“See, we’re in Italy. The guy on the top bunk has gotta make the guy on the bottom’s bed all the time. It’s in the regulations. If we were in Germany I would have to make yours. But we’re in Italy, so you’ve
gotta make mine. It’s regulations.”
This is more or less Eduwonkette’s response to my complaint that she can’t argue that the source of information is important in assessing the truth of claims while blogging anonymously. Her answer is that it’s different for bloggers (in Italy) than for researchers (in Germany). It’s regulations.
She goes on to describe some differences between different types of information in education policy debates, but it’s not clear why any of those differences would be relevant to whether assessing the source is important for one and not for another. The closest she comes to explaining why things are meaningfully different is when she says, “And let’s be realistic: an anonymous blogger isn’t shaping public policy.” So, if information will have no bearing on policy debates, then its source is unimportant.
This would be a consistent argument if she really believed that bloggers had NO influence. But of course they have at least some influence. Why else would she and the rest of us be bothering with this? And if bloggers have some influence, then the same basic principles should apply: either we should analyze the motives of sources of information to assess the truth of claims or we shouldn’t. I’m in favor of not analyzing motives for anyone since I think that the truth of claims is independent of the motives of the source. Even bad people can make true arguments.
At the risk of belaboring this issue, maybe I can clarify things by describing the market of ideas in policy debates as being like the market for cars. We have different levels of confidence in cars that have gone through different processes before being made available for sale. We could buy a used car from the corner used car dealer with no warranty. That would be like reading blogs. We don’t really know whether we are getting a lemon or not, since almost no assurances have been made about quality. Or we could buy a used car from a larger chain with at least some warranty. That would be like getting information from newspapers or magazines. There has been some review and assurance of quality, but we still don’t quite know what we’ll get. Or we could buy a new car from a major dealer and buy the extended warranty. That would be like getting information from a peer-reviewed journal. It may still be a lemon, but we’ve received a lot of assurances that it is not. And I suppose reading an anonymous blogger is like buying a used car from someone you don’t know in the want ads. There are trade-offs in getting cars with these different level of assurances about quality, just as there are trade-offs in getting information that has gone through different processes to assure quality.
Eduwonkette’s argument is essentially that the same rules regarding these trade-offs don’t apply to the market for cars without warranties that do apply to the market for cars with warranties. My view is that there are only differences in degree, not kind. Even bad people can sell cars that are good values.
I’ve also noticed that Marc Dean Millot has weighed in on this issue. He’s just knocking down a straw man. It is not my position that research doesn’t benefit from peer review. He can check out my cv to see that I have two dozen peer-reviewed publications, many of which were earlier released directly to the public without review.
I’ve been arguing that the public benefits from seeing research even before it has received peer review because it gets more information faster. Without the assurances of peer review people will tend to have lower confidence in that research, and their confidence may increase as the research receives those additional assurances. Millot seems to want to embargo information from the public until it receives peer review. If he really believes that, then he should criticize every researcher with working papers on the web. That’s almost everyone doing serious research.
And on his points about ideology tainting research I would suggest that people read Greg Forster’s excellent earlier post on Vouchers: Evidence and Ideology.