Bias (a form of motivated reasoning) [Craven]

(HEADING)

Week 5: Empirical Science and Interdisciplinary Inquiry

(HEADING)

Week 5: Finding Sources [Booth Ch. 5]

(HEADING)

Week 5: Joining the Scholarly Conversation [Deitering and Jameson, Deitering and Gronemyer]

(HEADING)

Week 6: The Methodology of Science

(HEADING)

Week 6: The Research Process [Gray et al.]

(HEADING)

Week 6: The Structure of a Scholarly Article [Huett and Koch]

(HEADING)

Week 7: Descriptive Statistics [Wheelan ch. 2]

(HEADING)

Week 7: Postpositivist Case Study [MacNell et al.]

(HEADING)

Week 8: Constructivist Case Study [Harris]

(HEADING)

Week 8: Research Design [Creswell]

(HEADING)

Week 8: Research Worldviews and Kinds of Knowledge

(HEADING)

Weeks 3-4: Peer Review [Oreskes and Conway, Craven]

(HEADING)

Weeks 6-7: Ideal Scientific Experiment

(HEADING)

Weeks 7-8: Focus on the Process

(HEADING)

- Why you should gather evidence before making a claim, not the other way around

If you do not have evidence then you are basically stating your own opinion, the evidence serves as support for the reasons offered and helps compel viewer/listener to accept claims.

- Avoiding the scholarly conversation

Ignoring the existing research on a topic, and/or advancing claims outside the peer-review process, rather than engaging the ongoing scholarly conversation

- The general outline of how a peer-reviewed scholarly article in the social sciences is structured

Title/author/abstract --> introduction (why?) --> review of literature --> methods (how?) --> results (what?) --> discussion/conclusion (so what?) --> references

The purpose of a descriptive statistic (hint: this is also its main strength and its main weakness)

To give us a manageable and meaningful summary of the underlying phenomenon. It summarizes making it easy to understand but also simplifies and misses out on certain details.Example: bowling score, and GPA

- What confirmation bias is, generally (Craven refers to this as "confirmation bias proper")

To interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. Some of the many "flavors" of confirmation bias: Looking for evidence to confirm your beliefs, never to contradict them; Counting your hits but not your misses: paying attention only when an event confirms your belief; Belief polarization: giving more credibility to evidence that fits your ideas; Murphy's law of Research: enough research will reveal evidence to confirm any hypothesis

- False balance

Asserting the need to give equal weight to "both sides" of an issue, instead of evaluating claims by the strength of their evidence

- Why "attacking the gatekeepers" is an incredibly, frighteningly dangerous disinformation tactic * Hint: Think about what it would mean to live in a world where there is no shared understanding about what is true, and where people who are powerful and/or manipulative have no independent force to keep them in check

Attempting to discredit reliable sources because of disagreement with information. Example: Calling well researched science "junk science" Instead of recognizing credible information we are creating a false mindset which leads to ignorance.

- Attacking the gatekeepers

Attempting to discredit reliable sources because of disagreement with the information, instead of recognizing the credible process behind that information. For example, calling well-researched science "junk science."

* Name at least one other research worldview (no need to describe it)

Transformative

- Why "belief" or "disbelief" is not the right way to evaluate knowledge that is new to you

Belief or disbelief is a product of using confirmation bias.

- Cherry Picking

Using only select evidence that supports the claim, rather than considering the totality of the evidence

* Qualitative

WORDS, relating to, measuring, or measured by the quality of something rather than its quantity.

- What it means to view research as an ongoing conversation * Why it matters to view research as an ongoing conversation (versus, for example, viewing research as "finding the right answer")

Eavesdropping, Engaging, Entering. It matters to view research as an ongoing conversation because when you are delving into research, you understand that you must have an understanding of what has already been said, and what further questions you have. Process provides progression and contributes to fill gaps in the conversation.

- What it means to say that science is empirical * How claims supported by evidence are a key part of the scientific process

Empirical: based on observation or experience

* What scholarly conversations is this study engaging?

Gender bias in student evaluations, inequality, gender bias in academia, women disadvantages in academia.

* What are the study's methods?

They used a controlled experiment with two assistant instructors one male and one female.

Week 4: Quick Guidelines for Evaluating Sources [Understanding Science]

(HEADING)

Week 4: The Nature of Science [Craven, Understanding Science]

(HEADING)

- What the key difference is between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources (not all disciplines use the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction, so it's the general principle that's important)

(The answers are in the next questions)

An intuitive understanding (meaning that you understand it fully and can explain it in a way that makes personal sense to you) of these statistical terms:

(The answers are in the next questions)

* What is the study's research question?

1) How do college men conceptualize masculinity? 2) How do college men's conceptualizations of masculinity influence their gendered behavior?

- The methodology of an ideal experiment * Be able to identify the key principles/steps of an ideal experiment, and the reasoning behind each principle/step

1. Isolate the variable of interest (the one thing you are testing for) - Create two or more groups - Keep everything the same between groups EXCEPT the one thing you are testing for 2. Run the experiment 3. Observe: Are the outcomes significantly different between the groups? - If yes, you know it's because of the variable of interest

- What is a primary source?

A document that is an original and is not interpreted by another person or source.

- Exaggerating uncertainty

Claiming that the science is uncertain, rather than considering the weight of the evidence. Ex: Conspiracy Theorists

* What are the study's research question and hypothesis?

Research question: Whether or not students rate their instructors differently on the basis of what they perceive those instructors gender to be. Hypothesis: Male instructors would be ranked higher than the women instructors.

- How we can protect ourselves from confirmation bias, including identifying red flags

Some red flags to look for:only looking for evidence to support your view, not contradict it;you really really hope something is true;you stop investigating once you find the answer you agree with;you are very confident of your views;you can't come up with a reasonable answer when asked what it would take to change your views.Once you realize your confirmation bias may be occurring, you can back up and start over; ask yourself if you could be wrong; deliberately search for evidence to contradict your beliefs, etc.

* Median

the middle score in a distribution; half the scores are above it and half are below it

* Postpositivist

What this worldview does: Classic Scientific Method; observe & measure reality Goal: Find verified objective truths that can be generalized to other contexts

- What it means to "follow bibliographic trails" and "use citation indexing" (these are technically opposite strategies, but they serve similar purposes)

"Follow bibliographic trails": When you find a book that seems useful, skim its bibliography or works cited. "Use Citation Indexing": Many online catalogs and databases let you look up other sources that cite one that you already know.

Week 3: The Tobacco Strategy: Spreading Doubt [Oreskes and Conway] For each of the tactics below, you should be able to explain it generally and discuss why it is wrong or dangerous

(HEADING)

Week 4: Claims and Evidence

(HEADING)

- Regarding the Frank Harris study (Deconstructing Masculinity: A Qualitative Study of College Men's Masculine Conceptualizations and Gender Performance):

(SUBHEADING)

1. Unsound arguments

(SUBHEADING)

2. Misrepresenting the scientific process

(SUBHEADING)

3. Post-truth tactics

(SUBHEADING)

- Regarding the MacNell et al. study (What's In a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in Student Ratings of Teaching):

(The answers are provided below)

- What the following research approaches are (research approaches answer the question, what kind of data is collected and analyzed?)

(The answers are provided below)

- What the following worldviews are, and their different goals/purposes

(The answers are provided below)

-The research cycle * What each stage of the research cycle means * How each stage helps science overcome some of the failings of common sense (or everyday "opinion") and construct more reliable knowledge

--> Conclusions or research findings --> Theories/hunches/hypotheses--> observation and testing -->(continuous)

* What are the study's methods?

60-90 minute Interviews

* Mixed methods

A research approach that combines quantitative and qualitative elements; it involves the description of the measurable state of a phenomenon and the individual's subjective response to it.

- What is a secondary source?

A secondary source is information gathered by someone who did not take part in or witness an event. ex: books, articles, or reports based on primary sources and are intended for scholarly research; are peer reviewed.

- What the peer review process is

A system used to assess the quality of an author's scholarly work and research. Experts in the same field check the validity and evaluate it's suitability for publication (helps the publisher decide whether the work should be accepted)

- What is gained by instead considering claims that are backed by evidence/reasons?

When you are able to see/hear why the claim is made based on evidence and reasons, you are gaining the explanation. Then you can make judgements if you believe that given the evidence or reason, if you believe the claim being stated.

- Why confirmation bias is problematic

Can potentially lead to forming inaccurate and biased impressions of others. This may result in miscommunication and conflict in intergroup settings.

2. Where did the source get its information? (i.e., What sources does this source itself cite?)

Consider where the source cites its information and who they consider credible authoritative references. Follow the money given to the researchers to identify potential motives. Ask yourself if the source stayed as close to the original source of information, because each time the information is interpreted it can be altered.

For each of the questions/guidelines below, you should be able to discuss in detail why it is important for evaluating sources.

DON'T ANSWER, THESE ARE THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING 4 QUESTIONS!

4. How well do these research findings fit with those of other studies?

Does the research enter the conversation credibly while acknowledging the prior research and expanding by filling a gap.

- What it looks like to live in a post-truth society (not just reciting the dictionary definition, but being able to thoroughly discuss this idea)

Facts are no longer important. People's lifestyles are opinion-based. Even if hard evidence is presented, it will be looked at as "junk science."

- How, instead, you should evaluate knowledge that is new to you? * Why is it important to evaluate new knowledge in this way?

Focus on the process that created the knowledge, claims supported by evidence is methodology sound.

- Us vs. Them (updated 11/3)

Framing the issue as an in-group ("us") whose values are threatened by an out-group ("them"), rather than evaluating the claims and evidence. For example, framing the issue of smoking and lung cancer as a threat to "freedom" perpetrated by "socialists".

- Why ideal experiments are relatively rare in social science

Ideal experiments are relatively rare in social science. - sometimes unethical.

- What dualistic thinking means, and why it is a problem

Is a belief that there are two and only two sides to every story. This is a problem because there is always more than two sides.

- Key attributes of science as a process

Is the source accurate? Credibility, avoiding false balance, not misrepresenting or blowing controversy out of proportion

- Why it's important to understand a study's methodology and/or research methods

It is important because it allows you to understand it more effectively, different research methods have different levels of validity.

- Why is peer review an essential part of the scientific process?

It is important because no scientific claim can be considered legitimate until it has undergone critical scrutiny by experts

* According to Craven, why asking "Is it proven?" is the wrong question to ask about a scientific claim, and what you should ask instead

It's never proven. Nothing is ever 100%. What you should ask instead: How strong is the evidence? Is it strong enough to support the claim?

- What it means to say that science is a systematic process

Knowing that the process has steps that lead up to the conclusion. Science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis. Science is not merely opinion or preferences, it is designed to challenge ideas through research.

* What are the study's findings?

MANOVAs indicate that there is a significant difference in how students rated the perceived male and female instructors, but not the actual male and female instructors.

* What are the study's findings?

Men really do talk about women as a commodity. Although there are respectable men in this study, there are also student-athletes who talk about not wanting anything exclusive with one female. Men have to conform to stereotypical expectations to feel like they are showing their masculinity. Few men treat women with respect, accept their gay male peers, and men can't socialize without having beer involved.

* Quantitative

NUMBERS, relating to, measuring, or measured by the quantity of something rather than its quality.

- How science as a process is progressive (always improving) and self-correcting

New people are becoming experts and this process is progressive because new brains are always coming up with new information and chiming in to build up puzzle-like knowledge that is constructed knowledge.

3. Are the views of the scientific community accurately portrayed, particularly in terms of: - Avoiding false balance - Properly portraying the level of confidence - Not misrepresenting or blowing controversy out of proportion

No. The scientific community is not accurately portrayed because an industry, such as the tobbaco industry, can cherry pick specific phrases and misrepresent them in their favor. False balance is also used by putting equal weight to both a claim with a huge body of evidence and a claim without any evidence whatsoever.

* Constructivist

Our lived experience, our complex, rich, layered: give voice to participants. The goal: to understand the multiple subjective meanings of human experience

- Why "What scholarly conversations is this study joining?" is one of the most important questions you can ask about any research study * Hint: For one answer, think about how this question relates to the week 4 study guide item, "Quick Guidelines for Evaluating Sources" * Hint: For another answer, think about why it would be foolish for someone to dismiss offhand the results of one individual scientific study

Purpose: trend on a larger scale;Problem identified —> how these ideas influence social ideas and how they play out

- Why Deitering and Gronemyer argue that requiring untrained students to cite peer-reviewed articles is problematic

Requiring students to use scholarly articles alone can set students back in the research process because a lot of articles are written in a way to continue where the last conversation/article left off. This leaves students confused and unable to grasp the entirety of the claim the author is making.

- Why this course keeps emphasizing, over and over again, that it's the process that makes science so powerful * Why how it's done, not who does it, or what it concludes, makes science produce the most reliable knowledge. (Or, in the words of a former COMM 166 student, "science is not about scientists; it's about the process.")

Science as a process are that every piece of work has to go through the peer-review process and it always has to be updated and evaluated over and over again to present only the best evidence that we can find. They are important for generating reliable knowledge because a piece of work that is constantly being put under scrutiny and revision will always better than something that is stated with just an "O-word" behind it.

- According to Gray et al., what it means to adopt a critical perspective in social research * What the authors mean when they say that science is "subversive"

Scientists can't accept claims that are without evidence.Because of this critical perspective, scientists are drawn to challenging even their own knowledge produced to ensure that their data is accurate. Scientists do this by actively seeking evidence that challenges their own to test their theory fully.

- What social science is, and examples of social science disciplines

Social science is the scientific study of human society and social relationships. The major social sciences disciplines are Anthropology, Archaeology, Economics, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Politics, Psychology and Sociology.

- What it means to view knowledge as constructed * Why it matters to view knowledge as constructed (versus, for example, viewing knowledge as "facts" that are "discovered")

Students learn by connecting new knowledge with knowledge and concepts that they already know, thereby constructing new meanings

* Why the disinformation tactic, "exaggerating uncertainty," fails to understand that never claiming 100% certainty is actually a strength of the scientific process

The disinformation tactic, "exaggerating uncertainty," fails to understand because they think that by telling the public that they shouldn't trust something that isn't 100% certain that they will convince the public. Although that could be a possibility, not being 100% certain is a strength in itself because that means that the information and evidence is always being refined and strengthened which means that only the best evidence will be attained and presented.

1. What is the goal/purpose of the source?

The importance of asking this question is that it tells you a lot about the quality/type/nature/depth of the information, tells you if it has an ulterior motive, if it has an agenda, and it gives you a guide.

- Why the key attributes of science, as a process are important for generating reliable knowledge

The key attributes of science as a process are that every piece of work has to go through the peer-review process and it always has to be updated and evaluated over and over again to present only the best evidence that we can find. They are important for generating reliable knowledge because a piece of work that is constantly being put under scrutiny and revision will always better than something that is stated with just an "O-word" behind it.

Be able to describe how these questions can help you make sense out of just about any social science study

The questions start a scholarly conversation and demonstrates the research process of a social science study.

* Standard deviation

a measure of variability that describes an average distance of every score from the mean

- What methodology means, as distinct from research methods * Note: I have edited the Huett and Koch reading [PDF] on the structure of a scholarly article to clarify that most research papers include a research methods section (how the researcher collected data), not necessarily a methodology section (why the study was designed that way).

a system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity

- What it means to say that communication is interdisciplinary

can involve two or more academic disciplines or fields of study.

- What is a tertiary source?

information collated from various sources to present a broad or rudimentary overview of a topic. ex: textbooks, encyclopedias (wikipedia)

- Assuming a normal distribution, roughly what percentage of observations are within one, two, and three standard deviations from the mean?

one deviation: 68% two deviations: 95% three deviations: 99.7%

- Examples of different types of research methods (research methods are specific tools and techniques used to collect data)

surveys, interviews, and observations.

* Mean

the arithmetic average of a distribution, obtained by adding the scores and then dividing by the number of scores

* What scholarly conversations is this study engaging?

the connection between college men's conceptualizations of masculinity and their gendered behavior