This may be especially relevant for topics in medical ethics, but possible other domains as well.
This would heavily depend on the topic in question, in my opinion. Is it controversial for ethical reasons, or is the discussion also based on interpretation of facts and conflicting theories? Generally, young scholars might lend an unbiased opinion to the topic, thereby also "establishing" themselves to some degree,
Working on interpretation and giving one's point of view, based on scientifically citable knowledge has never really been a problem, but if the the young academic feels uneasy about "rocking the boat" so to say, s/he should at least wait to have tenure first. This said, if one knows now that waiting for tenure would be unbearably long or never-to-come, then by all means one would have a good enough reason to not subdue or suppress one's instincts about the question at hand. Thoroughly "rocking the boat" and drawing attention might well be the only way to remain at peace with oneself. Despite what many fully-established academics think, science is a subjective affair.
No. Fields where there remains controversy are exactly where new ideas and new and fresh work is needed.
Unfortunately people who are established in their careers use the social power of their established position to thwart the career advancement of those they disagree with. This is not limited to people early in their career. Even senior academics can have their publications wrongly thwarted. A good example is what happened to Peter Schonemann.
http://www.schonemann.de//pdf/86.pdf
When a field has been taken over by non-scientists who actively suppress data and analysis that is counter to their position, then the field is not science any more, it is psedudoscience, or Cargo Cult science.
If a field has been taken over by pseudoscientists (as in the Peter Schonemann example), the only thing a young scholar can do is avoid that field because it has become a dead-end.
Dear Brian
The question is: why to avoid ? The controversy promotes discussions and papers. The final results, in the great majority of the cases are new ideas , more research and more researchers. It's very important the leader's presence to coordinate the young group.
Nelson, the question isn't a "science" question, it is a "people" question.
When entrenched interests use social power to suppress correct ideas, the entire field is held back until those entrenched interests are displaced, usually by dying.
This is what happened with Relativity and quantum mechanics. It took the old classical physicists dying before Relativity and QM could be taught and appreciated. Einstein won his Nobel Prize for the Photoelectric effect, not Relativity because physicists on the Nobel Committee couldn't accept that Relativity was correct.
We are seeing this now in the "genes are everything" camps. If "genes are everything", why have GWAS not discovered the causes of common diseases? Where are the genes for height? Intelligence? Diabetes? Heart disease? Obesity? Asthma?
I think the problem is with how science funding is allocated, by "competition". Competition doesn't fund "the best" science, if funds the most "competitive" researchers.
That "entrenchment" of old ideas is exactly what I meant, David. It has been the case already with the flat earth theorey, and is still a problem. One should make shure, as a new scholar especially but even as an experienced scientist, to not reinvent the wheel though. Sometimes, the resistance is due to the fact that there has been a lot of "new" research not even remotely covering already present state of the art.
As soon as this subtle balance is combined with ethical questions, careful consideration is needed. But, of course, even a new scholar can do proper research on the facts.
Hello all,
I believe if you have interest in a topic - and no matter if you are an early career researcher or not - you need to be honest with your urge to write and research such idea... though this might work either way - if you have excelled in your examination of this DANGEROUS topic you will be upheld in the research community, but if your work was below the standard you will really end your research career.
Regards
Theodora Issa
The assumptions are controversial topics may be more difficult to research or cause harm to someone's future career. I do not believe controversial topics are necessarily more difficult to research. However, some topics may not be well received by the mainstream publications in a field. Also they can result in someone losing their job. One of my graduate students studied the experiences of black nursing students in predominately white student and faculty nursing programs. Great study that did get published. Another student looked at the salaries and responsibilities of male and female nurse managers in hospitals. She found female nurse managers had usually more responsibility, more education with less help and less money. That could have been a threat to her job in her employing hospital.
I always talk with young researchers about the risks and benefits of their research study. Then they make the choice.
Hello Madelaine,
Thank you for that - whilst this is a great consideration, but my idea, is that if you have a passion towards a topic you would be in a better mindset to research this topic!
Your examples are from real life - and yes, we need to have a balance, but some of the issues need to be resarched - as it became apparent in my research that some issues which were considered soft and unmeasurable, were not considered by researchers, and we have missed out on including this in our ongoing research, and the topics were simply shelved.
Balance is the key -:)
Regards
NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. Deal with the sticky issues now before you become indoctrinated with what "learned minds" in your field think. No one will hold it against you if you rock the boat now. They'll just chalk it up to your being young and foolish. However, you'll lose a lot of colleagues down the road, when you know who has vested interests in each paradigmatic theory, and nonetheless choose to go against the status quo. Such behavior by a person with experience and senior status in the Academy is deemed to be malice aforethought. In short, Brian, "Make hay while the sun shines." Gwen
I think we should just follow our instincts and interests. a properly carried out ethical research results in any area must be communicated without any inhibitions
Controversies are some thing which need clarity and putting in young minds to work could look at the controversy differently and thereby help solve it
"Old" scholars too often have long ago taken a place on this or another side of a controversy and (due to peculiarities of old minds) are not too often happy to change it.Still openmindedness of young scholars should be balanced with experience and wide knowlege of (and around) the problem It s a normal way of scientific development although not so simple and easy as it seems to be. Being 87, alas, I understand it but too well...
My work focuses on bisexuality, polyamory, and other topics that some people consider controversial. If I waited until I was "established" I might be into my 50s or 60s before I could write about issues that matter to me. In my experience, a young scholar has less to lose than one who is already entrenched in academia. However, it may depend on where you want to work. I couldn't get a theology job (my field of training) to save my life, but found my niche in the field of LGBTQ health research.
No ! With the globalization all controversial topics are divulged by newspapers, television, school, internet etc. We need prepare young scholars to receive the informations and we have take measures how to deal with several different topics.
Dear Nelson, I believe that you have some controversial topics in the Orthopedy (or have you not?), and I certainly can give you a list of cotroversial topics in toxicology or in environmental epidemiology you'll never find anything about in mass media or learn in school. In the Internet, of course, you can find everything if you know what to look for and are willing to find it - but it is just this big "if" this discussion is about: should we make young researchers interested in such problems not too easy for solving or let them get their PhDs munching something that had already been masticated many times by their predecessors?
Oh, Boris; I just love that ... "masticated knowledge"!
Gwen
Dear Boris: I appreciate your comments. Every day, in our lives, we have controversies and problems facing and we need to face the difficulties that appear day after day.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology