{"id":1847,"date":"2010-08-20T08:00:18","date_gmt":"2010-08-20T13:00:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/citings\/?p=1847"},"modified":"2010-08-20T08:13:25","modified_gmt":"2010-08-20T13:13:25","slug":"science-in-sound-bites","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/clippings\/2010\/08\/20\/science-in-sound-bites\/","title":{"rendered":"Science in Sound Bites"},"content":{"rendered":"

Oliver Wang from The Atlantic<\/a> recently wrote about the complicated relationship between sociologists and the media, an issue at the heart of this Citings and Sightings<\/em> endeavor:<\/p>\n

Here’s an age-old beef between scientists (social or otherwise) and journalists: the former tend to be exceptionally careful about drawing conclusions from their research. It’s one thing to argue, “Data X and Data Y show a relationship,” it’s another thing altogether to actually argue, “Data X is the cause of Data Y.” This is what’s known as the correlation vs. causality distinction and it is absolutely fundamental to any kind of responsible research methodology and discussion.<\/p>\n

The problem is, journalists\u2014or perhaps better said, editors\u2014aren’t such big fans of that kind of nuance. They want an attention-grabbing headline that definitively states to the casual reader, “X causes Y.” A headline reading, “X and Y show a relationship but future research is needed to prove a causal link” is not so sexy. And hey, I work in journalism, I understand the importance of a sexy headline …but sexy + responsible are not always soul mates.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One example of this is the post-ASA media interpretation of a study presented by sociologists Bill McCarthy and Eric Grodsky. The eye-catching titles include:<\/p>\n

“Study: Teen Sex Won’t Always Hurt Grades” (Time<\/em>)
\n“Sex in romantic relationships is harmless” (Times of India<\/em>)
\n“How Teen Sex Affects Education” (BusinessWeek<\/em>)
\n“Teen sex not always bad for school performance” (AP<\/em>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Wang wonders, however, what nuances these intriguing titles may ignore:<\/p>\n

Of this batch, all<\/em> of them insinuate a direct relationship between teen sex and school performance. But you read the actual articles themselves, you get practically no useful information about the study except what the headline implies. Most of these articles are very short, just a few hundred words (if even that) and most barely include anything from the actual researchers (the Time<\/em> post, for example, has nary a quote), telling the reader what conclusions they’re actually drawing and why. The one article that actually bothers to do any of this is the BusinessWeek<\/em> post but it too is still relatively short.<\/p>\n

Here’s the thing: I’m not saying this study is being reported wrong, i.e. that the headlines actually misinterpret the study. But if I had reported on this, the very first thing I would have done is contact the two lead researchers, UC Davis’ Bill McCarthy and U-Minn’s Eric Grodsky and ask, “couldn’t it be the case that students with high grades are more likely to pursue stable sexual relationships vs. students with low grades are also more likely to engage in casual sex?” In other words, maybe grades and relationship types are linked by some third factor: personality type, home stability, parental oversight, etc.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now that’s journalism with a sociological eye. The article goes on to take an in-depth look at the research findings from the recent Contexts<\/em> feature article on “hooking up”. Read the rest<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Oliver Wang from The Atlantic recently wrote about the complicated relationship between sociologists and the media, an issue at the heart of this Citings and Sightings endeavor: Here’s an age-old beef between scientists (social or otherwise) and journalists: the former tend to be exceptionally careful about drawing conclusions from their research. It’s one thing to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":83,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39074],"tags":[129,175],"class_list":["post-1847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sightings","tag-media","tag-sociology"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/clippings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1847","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/clippings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/clippings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/clippings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/83"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/clippings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1847"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/clippings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1847\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1867,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/clippings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1847\/revisions\/1867"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/clippings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/clippings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/clippings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}