Week 4 Blog Post

I read Kirschner and Karpinski's "Facebook and Academic Performance" as well as the resulting back and forth between Pasek and Karpinski. 
  
As I read "Facebook and Academic Performance", I was struck by how theatrical and dramatic the authors were, anonymously quoting Socrates and Peter the Hermit before revealing who said those things and when. I actually appreciated this little dramatic parlor trick at the time because it stimulated my interest, but in retrospect, after finishing reading the paper, I have mixed feelings about how necessary it was to do this in a research paper. I feel the point could have been made more concisely (and is it normal for an Abstract to be about 15 pages in length?).

I also feel that the section on multitasking was possibly unnecessary, because if the whole point of talking about multitasking was to imply that using Facebook while studying was found to be harmful due to the deleterious effects of multitasking, there is a problem--Kirschner and Karpinski concluded that Facebook and poorer academic performance was found (possibly) to be a correlation, not necessarily something causative. In other words, my question is, why are the authors spending so much time talking about the negative effects of multitasking, if they say that they cannot talk about cause and effect until further research is conducted?

The Methods section of "Facebook and Academic Performance" was also very long and complex, using many terminologies and methods that had my head spinning (and wondering how I'd learn all these techniques for my own graduate school papers!). I can't help but think that Kirschner and Karpinski were trying to both justify the design of their study and preclude negative critique of their methods. Thus I was quite surprised at Pasek's robust attack of Kirschner and Karpinski's methodology.

I felt further that K and K (Kirschner and Karpinski) were being rather dramatic when they said that FB and SNS's could "wreak havoc if not heeded". Karpinski, in her response to Pasek, asserted that she and Kirschner had been measured, or conservative, in their work and communicated that their study was exploratory and not definitive by any means, yet I found that their disclaimers were convincing compared to the strength of their original assertions and their alarmist conclusion.

On the flip side, I felt that Pasek got a bit personal in his critique of Karpinski, using phrases like "set the record straight", "spiral out of control", and "minor caveats". But overall I felt that 1) he made cogent points about problems and potential problems in K and K's study, 2) his writing style was more concise and elegant (and thus more pleasing to read), and 3) his tone was more professional.

Karpinski, in her reply to Pasek, calls her paper a "small, exploratory study"--but had she made this clearer, the media may not have sensationalized the "results" that Karpinski insisted that she did not come to a conclusion about. She pushes back against Pasek, at times also adopting a personal tone, utilizing adjectives and adverbs (very, simply, really, bold, and extremely) that don't contribute to an objective discussion, though it is understandable in that she is defending her paper.

Pasek in response seems to deliberately take on a restrained, neutral tone even as he pushes back against things he disagrees with Karpinski on.

Ultimately, I found this back and forth public argument/discussion to be an enlightening view into the research community. People will disagree on research methods and communication style as well as professional responsibility. I feel that K and K should have erred on the more conservative side, particularly since they issued a press release, and made it as clear as possible that their findings were exploratory in order to protect the public (and Facebook!). Researchers have a big responsibility on their shoulders to protect the public and society as they conduct research and publish their work. 

I understand that this is a high-stress environment in that researchers have pressure not only to publish but also to publish ground-breaking material. Every so often we hear about researchers who falsify data or otherwise perform ethical breaches, and so I think that peer review and replication are essential tools in ensuring that the scientific community is responsible in its work. Ultimately, I personally conclude that K and K were overeager in their actions and presentation and should have clearly asked that further research be conducted in order to confirm or question their results.