Category Archives: Uncategorized

Does This Project Bring Me Joy?

 

I have too many research projects going on.

It’s great to be busy, but I’m often overwhelmed in this area. As a university professor, some of my job is well defined (e.g. teaching) but other parts not so much. My workload is divided into 40% research, 40% teaching, and 20% service. Within each of these, I have some say as to what I can take on. I can teach different classes and volunteer to serve on various committees. But the research component is mine. This is what I really do. I set the agenda. I apply for funding. This is supposed to be my passion.

So why do I feel overwhelmed in that area?

I think I have too many projects going on. And I don’t mean that I am writing too many papers. I’m most certainly not doing that. I mean I have too many different kinds of projects. There are several projects on psychology and aging, projects on the brain electrophysiology and category learning, a project on meditation and wellbeing in lawyers, a project on patient compliance, a project on distraction from smartphones, plus 4-5 other ideas in development, and at least 10 projects that are most charitably described as “half baked ideas that I had on the way home from a hockey game”.

Add to this many projects with students that may not quite be in my wheelhouse, but are close and that I’m supervising. And I’ll admit, I have difficulty keeping these things straight. I’m interested in things. But when I look at the list of things, I confess I have a tough time seeing a theme sometimes. And that’s a problem as it means I’m not really fully immersed in any one project. I cease to be an independent and curious scientist and become a mediocre project manager. And when I look at my work objectively, more often than not, it seems mediocre.

Put another way, sometimes I’m always really sure what I do anymore…

So what should I do about this, other than complain on my blog? I have to tidy up my research.

A Research Purge

There is a very popular book called “The Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up“. I have not read this book, but I have read about this book (and let’s be honest that’s sometimes the best we can do). The essence of the approach is that you should not be hanging on to things that are not bringing you joy.

Nostalgia is not joy.

Lots of stuff getting in the way is not joy. And so you go though things, one category at a time, and look at each thing and say “does this item spark joy“? If the answer is no, you discard it. I like this idea.

If this works for a home or a room…physical space…then it should work for the mental space of my research projects. So I’m going to try this. I thought about this last year, but never quite implemented it. I should go through each project and each sub project and ask “Does this project bring me joy?” or “Is there joy in trying to discover this?” Honestly, if the answer is “no” or “maybe” why should I work on it? This may mean that I give up on some things and that some possible papers will not get published. That’s OK, because I will not be compelled to carry out research and writing if it is not bringing me joy. Why should I? I suspect I would be more effective as a scientist because I will (hopefully) focus my efforts on several core areas.

This means, of course, that I have to decide what I do like. And it does not have to be what I’m doing. It does not have to be what I’ve done.

The Psychology of the Reset

Why do we like this? Why do people want to cleanse? To reset. To get back to basics? It seems to be the top theme in so many pop-psych and self help books. Getting rid of things. A detox or a “digital” detox. Starting over. Getting back to something. I really wonder about this. And although I wonder why we behave this way, I’m not sure that I would not find joy in carrying out a research study on this…I must resist the urge to start another project.

I’m going to pare down. I still need to teach, and supervise, and serve on editorial boards, etc: that’s work. I’m not complaining and I like the work. But I want to spend my research and writing time working on projects that will spark joy. Investigating and discovering things that I’m genuinely curious about…curious enough to put in the hours and time to do the research well.

I’d be curious too, to know if others have tried this. Has it worked? Have you become a better scholar and scientists by decluttering your research space?

Thanks for reading and comments are welcome.

Thinking about Vacations

Summer is when most people take a vacation. The weather is usually nice, so there are many options for most people. And of course, children are usually home from school for a few months so families tend to take a vacation during this time. And even people without children probably still have a residual rhythm to the year that was forged during their own childhood and school time. Those early patters leave their mark.

I’m fascinated by how people choose to spend their vacation time. When I was a child, growing up in rural Pennsylvania, we tended to spend most if the summer at home since my mother was a schoolteacher. But we did go away on vacations. They tended to be road trips to stay with family in other areas of the country and we’d take in attractions like the Grand Canyon, the White Mountains in NH or the beach in North Carolina along the way. One year, we visited family in Northern Virginia and spent some time at the Smithsonian Museum. I was 12 and younger siblings were 11 and 8. I remember we had to all wear the same bright yellow Pittsburgh Steelers t-shirt so that my parents would not lose us in the crowds. I remember being embarrassed but don’t remember the crowds.

Crowds are bigger these days

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve really started notice the crowds more. As an example, my famliy and I often spend time on the Bruce Peninsula in Ontario. There is a wonderful national park and fantastic hiking along the Niagara Escarpment. The first year we visited, 2004, the place seemed so remote, so pristine. But ever year, the crowds have steadily increased. So much so that one of the most popular attractions, “the Grotto” has summer restrictions now. It can only be accessed you are given one of the parking passes that are handed out at 7:00am each day. When the passes are gone, the park is closed to anyone without one. The Grotto is magnificent, but hard to enjoy when it’s teeming with people.

IMG_20160801_204000278

A quiet evening on the Bruce Peninsula, looking out over Georgian Bay

The traffic at the big American parks (Yosemite, Smokey mountains, Yellowstone) is legendary and a growing problem, In some parks, campgrounds are so popular that some entrepreneurs have set up permit bots to buy the site permits when they are available and resell.

Personal preference

So what makes some people crave a vacation in a crowded area and others choose solitude? Some people plan for big crowed locations like Disney, Las Vegas, or a music festival like Coachella or Osheaga. And of course, some events are crowded by nature, such as a ball game. I tend to want to avoid crowds (an ideal vacation is winter camping…crowds are low).

Maybe it comes down to what you want to get away from or back to? I work at a large research university and teach classes up to 200 students. With 30,000 students enrolled at Western, I find that I’m always in a crowd. I suppose the last thing I want to do to recharge is be in another crowd. But if you tend to work in a less crowded place, maybe the fun of being in a bigger crowd on the beach or a park is what you enjoy.

Vacations are needed

Regardless of whether you like a crowd, a beach, the city, or solitude, we all need some time to get out of our comfort zone (or sometimes time to get back into it). Project:Time Off tracks research on vacations and the general message is that we’re not doing it enough. I I hope you are able to get away for a few days. Unplug. Reconnect with your friends or family. Or head to a big crowded festival if that’s your thing (I won’t see you there…). Either way, enjoy your vacation!

 

 

 

Taming My Distracted Mind

There is mounting evidence that digital devices, screens, smartphones are a real roadblock to productivity. The very tools that are supposed to make us more productive might be robbing us of that ability.

The Modern Worker

I’m a psychology professor at a large research institution. This means that although I do spend some time teaching in a large lecture hall, mostly I’m in my office writing, reading, doing email, attending meetings, and planning…that is, spending my time like many other modern workers. I’ve been at this for a while and I can still recall a time when not everyone had an email address, when research articles had to be printed, when submitting my work to a journal meant actually mailing four identical copies of the manuscript to the publisher. But nearly all of that is now done on line. I sit at my desk to do email, to read, to analyze data, to access research papers, to grade assignments, comment on student work …everything. And lately this has expanded to me writing and managing email at home, at breakfast on my phone, reading email in a faculty meeting on my phone, in bed on my phone…in the bathroom on my phone. An really…why am I doing my work in the bathroom?

What’s more, everything is being carried out on a device or a browser that is also used for recreation media consumption and social media. I read news, play games, and watch baseball games on my laptop. I watch sports on my laptop and tweet about the game at the the same time.

What this means is that my workstation is essentially also a playstation.

A Tired Mind

Lately I’m finding that a week of desk/computer work leaves my mind feeling like mush. Much more cognitive fatigue that there used to be. I’m less able to focus on my work. I can’t read the whole way through a paper. I’ll start and email and write two lines and then my attention wanders. It did not used to be this way, and it’s not just because I’m getting older (I’m a few weeks shy of 47). I think my work habits have begun to tire me out.

Meditation does help in this regard…I can meditate for 10–15 minutes with little difficulty. And running helps too: I can run for an hour without getting bored and feel refreshed (not tired)

But the minute I’m at my desk I slide right back into the habit of having 10 browser tabs open…each one vying for my attention.  No matter what I try, the second I sit down at my university office or home office to write, I lose my ability to concentrate on my work. It starts with email, and then 10 minutes of local news, maybe twitter….some more email. And back and forth and them I’m still working on the same email.

Some remedies

I’ve started taking steps this week to create some “digital distance” at work. Small habits to try to improve my work experience. None of this is scientific: I’m just trying to retrain. And I’m not so much interested in being more productive…just less tired.

  1. I’m printing more and screen reading less. This goes for articles, student work, and editing my own work. (don’t worry: I’m recycling the paper by printing on the back of other used paper!)
  2. This is big one: After many years of running everything through a browser and Gmail, I’m switching back to an actual email client (Spark Mail App for mac). That way, when I decide to do email, I’m ONLY doing email and not tempted to read FB, Twitter, news, etc. in another tab. Gmail or Outlook webmail was killing me for that because “hey you already have Chrome open, just leave a tab open for twitter”. So Chrome is closed when I’m responding to email.
  3. My lab and my graduate students are now on Slack (not email) so that when I’m doing project management, research planning, and advising, I can concentrate on that and nothing else. I close can Chrome and email
  4. I’ve turned all the notifications off on my smart phone, except texts/calls from my wife & kids, and their school.
  5. No posting to social media in the morning, because I’ll just be thinking about whether not there are hits. This is another big one. I’ll post something at breakfast or comment and then keep checking.I’ve already completely deactivated Facebook to make this even easier. My students and I are even carrying out a research study on this specific topic (more detail on that later..when the data are in).

I’m curious if others are finding similar things. Do you think that your productivity has waned? Do you think that working all day on a screen is reducing your ability to concentrate? Have you taken steps to correct this or retrain your mind? I’d be interested in hearing.

Le biais de confirmation: The story of the Bilingual Advantage 

The newest salvo in the psychology’s “reproducibility crisis” is not in social psychology, but is hitting the field of psycholinguistics. In this case, the evidence is mounting that the so called “bilingualism advantage” may not be an advantage after all. Worse, it may be something like the Mozart Effect for psycholinguistics…That is, an effect that is plausible and desirable enough (and marketable) that we all believe it and ignore reputable counter evidence.

Full disclose, our children have attended a French Immersion school, and as we live in a country with two official languages, I think it’s important to know some of both. But I’m not bilingual myself (6 years of German in high school and university, but I no longer speak it). So I like the idea of a second language. And I like the idea of the bilingual advantage too. I’ve assumed that this advantage is present and measurable, but now I’m not so sure. This controversy is worth paying attention to.

The Bilingual Advantage

The story goes like this. People who speak two languages fluently are constantly switching between them. They have to inhibit one language in order to respond in the other. And because switching and inhibition are two of most well-known and well-studied aspects of the cognitive control system known as the executive functions, it’s assumed that bilinguals would be especially adept at these behaviours. And if they are good and switching and inhibiting within language, they may have a general executive functioning advantage for behaviours as well.

Ellen Bialystok at York University and others have investigated this claim and have produced quite a lot of data in favour of the idea that general executive functioning abilities are superior in bilinguals relative to English speaking persons. The advantages might also persist into old age and the may guard against cognitive decline in aging. Dr. Bialystock’s work is extensive has relied on many different measures and she’s arguably one of the towing figures in psycholinguistics.

Does this work Generalize?

An article in Feb 2016 in The Atlantic has suggested that recent attempts to replicate and generalize some of this work have not been successful. Specifically, the work of  Kenneth Paap, at San Francisco State has argued that there is no general advantage for bilinguals and that any advantages are either very local (confined to language) or are artifacts of small sample size studies with idiosyncratic groups. Systematic attempts to replicate the work have not been successful. Reviews of published studies found evidence of publication bias. And other psychologists have found the same thing. In other words, according to Paap, whatever advantages these groups might have shown in early studies, they can’t really be attributed to bilingualism.

The Battle Lines

By all accounts, this is a showdown of epic proportions. According to the Atlantic article, Paap has thrown the gauntlet down and said  (paraphrased) “Let’s work together, register the studies, collect good data, and get to the bottom of it.” Even a co-author of one of the most well-cited bilingualism advantage papers is now questioning the work. My colleague at Western, J. Bruce Morton, is quoted as saying:

“If people were really committed to getting to the bottom of this, we’d get together, pool our resources, study it, and that would be the end of the issue. The fact that people won’t do that suggest to me that there are those who are profiting from either perpetuating the myth or the criticism.”

But proponents of the advantage are not interested in this, suggesting that the Paap and others are not properly controlling their work and also pointing to their recent work with brain imaging (which gets away from the less than idea executive functioning tasks but also could fall prey to the Seductive allure of Neuroscience…which is another topic for another day).

This is, I think, a real scientific controversy. I think we should get to the bottom of it. If the advantage is robust and general, then it’s going to show up in these newer studies. If it’s not, then it becomes an outmoded idea (like so many in psychology and in science). That’s progress. There is the risk that inherent appeal of the advantage will allow it to persist even if the science does not back it it, and that’s problematic.

Redesigning my Graduate Seminar

I’m writing this to crowdsource and to get advice on course design, so this might not be the most interesting blog entry I’ve ever written. But if this is the kind of thing that intrigues you…read on!

I teach a graduate seminar on cognition every two years. It’s one of the required courses for our cognition graduate students (Master’s and PhD) and covers the fundamental issues in the field, and also to help prepare students for the PhD exams. I usually have a few students from other areas in psychology (e.g. social psychology) as well as student from other departments (philosophy, neuroscience, and business). I’ve run this class since 2007, and I’m thinking of overhauling some of the topics for the Fall 2015 session. An example of the most recent syllabus can be found HERE.

The basic course

The official description of the course as it stands now is as follows.

“This course aims to provide graduate students with exposure to classic and current research in cognitive psychology. We will read and discuss articles on the major topics in the field, including high-level perception, categorization, attention, working memory, knowledge, language, and thought. The readings will encompass theoretical approaches, behavioural research, computational modelling, and cognitive neuroscience. Meetings will follow a seminar format, in which students will discuss the readings for each class. To frame the discussion for each meeting, the instructor will provide background and any needed tutorials. Marks will be based on participation and written work.”

The class has a midterm, a final paper, and discussion papers. I cover topics like:

  • Viewpoint Independent vs. Viewpoint Dependent Theories of Object Recognition
  • Theories of Working Memory”
  • Inductive Reasoning: Similarity-based or Theory-based?
  • “Categorization: Prototypes vs. Exemplar models”

This is all pretty standard graduate seminar material. But I’m thinking of updating some topics and in particular  updating the way the course is run. I’m not sure the standard format is the best, and the last time I ran a seminar (not this one, but a class on “Concepts and Categories” ). I felt that it was not working well. Discussion did not flow, I talked too much, there was a lack of enthusiasm. This was not due to the students, but I think was a result of my not leading it well, and the limitations of the standard seminar format.

A new format

I’m planning to keep some the topics, but add in new newer ones that could be challenging or debate-worthy. For example

  • The Dual-Process Approach of Thinking
  • What are Mental Representations and Are They Needed for a Theory of Cognition?
  • Cognitive Heuristics: Helpful or Harmful”.
  • Is Vision Strictly Visual: Vision as Action, Evidence from Blind Echolocation, and Visual imagery

Each class would have around 4-5 papers assigned which would be a mix of classic, standard papers, and new perspectives on that issue. If possible, I will assign readings that cover two sides to an issue. In the past, there are usually 10-15 people in people in this seminar, and it meets for three hours, typically two 1:15 sections and  short break.

Here are four possible ways to run a class. I’ve usually used  the first two…Sometimes it works well, sometimes it works less well.

1. The Standard Seminar. Each class is a discussion of the central issues. I provide 3 or 4 central questions (or maybe a brief outline) that students can prepare for. Rather than discuss each paper in detail, we will try to answer the central questions but will use the assigned readings as a guide.

2. Student-led Discussions. Each class can have one student assigned to be the discussion leader. Alternatively, I act as discussion leader, but there is one student assigned to present each paper.

3. The Debate Team. Each class is framed around a debate and there will be two teams. Each team consists of a leader and two panelists. They will face off and the remaining students will asses and judge the winner and provide feedback. A three hour class could have one or more debates. Throughout the course of the class, there will be several opportunities to be on an debate team.

4. The Shark Tank. This format is like a debate, but one team is selling the idea and the other team is an antagonist. Students make a 10 min presentation of the paper, theory, or idea and then defend the ideas in the paper, and the the sharks question and critique the ideas. Sharks decide to accept the idea and invest, or pass. The rest of the class participates by assessing the performance of the sharks an the presenters.

Ideas?

So if you were taking a course like this, which if these formats would you enjoy most? Which format do you think might promote the best mastery of the material, the best engagement? Are there other ways to run a graduate seminar that I have not tried?

Maybe I should use a mix of formats? Some classes will be standard discussion while others will be debates?

I’d welcome and appreciate any suggestions, critiques, and ideas.

Almost no one reads my work. Should I care?

I recently read an article that has been going around social media in which the authors argue that basically no one is reading academic journals. They argue that in order to be heard, and in order to shape policy, professors and academics should be writing Op-Eds.

The article, which I’ve linked to here,  should be read with a few caveats. First of all, the authors suggest that the average academic paper is read in total by about 10 people. They provide no evidence or information about how they arrived at that estimate. Second, they are writing from the standpoint of social science and political science. In other words, the results may not apply to other disciplines. That said, I believe there are many reasons to take their idea seriously.

There are too many articles published every year.

There are so many scientific and academic journals operating right now. For example, the popular journal PLoS ONE  published 31,500  articles in 2013… That’s 86 articles a day.  In 2014, the published even more….33,000 articles. Only one of them was from my lab.  Now I happen to think that this particular article was a really good paper. It was based on my student Rachel’s master’s thesis. But it’s only one of over 30,000 articles that year. According to the statistics on their own site, there were about 1400 views of our article. So far it’s been cited twice.  Is that good? Is that enough?  Should I care? After all, it’s only one paper of many that I have published in the last few years

This is only the tip of the iceberg. As I said, this is one journal. There are other large journals like PLoSONE.  And there are many, many smaller journals with limited output. But still, it’s estimated that this year alone there will be over well 2 million articles published.  Even if you assume that within your own field, it’s only a few thousand every year, finding the ones that matter can still be a problem. If you use Google scholar (and I do) to research, you may have noticed that it  it tends to place heavily cited articles at the top of the search. This is good, because it gives you a sense of which articles have had the most impact in the field. This is bad because the first thing you see is the same article that everyone else has cited for the last 20 years. Unless you take the time to adjust your search, you are not going to see any of the new work.

And as if this isn’t problem enough, there have been widely reported problems with the academic publishing world. For example some journals have even had to withdraw articles, many articles, when it was revealed that they were entirely computer-generated gibberish.  There are also hundreds and hundreds of so-called “predatory” journals in which the peer review is nonexistent, standards for publication are very low, and the journals operate solely to make money publishing papers that otherwise wouldn’t be published. You can see a list of these predatory journals here.  Even journals published by well-known companies have had difficulty recently. In some cases, editors have been accused of accepting articles with little or no to review.

Why do we do this?

I cannot speak for other academics, but within my field and for me, the reason is simple. It’s my job. As a professor in a large research institution, part of my job is to carry out scientific research, and publish the scientific research in peer-reviewed journals. Publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals was necessary for me to obtain tenure. It is necessary for me to be able to compete for federal research dollars. Other forms of communication can help in terms of getting the message out, but as it stands now, publishing a popular article, a textbook, a Op-Ed, a newspaper article, or even a popular blog essentially does not count. I might as well be doing that on my own time. Which, I suppose I am.

So in essence, we have a designed and embraced system that rewards publications in one format and does not reward publications in other formats. Unfortunately, the format that is rewarded is one in which almost no one outside of the immediate field will ever read.

What do we do about this?

I am not entirely sure what to do about this, but I do believe that it is a real problem. I’m not suggesting that scientists and academics abandon publishing in academic journals. In fact, I still think that’s exactly where primary research belongs. As long as the peer review is being carried out properly, editors are behaving properly, and editorial standards are high, this is exactly where you want your best work to appear. I also don’t want it to be the case that scientists and academics begin pursuing popular media at the expense of academic publishing.

What I would like to see, however, is an appropriate balance. It might be time for internal performance review committees and promotion and tenure committees to broaden the scope of what counts as scientific, academic, and scholarly contributions. This will provide some incentive for researchers to publicize their work. At the very least, researchers should not be penalized  for attempting to engage the public in their research. A successful research program is one that publishes in different outlets and for different audiences. We do this in my department, we work with the local public library, for example, to engage in popular science topics in psychology.  Our research communication office works long and hard to publicize and promote research. However, much of this is still considered to be secondary.

Another possibility, one that is suggested by the editorial staff at PLoSONE,  is for individual researchers to publicize their own work.  Researchers should share and Tweet their research as well as others.  And there are other formats, Google+, for example hosts a large scientific community that publicizes research, shares research, and even organizes virtual conferences. I’ve taken part in some of these, and they can be an effective way to share your work.

In the end, I wonder if we should all slow down, work more carefully, and think long and hard about the quality of our research versus the quantity of our publication output.  Otherwise, I think there is a real concern that the signal will be completely drowned out by the noise.

Grade Inflation at the University Level

I probably give out too many As. I am aware of this, so I may be part of the problem of grade inflation. Grade inflation has been a complaint in universities probably as long as there have been grades and as long as there have been universities.

Harvard students receive mostly As.

But the issue has been in the news recently. For example, a recent story asserted that the most frequent grade (e.i. the modal grade) at Harvard was an A. That seems a bit much. If Harvard is generally regarded as of the world’s best universities, you would think they would be able to asses their students on a better range. A great Harvard undergrad should be a rare thing, and should be much better than the average Harvard undergrad. Evidently, all Harvard undergrads are great.

One long time faculty member, says that “in recent years, he himself has taken to giving students two grades: one that shows up on their transcript and one he believes they actually deserve….“I didn’t want my students to be punished by being the only ones to suffer for getting an accurate grade,”

In this way, students know what their true grade is, but they also get a Harvard grade that will be an A so that they look good and that Harvard looks good. It’s not just Harvard, of course. This website, gradeinflation.com, lays out all details. Grades are going up everywhere…But student performance may not be.

The University is business and As are what we make.

From my perspective as a university professor, I see the pressure from all sides, and I think the primary motivating force is the degree to which universities have heavily embraced a consumer-driven model. An article The Atlantic this week got me thinking about it even more. The article points out, we (university) benefit when more students are doing well and earning scholarships. One way to make sure they can earn scholarships is to keep the grades high. It is to our benefit to have more students earning awards and scholarships.

In other words, students with As bring in money. Students with Cs do not. But this suggests that real performance assessment and knowledge mastery is subservient to cash inflow. I’m probably not the only one who feels that suggestion is true.

And of course, students, realizing they are the consumer, sort of expect a good grade for what they pay for. They get the message we are sending. Grades matter more than knowledge acquisition. Money matters more than knowledge. If they pay their tuition and fees on time, they kind of expect a good grade in return. They will occasional cheat to obtain these grades. In this context, cheating is economically rational, albeit unethical.

Is there a better system?

I am not sure what to do about this. I’m pretty sure that my giving out more Cs is not the answer, unless all universities did this. I wonder if we really even need grades? Perhaps a better system would be a simple pass/fail? Or Fail/Pass/Exceed (three way). This would suggest that students have mastered the objectives in the course and we (the University) can confidently stand behind our degree programs and say that our graduates have acquired the requisite knowledge. Is that not our mission? Does it matter to an employer if a student received an A or a B in French? Can they even use that as a metric when A is the modal grade? The employer needs to know that the student mastered the objectives for a French class and can speak French. Of course, this means that it might be tricky for graduate and professional schools to determine admission. How will medical schools know who admit if they do not have a list of students with As? Though if most students are earning As, it renders moot that point.

In the end, students, faculty, and university administrators are all partially responsible for the problem, and there is no clear solution. And lurking behind it, as is so often the case, is money.