Latest / The Reading Instruction Show / The Importance of Academic Journals: John Stossel Doesn't Know What they Are

Transcript

The Importance of Academic Journals: John Stossel Doesn't Know What they Are · The Reading Instruction Show

0:00
This is The Reading Instruction Show. I am your
0:03
host, Dr. Andy Johnson. Topic of today's podcast,
0:07
the importance of academic journals, full colon.
0:12
John Stossel does not know what they are. Now,
0:15
there's seven big ideas I want you to take from
0:19
this two -part series. One, having a body of
0:23
knowledge is important in any field. Two, disagreement.
0:28
followed by academic discourse enables a field
0:32
to evolve. Three, silencing opposing views results
0:38
in cognitive inbreeding. Four, academic journals
0:42
are an essential item for disseminating new knowledge
0:47
and for academic discourse within a field. Five,
0:51
the process used to get scholarly articles published
0:55
in an academic journal is much higher than that
0:58
used to get an article published in a newspaper
1:02
or magazine. Six, having a body of knowledge
1:06
that is shallow and disjointed is not optimal
1:09
for academic discourse or TV interviews. And
1:13
seven, John Stossel does not know what an academic
1:16
journal is. So to review, I was invited out to
1:22
New York City so that John Stossel could, quote,
1:25
get my take, unquote, on whole word reading instruction.
1:30
But John Stossel did not really want my take
1:35
on whole word reading instruction. He didn't
1:39
really want my take on anything. John Stossel
1:43
wanted good TV. And I understood this before
1:48
I flew out for the interview. I was hoping it
1:52
would give me something to write about, and I
1:55
thought it might be a good example of what happens
1:58
when journalists insert themselves into academic
2:02
conversations. And I wasn't disappointed. So
2:08
let's look at the importance of knowledge. Most
2:12
would agree that knowledge is a good thing. Knowledge.
2:18
enables you to evaluate data, put information
2:23
in relevant contexts, and understand phenomena.
2:28
In any field or endeavor, having more of it is
2:32
a good thing, and having less of it is not a
2:35
good thing. And having less of it while thinking
2:38
you have more of it is a dangerous thing. Interactive
2:44
theories of reading. According to interactive
2:48
theories of reading, the knowledge in our heads
2:52
interacts with the information on the page to
2:55
create meaning. Now I'm not trying to brag here,
3:00
but I've got some knowledge in my head. I earned
3:05
a PhD from a prestigious university in literacy
3:09
instruction. This, combined with 30 years of
3:14
reading academic books and journal articles,
3:17
doing scholarly work, writing books and articles,
3:21
tutoring struggling readers, reviewing articles
3:24
for academic journals, and teaching graduate
3:27
and undergraduate courses, has enabled me to
3:33
accumulate quite a bit of knowledge in my head
3:36
related to literacy instruction. And again, I'm
3:41
not trying to brag. Those are just the facts.
3:47
Putting knowledge in my head and disseminating
3:50
it is what I do for a living. The state of Minnesota
3:56
pays me to do this. I'm a professor of literacy
4:00
instruction at Minnesota State University. The
4:05
knowledge in my head enables me to easily read
4:09
and understand an academic journal like Reading
4:13
Research Quarterly. This knowledge in my head
4:17
enables me to critically analyze and evaluate
4:21
the articles. I know what information is pertinent,
4:26
I recognize the research cited, and I can put
4:30
things in a greater context. But most important
4:36
is that the knowledge in my head helps me understand
4:40
what I'm reading. But when this same head tries
4:46
to read an article in an academic journal like
4:50
the Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance,
4:55
there's very little knowledge to help me create
4:58
meaning with print. Same brain. But it takes
5:02
me far longer to read an article. And I understand
5:07
very little of what I've read. And I'm not able
5:11
to evaluate the information. And other than the
5:17
quality of writing, I wouldn't know a good article
5:20
from a bad one. Same head, different kinds of
5:26
knowledge. Having a body of knowledge is important.
5:32
Now, I'm sure John Stossel has a lot of knowledge
5:36
in his head. However, not much of it is related
5:40
to reading instruction. And this was obvious
5:44
from the first email. And it became abundantly
5:49
clear at several points during the interview
5:52
that he knew little about educational research,
5:57
educational testing, or academic journals. And
6:01
why is this relevant? Well, it's difficult to
6:07
have a substantive interview, much less give
6:10
your take on things, when the other party doesn't
6:14
understand the questions that they're asking
6:17
or the answers that you're providing. Also, the
6:23
interview doesn't go too far when one is constantly
6:27
having to correct mistaken assumptions upon which
6:31
questions are asked. But the interview becomes
6:35
a clown show when the unstated purpose of the
6:39
interview is for the person with a little knowledge
6:42
to disbelieve things put forth by the person
6:45
with much knowledge. Now I know I'm not the brightest
6:50
turnip in the carrot patch, but even a dull turnip
6:54
like me knows what an academic journal is. I
6:59
know their contributions to academic discourse,
7:03
their necessity in research and the scientific
7:06
processes, and their importance in addressing
7:10
the salient and evolving issues in any field.
7:14
I know these things. People in the scientific
7:18
and scholarly communities know these things,
7:23
and most people in the field of literacy instruction
7:27
know these things. John Stossel does not know
7:32
these things. So let's talk about dissemination,
7:37
disagreement, and devolution. Academic journals
7:43
are an important source of knowledge dissemination
7:47
within any academic field. They're also a place
7:52
where experts within a field disagree. Here,
7:58
disagreeing ideas are put forth and supported
8:01
by reason and research, and this is called academic
8:06
discourse. Disagreement. followed by academic
8:11
discourse is essential for the evolution of any
8:16
field. It avoids the inbreeding of ideas that
8:21
occur when opposing ideas are silenced. Cognitive
8:27
inbreeding has led to the knowledge -based mutations
8:31
and the conceptual deformities we see in groups
8:34
like the Reading League. And when academic discourse
8:39
is replaced by journalism, these mutations and
8:45
deformities become magnified. Now it's important
8:50
that people disagree. For me, being questioned
8:55
or challenged invites me to review research,
8:58
to reflect, and either reify or refize my thinking.
9:04
And if you read my books, You will notice slight
9:08
changes in my thinking as I encounter new information
9:12
and as I was exposed to new ideas. To stay the
9:18
same is to devolve. To change is to evolve. And
9:24
it is only devolutionists, devolutionists such
9:29
as Louisa Motes, Emily Hanford, and all the Hanford
9:33
wannabes who think reading instruction is a settled
9:37
science. It's not. John Stossel doesn't know
9:42
this. And also he doesn't know what an academic
9:47
journal is. So let's take a look at academic
9:53
journals and journalists. Academic journals and
9:58
journalists both have the word journal in them.
10:03
But that's largely where the similarities end.
10:08
Journalists are trained to ask questions and
10:13
write down what people tell them. That's what
10:16
they do. That's how they get their story. But
10:21
their story is their interpretation of reality
10:24
based on the interpretations of reality of the
10:27
people who told them things. Now, my understanding
10:32
of journalism comes from an intro to journalism
10:36
class taken 40 years ago, and the movie All the
10:40
President's Men starring Dustin Hoffman and Robert
10:43
Redford. Here, the bar for getting a story published
10:48
was two sources. According to the movie, it was
10:54
only after Woodward and Bernstein had secured
10:57
two sources that the Washington Post could run
11:01
the Watergate story. Now, scholars have a slightly
11:07
higher bar when publishing in an academic journal
11:11
besides citing multiple sources throughout an
11:17
article. Articles published in academic journals
11:20
must first make it through a blind peer review.
11:26
It's important to understand this process. So
11:29
this is how blind peer review works. Once a study
11:35
has been conducted or a theoretical article written,
11:38
the authors send it off to an academic journal
11:42
to be considered for publication. When the article
11:47
is first received, the editor of the journal
11:51
considers the alignment of the article with the
11:57
academic standards within the field and the mission
12:00
of the journal. The editor then selects reviewers
12:05
with expertise related to the topic of the article
12:09
to review it. These reviewers evaluate the article
12:14
without knowing who wrote it, hence the term
12:17
blind peer review. And the authors don't know
12:21
who the reviewers are. For research articles,
12:26
reviewers consider such thing as the clarity
12:28
of the research question, the theoretical context
12:32
in which the research question was asked, the
12:36
adequacy of the methodology, the analysis of
12:39
the data, the interpretation of the data, the
12:42
validity of the conclusions, and the quality
12:45
of the writing. For theoretical articles, reviewers
12:50
consider such things as the alignment to research
12:53
-based theory, the appropriate use of reason
12:56
and research to support the thesis or claim,
12:59
the reflection of a body of established knowledge
13:03
within the field, and the quality of the writing.
13:08
Reviewers then have four options. One, recommended
13:12
for publication. Two, recommended for publication
13:15
with revisions. 3. Suggest specific reservations
13:20
be made and that it be resubmitted for consideration,
13:24
or 4. Recommend the article be rejected. Blind
13:30
peer review simply denotes a process. And the
13:37
quality of this process varies. Reviewers and
13:42
editors of highly prestigious academic journals
13:46
use a process that's rigorous and very selective.
13:52
These journals have low acceptance rates and
13:55
tend to have considerable influence on the field.
14:00
Other journals have a less rigorous review process
14:05
and higher acceptance rates. However, all are
14:10
still considered to be peer -reviewed journals.
14:14
Once published, the article is examined by researchers,
14:19
scholars, and practitioners within the field.
14:23
Here it is further analyzed, evaluated, critiqued,
14:27
debated, and embraced or rejected. This often
14:33
leads to new studies conducted and new academic
14:36
articles written to either support or denounce
14:39
the initial study or article. These are followed
14:44
by others, which are followed by others, and
14:47
the cycle of academic life continues. And, by
14:52
the way, if reading instruction really were a
14:56
settled science, as Louisa Mote says it is, there
15:00
would be no need for further research. It's all
15:03
settled. A filter. Blind peer review is a form
15:10
of a filter. to ensure that the knowledge we
15:14
get is somewhat valid, somewhat accurate, and
15:18
somewhat untainted by human subjectivity. Somewhat.
15:24
It's not a perfect process, but it is a process,
15:30
and it's used with academic journals. Journalists
15:35
like Emily Hanford, Sarah Schwartz, and John
15:39
Stossel don't have a process. There's no filter.
15:45
They just say things or write things. And because
15:50
they have a larger platform than most scholars,
15:55
their voices are heard by the public and given
15:58
more credence. Now I want to be very clear on
16:03
my position here. Journalists and a free press
16:07
are essential. in the functioning of a free and
16:12
open democracy. I'm not one of those who cry
16:16
fake news every time there's a story I don't
16:20
like. But journalists have inserted themselves
16:25
into our academic conversations about reading
16:29
instruction. And I welcome them, but they don't
16:34
get a free pass on ignorance. Now, I'm one of
16:41
the founders and one of the managing editors
16:44
of an academic journal called Equity and Social
16:48
Justice in Education, and I'm very proud of our
16:53
work. At the same time, I realize that words
16:57
like equity and social justice are shark chump
17:01
to libertarians and conservatives like John Stossel.
17:07
These words are perceived as a threat somehow.
17:12
Their bodies go into fight or flight mode when
17:15
threatened, mostly fight, and blood is shunted
17:20
away from their frontal lobes to their survival
17:24
organs. They're less able to think clearly as
17:30
they work themselves into a feeding frenzy. Thus,
17:36
I was not surprised when during my interview
17:40
with John Stossel, John Stossel referenced an
17:44
article that was published in this journal titled
17:48
Profit, Power, and Pedagogy, The Minnesota Read
17:52
Act by Drake Burke. Burke's article is a solid
17:59
piece of scholarly writing. Yes, it's complex
18:03
and lexically dense but well worth the read.
18:07
It was received very positively by the reviewers
18:11
and it reflected the mission goal and goals of
18:14
the journal. The editors selected it for publication
18:19
and I strongly recommend that you read it. In
18:25
the article, Burke used research and reason to
18:29
support a strong case for the general theses
18:32
and supporting arguments in that article. And
18:36
this was done using 13 pages, 64 citations, and
18:41
7 ,774 words. In our interview, John Stossel
18:50
picked one sentence from this article. And he
18:54
asked me if I supported that sentence. But it
18:59
wasn't asked as a question. It was asked to be
19:04
a challenge. The real question behind the question
19:08
was this. How can you support this horrible thing
19:11
you bad person knew? And why do you hate America?
19:14
And when did you last kick a puppy? This, I guess,
19:19
was to be the gotcha moment. And you can't blame
19:23
John Stossel. This is what journalists do. You
19:28
can't ask a skunk not to stink. Of course, the
19:33
sentence was not representative of the article.
19:37
It was pulled out of context and used to create
19:41
a misperception. It would be like the editor
19:45
of the book that this is taken from to ask that
19:49
editor, do you support the idea that skunks don't
19:51
stink? This is a common practice used to craft
19:56
a narrative to create stories and sadly today
20:00
this practice is not limited to journalists.
20:04
Well -known scholars such as Louisa Moats and
20:07
Claude Goldenberg have done similar things. The
20:11
only reason I know this is because I've checked
20:14
the sources they've cited. When this occurs,
20:19
their scholarship becomes journal -ship with
20:21
big words and long sentences. And as stated previously,
20:26
the blind peer review process isn't perfect.
20:30
But back to the interview. During the interview,
20:35
it was clear that John Stossel had not read the
20:39
article. It was also clear that John Stossel
20:44
didn't know what an academic journal was. Why
20:49
else would he ask an editor of an academic journal
20:53
if they supported something that somebody else
20:57
wrote? An academic journal is not a magazine,
21:02
a newspaper, a cable TV show, a podcast, or publication
21:07
like Education Week. Managing editors of academic
21:12
journals don't silence the voices of people whose
21:16
views don't align with their own. Managing editors
21:20
of academic journals don't craft narratives to
21:24
express their ideas or promote articles to advocate
21:29
their views. A managing editor of an academic
21:34
journal is like a referee making sure certain
21:38
standards are adhered to and guidelines are followed.
21:43
And a managing editor of an academic journal
21:47
welcomes opposing ideas if a. the articles are
21:52
well written b. they represent standards of scholarship
21:56
and academic discourse and c. they go through
22:01
a blind peer review. process. Since journalists
22:08
have inserted themselves into the conversation,
22:13
I want to make sure that you understand the difference
22:18
between scholars and journalists. And of course,
22:23
I make generalizations here, and I'm going to
22:26
name a few, but if it walks like a clown and
22:30
quacks like a clown, It is a clown. Scholars,
22:36
their work is submitted to blind peer review
22:39
for publishing. Journalists, they just write
22:43
stuff. Scholars have extensive background knowledge
22:47
about what they write. Journalists, they write
22:51
what people tell them. Scholars understand the
22:56
basic elements of science in determining causality.
23:00
Journalists, randomly assign causality. Scholars
23:06
know that correlation does not imply causation.
23:10
Journalists assume that if two things occur together,
23:13
one must have caused the other to occur. Scholars
23:18
will generalize to larger populations only if
23:21
the sample size is similar and ample. Journalists
23:27
will generalize to larger populations based on
23:30
a sample size of one or two. Scholars use anecdotal
23:35
evidence and experience to illustrate research.
23:40
And journalists will use anecdotal evidence and
23:43
experience as research. These are just some of
23:50
the difference. Final word. Seven ideas. Having
23:55
a body of knowledge is important in any field.
23:59
Two, disagreements followed by academic discourse
24:02
enables a field to evolve. Three, silencing opposing
24:08
views results in cognitive inbreeding. Four,
24:13
academic journals are an essential element for
24:16
disseminating new knowledge and for academic
24:19
discourse within a field. Five, The process used
24:24
to get scholarly articles published in an academic
24:27
journal is much higher than that used to get
24:31
an article published in a newspaper or magazine.
24:35
Six, having a body of knowledge that is shallow
24:38
and disjointed is not optimal for academic discussions
24:42
or TV interviews. And seven, John Stossel does
24:48
not know what an academic journal is. This has
24:52
been The Reading Instruction Show. I am your
24:55
host, Dr. Andy Johnson.