„Data Colada“ – Versionsunterschied
| [ungesichtete Version] | [ungesichtete Version] |
rm draft tag / cats |
+lawsuit (mostly copied from Francesca Gino, still needs a bit more on aspects particular to Data Colada) |
||
| Zeile 16: | Zeile 16: | ||
Apart from calling out faulty but presumably well-intended research practices, Data Colada has also published evidence of data manipulations and research misconduct, such in psychologist Lawrence Sanna's studies about the concept of [[moral high ground]], and in research by Flemish psychologist Dirk Smeesters.<ref name=":2" /> Following the findings of Data Colada, "[t]he two men’s careers came to an unceremonious end" (according to The New Yorker).<ref name=":2" /> |
Apart from calling out faulty but presumably well-intended research practices, Data Colada has also published evidence of data manipulations and research misconduct, such in psychologist Lawrence Sanna's studies about the concept of [[moral high ground]], and in research by Flemish psychologist Dirk Smeesters.<ref name=":2" /> Following the findings of Data Colada, "[t]he two men’s careers came to an unceremonious end" (according to The New Yorker).<ref name=":2" /> |
||
In August 2021, data from a field study in a 2012 [[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America|PNAS]] paper<ref name=":1">{{Cite news |date=August 20, 2021 |title=A study on dishonesty was based on fraudulent data |newspaper=[[The Economist]] |url=https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/08/20/a-study-on-dishonesty-was-based-on-fraudulent-data |access-date=August 23, 2021 |issn=0013-0613}}</ref> by Lisa L. Shu, Nina Mazar, Francesca Gino, Dan Ariely, and [[Max H. Bazerman]] was reanalyzed on the blog Data Colada. The blog post claimed that the study data was fabricated.<ref name="DataColada">{{Cite web |date=August 17, 2021 |title=[98] Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Field Experiment About Dishonesty |url=https://datacolada.org/98 |access-date=August 18, 2021 |website=Data Colada |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name="Buzzfeed">{{cite web |last1=Lee |first1=Stephanie M. |date=August 20, 2021 |title=A Famous Honesty Researcher Is Retracting A Study Over Fake Data |url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/dan-ariely-honesty-study-retraction |access-date=August 23, 2021 |website=BuzzFeed News |language=en}}</ref> All of the 2012 study's authors agreed with this assessment and the paper was retracted.<ref name="Buzzfeed" /> The study's authors also agreed that Dan Ariely was the only author to have had access to the data prior to transmitting it in its fraudulent form to Nina Mazar, the analyst.<ref name="DataColada" /> Dan Ariely denied manipulating the data prior to forwarding it on to Mazar<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ariely |first=Dan |date=August 16, 2021 |title=Dan Blog Comment |url=http://datacolada.org/storage_strong/DanBlogComment_Aug_16_2021_final.pdf |access-date=29 January 2023 |website=datacolada.org}}</ref> but Excel metadata showed that he created the spreadsheet and was the last to edit it. He also admitted to having mislabeled all of the values in an entire column of the data in e-mail communication with Mazar that took place shortly after he initially sent her the data.<ref name="DataColada" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Charlton |first=Aaron |date=2021-08-17 |title=Conflicts between Dan Ariely's statement and Footnote #14 (DataColada #98) |url=https://openmkt.org/blog/2021/conflicts-between-dan-arielys-statement-and-footnote-14-datacolada-98/ |access-date=2023-01-30 |website=OpenMKT.org |language=en-US}}</ref> Dan Ariely has claimed that someone at the insurance agency that provided the data must have fabricated it.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Charlton |first=Aaron |date=2022-08-21 |title=Dan Ariely claims authorship order shields him from blame; speculates that a low-level envelope stuffer committed the fraud |url=https://openmkt.org/blog/2022/dan-ariely-claims-authorship-order-shields-him-from-blame-speculates-that-a-low-level-envelope-stuffer-committed-the-fraud/ |access-date=2023-01-30 |website=OpenMKT.org |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=דן אריאלי: "אנשים צועקים עליי ברחוב, קוראים לי רוצח ופסיכופת" |language=he |work=הארץ |url=https://www.haaretz.co.il/gallery/galleryfriday/2022-06-09/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/00000181-3e90-d207-a795-7ef0418c0000 |access-date=2023-01-30}}</ref> |
In August 2021, data from a field study in a 2012 [[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America|PNAS]] paper<ref name=":1">{{Cite news |date=August 20, 2021 |title=A study on dishonesty was based on fraudulent data |newspaper=[[The Economist]] |url=https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/08/20/a-study-on-dishonesty-was-based-on-fraudulent-data |access-date=August 23, 2021 |issn=0013-0613}}</ref> by Lisa L. Shu, Nina Mazar, [[Francesca Gino]], Dan Ariely, and [[Max H. Bazerman]] was reanalyzed on the blog Data Colada. The blog post claimed that the study data was fabricated.<ref name="DataColada">{{Cite web |date=August 17, 2021 |title=[98] Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Field Experiment About Dishonesty |url=https://datacolada.org/98 |access-date=August 18, 2021 |website=Data Colada |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name="Buzzfeed">{{cite web |last1=Lee |first1=Stephanie M. |date=August 20, 2021 |title=A Famous Honesty Researcher Is Retracting A Study Over Fake Data |url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/dan-ariely-honesty-study-retraction |access-date=August 23, 2021 |website=BuzzFeed News |language=en}}</ref> All of the 2012 study's authors agreed with this assessment and the paper was retracted.<ref name="Buzzfeed" /> The study's authors also agreed that Dan Ariely was the only author to have had access to the data prior to transmitting it in its fraudulent form to Nina Mazar, the analyst.<ref name="DataColada" /> Dan Ariely denied manipulating the data prior to forwarding it on to Mazar<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ariely |first=Dan |date=August 16, 2021 |title=Dan Blog Comment |url=http://datacolada.org/storage_strong/DanBlogComment_Aug_16_2021_final.pdf |access-date=29 January 2023 |website=datacolada.org}}</ref> but Excel metadata showed that he created the spreadsheet and was the last to edit it. He also admitted to having mislabeled all of the values in an entire column of the data in e-mail communication with Mazar that took place shortly after he initially sent her the data.<ref name="DataColada" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Charlton |first=Aaron |date=2021-08-17 |title=Conflicts between Dan Ariely's statement and Footnote #14 (DataColada #98) |url=https://openmkt.org/blog/2021/conflicts-between-dan-arielys-statement-and-footnote-14-datacolada-98/ |access-date=2023-01-30 |website=OpenMKT.org |language=en-US}}</ref> Dan Ariely has claimed that someone at the insurance agency that provided the data must have fabricated it.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Charlton |first=Aaron |date=2022-08-21 |title=Dan Ariely claims authorship order shields him from blame; speculates that a low-level envelope stuffer committed the fraud |url=https://openmkt.org/blog/2022/dan-ariely-claims-authorship-order-shields-him-from-blame-speculates-that-a-low-level-envelope-stuffer-committed-the-fraud/ |access-date=2023-01-30 |website=OpenMKT.org |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=דן אריאלי: "אנשים צועקים עליי ברחוב, קוראים לי רוצח ופסיכופת" |language=he |work=הארץ |url=https://www.haaretz.co.il/gallery/galleryfriday/2022-06-09/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/00000181-3e90-d207-a795-7ef0418c0000 |access-date=2023-01-30}}</ref> |
||
== Reception == |
== Reception == |
||
| Zeile 24: | Zeile 24: | ||
On the other hand, as summarized by The New Yorker, "Data Colada’s harshest critics saw the young men as jealous upstarts who didn’t understand the soft artistry of the social sciences", such as pychologist [[Norbert Schwarz]], who accused them and other reformers of engaging in a "witch hunt," or psychologist [[Daniel Gilbert (psychologist)|Daniel Gilbert]] who denounced the "replication police" as "shameless little bullies".<ref name=":2" /> |
On the other hand, as summarized by The New Yorker, "Data Colada’s harshest critics saw the young men as jealous upstarts who didn’t understand the soft artistry of the social sciences", such as pychologist [[Norbert Schwarz]], who accused them and other reformers of engaging in a "witch hunt," or psychologist [[Daniel Gilbert (psychologist)|Daniel Gilbert]] who denounced the "replication police" as "shameless little bullies".<ref name=":2" /> |
||
== Francesca Gino lawsuit == |
|||
In June 2023, [[Harvard Business School]] placed [[Francesca Gino]] on unpaid administrative leave after an internal investigation determined she had falsified data in her research.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Francesca Gino - Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School |url=https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/profile.aspx?facId=271812 |access-date=2023-08-07 |website=www.hbs.edu |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Quinn |first=Ryan |title=Harvard Dishonesty Researcher Now on Administrative Leave |url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/06/21/harvard-dishonesty-researcher-now-administrative-leave |access-date=2023-07-24 |website=Inside Higher Ed |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":03">{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Rahem D. |last2=Yuan |first2=Claire |date=2023-08-03 |title=Embattled by Data Fraud Allegations, Business School Professor Francesca Gino Files Defamation Suit Against Harvard |url=https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/8/3/hbs-prof-lawsuit-data-fraud-defamation/ |access-date=2023-08-03 |publisher=[[The Harvard Crimson]]}}</ref> Gino subsequently filed a [[defamation]] suit against Harvard, Harvard Business School Dean [[Srikant Datar]], and the three members of Data Colada for $25 million, alleging that they had [[Conspire|conspired]] to damage her reputation with false accusations and that the penalties against her amounted to gender-based discrimination under [[Title IX]].<ref name=":02">{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Rahem D. |last2=Yuan |first2=Claire |date=2023-08-03 |title=Embattled by Data Fraud Allegations, Business School Professor Francesca Gino Files Defamation Suit Against Harvard |url=https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/8/3/hbs-prof-lawsuit-data-fraud-defamation/ |access-date=2023-08-03 |publisher=[[The Harvard Crimson]]}}</ref> The suit does not contest or refute the defendants' scientific findings. It asserts that since the researchers used [[inference]] and probability to argue that the anomalies between the original [[Data set|dataset]] and the data used in Gino's analyses could not have been due to random chance or benign error, and therefore occurred from fraudulent manipulation, the defendants cannot prove she in particular committed the [[misconduct]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Svrluga |first=Susan |date=2023-08-03 |title=Professor accused of faking data in studies on dishonesty sues Harvard |language=en-US |work=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/08/03/harvard-honesty-lawsuit-research-misconduct/ |access-date=2023-08-04 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> |
|||
== References == |
== References == |
||
Version vom 1. Oktober 2023, 07:23 Uhr
Vorlage:Short description Vorlage:Draft topics Vorlage:AfC topic
Data Colada is a blog dedicated to investigative analysis and replication of academic research, focusing in particular on the validity of findings in the social sciences.[1]
It is known for publishing evidence revealing multiple high-profile academic frauds involving celebrity professors such as Dan Ariely and Francesca Gino. Data Colada was established in 2013 by three behavioral science researchers: Uri Simonsohn, a professor at ESADE Business School, Barcelona-Spain (as of 2023), Leif Nelson, a professor at University of California, Berkeley, and Joe Simmons, a professor at University of Pennsylvania.[1]
History
Around 2011, Simmons, Nelson and Simonsohn "bonded over the false, ridiculous, and flashy findings that the field [of behavioral sciences] was capable of producing", such as a paper by Cornell psychologist Daryl Bem that had supposedly found evidence for clairvoyance.[2] In particular, the three researchers objected to what they called p-hacking, then a widespread practice.[2] They reacted by publishing a influential[1] 2011 paper about false positive results in psychology, illustrating the problem with a parody research finding that supposedly showed that listening to the Beatles song "When I’m Sixty-Four" made experiments subjects one and a half years younger.[2]
The "Data Colada" blog was launched two years later, in 2013, carrying the tagline "Thinking about evidence, and vice versa", and "became a hub for nerdy discussions of statistical methods — and, before long, various research crimes and misdemeanors" (New York Times).[1]
Notable findings
Apart from calling out faulty but presumably well-intended research practices, Data Colada has also published evidence of data manipulations and research misconduct, such in psychologist Lawrence Sanna's studies about the concept of moral high ground, and in research by Flemish psychologist Dirk Smeesters.[2] Following the findings of Data Colada, "[t]he two men’s careers came to an unceremonious end" (according to The New Yorker).[2]
In August 2021, data from a field study in a 2012 PNAS paper[3] by Lisa L. Shu, Nina Mazar, Francesca Gino, Dan Ariely, and Max H. Bazerman was reanalyzed on the blog Data Colada. The blog post claimed that the study data was fabricated.[4][5] All of the 2012 study's authors agreed with this assessment and the paper was retracted.[5] The study's authors also agreed that Dan Ariely was the only author to have had access to the data prior to transmitting it in its fraudulent form to Nina Mazar, the analyst.[4] Dan Ariely denied manipulating the data prior to forwarding it on to Mazar[6] but Excel metadata showed that he created the spreadsheet and was the last to edit it. He also admitted to having mislabeled all of the values in an entire column of the data in e-mail communication with Mazar that took place shortly after he initially sent her the data.[4][7] Dan Ariely has claimed that someone at the insurance agency that provided the data must have fabricated it.[8][9]
Reception
The work of Data Colada has been credited with contributing to the start of the replication crisis in social sciences.[2]
The Nobel-prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman described Data Colada in 2023 as "heroes of mine" and expressed his regret about having previously endorsed some research findings that the blog later showed to be faulty.[2]
On the other hand, as summarized by The New Yorker, "Data Colada’s harshest critics saw the young men as jealous upstarts who didn’t understand the soft artistry of the social sciences", such as pychologist Norbert Schwarz, who accused them and other reformers of engaging in a "witch hunt," or psychologist Daniel Gilbert who denounced the "replication police" as "shameless little bullies".[2]
Francesca Gino lawsuit
In June 2023, Harvard Business School placed Francesca Gino on unpaid administrative leave after an internal investigation determined she had falsified data in her research.[10][11][12] Gino subsequently filed a defamation suit against Harvard, Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar, and the three members of Data Colada for $25 million, alleging that they had conspired to damage her reputation with false accusations and that the penalties against her amounted to gender-based discrimination under Title IX.[13] The suit does not contest or refute the defendants' scientific findings. It asserts that since the researchers used inference and probability to argue that the anomalies between the original dataset and the data used in Gino's analyses could not have been due to random chance or benign error, and therefore occurred from fraudulent manipulation, the defendants cannot prove she in particular committed the misconduct.[14]
References
- ↑ a b c d Noam Scheiber: The Harvard Professor and the Bloggers. In: The New York Times. 30. September 2023, abgerufen am 1. Oktober 2023 (amerikanisches Englisch).
- ↑ a b c d e f g h Gideon Lewis-Kraus: They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie? In: The New Yorker, 30. September 2023. Abgerufen am 1. Oktober 2023 (amerikanisches Englisch).
- ↑ A study on dishonesty was based on fraudulent data In: The Economist, August 20, 2021. Abgerufen im August 23, 2021
- ↑ a b c [98] Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Field Experiment About Dishonesty. In: Data Colada. 17. August 2021, abgerufen am 18. August 2021 (amerikanisches Englisch).
- ↑ a b Stephanie M. Lee: A Famous Honesty Researcher Is Retracting A Study Over Fake Data. In: BuzzFeed News. 20. August 2021, abgerufen am 23. August 2021 (englisch).
- ↑ Dan Ariely: Dan Blog Comment. In: datacolada.org. 16. August 2021, abgerufen am 29. Januar 2023.
- ↑ Aaron Charlton: Conflicts between Dan Ariely's statement and Footnote #14 (DataColada #98). In: OpenMKT.org. 17. August 2021, abgerufen am 30. Januar 2023 (amerikanisches Englisch).
- ↑ Aaron Charlton: Dan Ariely claims authorship order shields him from blame; speculates that a low-level envelope stuffer committed the fraud. In: OpenMKT.org. 21. August 2022, abgerufen am 30. Januar 2023 (amerikanisches Englisch).
- ↑ דן אריאלי: "אנשים צועקים עליי ברחוב, קוראים לי רוצח ופסיכופת" In: הארץ. Abgerufen am 30. Januar 2023 (hebräisch).
- ↑ Francesca Gino - Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School. In: www.hbs.edu. Abgerufen am 7. August 2023 (englisch).
- ↑ Ryan Quinn: Harvard Dishonesty Researcher Now on Administrative Leave. In: Inside Higher Ed. Abgerufen am 24. Juli 2023 (englisch).
- ↑ Rahem D. Hamid, Claire Yuan: Embattled by Data Fraud Allegations, Business School Professor Francesca Gino Files Defamation Suit Against Harvard. The Harvard Crimson, 3. August 2023, abgerufen am 3. August 2023.
- ↑ Rahem D. Hamid, Claire Yuan: Embattled by Data Fraud Allegations, Business School Professor Francesca Gino Files Defamation Suit Against Harvard. The Harvard Crimson, 3. August 2023, abgerufen am 3. August 2023.
- ↑ Susan Svrluga: Professor accused of faking data in studies on dishonesty sues Harvard In: Washington Post, 3. August 2023. Abgerufen am 4. August 2023 (amerikanisches Englisch).