In any public performance or activity there are always stated and unstated objectives. After a year of hearings, most behind closed doors, last week the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol started to hold their televised public hearings.
This prompts a number of questions, but two of the most important ones are why are the hearings being held in this manner and why now?
To begin with the committee is governed by Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that allows public hearings. But it is up to this body to determine when and how this will occur. And here is now.
The more interesting issues are the stated and unstated reasons for the televised public hearings and the timing of the same.
But keep in mind two things:
First, the committee primarily has a fact finding purpose. It does not have the power to charge any one they believe are conspirators or co-conspirators to the events leading up the January 6, events. But they have subpoena power and have been using it. All the documents and testimony that the committee has collected can and will be handed over to the Department of Justice (DOJ). It will be up to Attorney General Merrick Garland to go forward with any further investigations and DOJ prosecutors to lay charges.
1. Wrapping things up in a bow and provide a more consistent and accessible message to their audience
Over the past year the public has been given snippets of information related to the work of the committee that has been released both by the committee and through the news media. But in the minds of the public this information is a garbled mess and needs to be organized into a narrative so that the public can best understand how the pieces are linked together.
2. Capitalizing on the current attention spans of their audience
This month may be the best time to coherently present the findings of the committee to individuals who are interested in its work. This constituency may have a brief window in their attention spans to better pay attention to the committees’ messaging. Their children have finished (or are completing) the spring semester, and it’s a few weeks before they begin their summer plans if they have any. Meanwhile congress and the senate will go into recess, and legislators will go back to their constituencies and try to convince the uncommitted to vote for them.
3. Appeasing Democratic Party loyalists who have been critical of the process
Over the past year a number of well-respected ostensibly Democratic Party stalwarts, including the Lincoln Project have criticized the committee. The most important criticism has been a perception that the committee is going too slow.
4. Signaling the Department of Justice that they will be holding them accountable for carrying the ball once the information is handed over to them
Once the information gathered by the committee has been given to the DOJ, they cannot simply go through the motions. If they do not do a thorough investigation, lay appropriate criminal charges, and start prosecutions, not only will Garland be criticized but so will Biden. After all, he has the responsibility for managing the DOJ.
5. Stressing the importance of electing Democratic candidates in the upcoming November elections
In five months the United States will ostensibly face one of the most important elections since November 2020. The Dems desperately want to hold on to the seats they have both in the house and the senate and if possible gain a few more seats that are in precarious jurisdictions (ones likely to shift).
For individuals who have been closely monitoring the activities of the committee, the public televised hearings will probably not provide any new revelations, but they should give insights on the inside workings of this political body, and their rhetorical strategy.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2022-06-13-at-10.07.05-AM.png353721Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-06-13 09:03:302024-09-22 12:21:34Why is the Committee to investigate the January 6th attack holding televised hearings now?
Before, during, or after graduate school some academics (including researchers, investigators, and scholars) struggle with determining what questions they want to answer, disciplines they want to contribute to, or what their overall research agenda is or should be. Although this dilemma may continue throughout a scholars’ entire career, making decisions connected to this process is not as simple as outsiders to this task might think.
Some of the choices regarding a research agenda have to do with the type of job and institution scholars or aspiring ones currently study at, work at, or want to get a job at. One of the first decisions is whether the research will be conducted in a private sector setting (e.g., research consulting organization, social media corporation, etc.), or in the context of an institution of higher education. In the former the choice of research subject is pretty much pre-determined by the organization, while in the latter scholars almost always have free reign to choose the subjects they want to explore, and the questions they want to answer.
Thus, one of the issues that researchers must confront is determining which research setting appeals to them the most, and where they believe that they can realistically get a job that will adequately financially support them. Not everyone who earns a Ph.D. can or wants to work in the private sector, nor at an R1 university. Instead they may find employment at a small college or university that may not place a high value on scholarly research.
Another factor that can influence the choice of research agendas are the subject matters and kinds of research, program and mentorship a graduate student or incoming assistant professor is exposed to (e.g., graduate programs in anthropology are not suited for candidates who are interested in conducting chemistry related research). The kinds of research and questions scholars attempt to answer may also be predicated on where they live, work, or visit.
Many graduate programs attempt to provide students with a variety of different courses, and expose them to different research teams so they can ostensibly make their own choices about what suits them bet. Others pair incoming graduate students with supervisors whom they believe share similar research interests, and rarely do students switch to other advisors or mentors.
Many investigators simply continue the research trajectory established by their graduate school supervisor or mentor they worked with. This has an element of predictability. One knows the landscape, the important conferences, and network. It’s a safe environment that minimizes risk.
That being said, it’s often hard to change subject specializations because of a researchers’ beliefs surrounding sunk, start up, and switching costs. But researchers, however, need to ask themselves if conducting research in the area that no longer interests them or that they believe does not assist them, then it may be time to move on.
Then again a scholars’ research agenda may ebb and flow. Certainly the requirements of securing a job, and moving up through the ranks may drive the choice of research a scholar conducts.
Nevertheless, there are at least six interrelated processes that can guide the choice of a research agenda. They include:
1. Serendipity
Sometimes the subjects and questions that researchers choose to focus on are mainly done through chance. For instance, the investigator goes on a vacation, discovers something that interests them, and over time they increasingly conduct research on the subject.
2. Grants driving the process
Alternatively some scholars make decisions regarding the topics and questions they choose to research based on the availability of grant funding. They learn what funding sources are interested in, determine if they have the knowledge and capabilities to receive a grant from the organization, and if it makes sense to them, they craft proposals that they believe the funders will choose. If the research proposal is accepted then they carry out the research to complete the project.
3. The burning question approach
Another motivation driving some researchers are burning questions they want to answer. These questions may be longstanding, based on lived experience, activism, and originated during at an early age in the persons’ life or they emerged after the person was exposed to different life circumstances. In these cases the question is so fascinating that the person is motivated to find answers to the questions beyond what they read through doing a normal literature review. The question may sustains the researchers’ interest for a long time, or there may be a situation/s where the scholar shifts from one question that they are passionate about answering to another.
4. The discipline determines the unanswered questions
Sometimes researchers, after they become familiar with a subject area, start looking for gaps in the literature or knowledge and then try to fill them in. The gaps are discover after the researcher becomes increasingly familiar with the subject matter.
5. A theory drives the process
Most subfields develop hypotheses, theories, and models. These building blocks are tested by analyzing relevant data. Over time new research methods and data are applied to the hypotheses, theories and models to understand the situations that they do or do not apply to.
6. Access to data may drive the process
Data exists in a variety of different forms and are of different levels of quality. Sometimes it is readily accessible (e.g., in an archive), whereas at other times it is not (e.g., nonobservable). Many researchers chose to answer questions based on this availability and quality of the data to which they apply certain tests.
Knowing and understanding that there are about six interrelated processes may help researchers, have a better understanding of the multiple ways they can go about finding appropriate research topics and fields to explore.
Whatever your motivation, it’s important to keep in mind that research agendas can and do change throughout a scholarly career, and this is predicated on the fact or possibility that over time, not only do interests change, but so do motivations surrounding conducting research and opportunities too. As it turns out there is no one best way for researchers to determine questions to answer, fields to explore or a research agenda. The answer is it depends.
Photo credit:
Joel Kramer
gambling
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/391616108_76884105b5_o.jpg15362048Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-06-05 23:47:302022-06-06 16:10:23What’s the best way to choose a research agenda?
This week one of the deadliest school shootings in American history occurred at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas.
In addition to the 19 school children and 2 teachers killed, 17 injured, and the trauma that it has permanently inflicted on the families, loved ones, and community, the response by the public, law enforcement, activists, and politicians of all ideological stripes was mostly predictable.
The left repeated its’ pleas for more gun control, and the right engaged in thoughts and prayers rhetoric, attributed the attack to a series of real and imagined causes (e.g., mental illness), and offered dubious solutions that have not been supported by empirical evidence (e.g., hardening schools, arming teachers, etc.)
There is nothing new here. But for the general public, whose interest in 2nd Amendment issues, and attention spans that ebb and flow, it’s extremely important to not simply brush aside the arguments, or blindly pick a side, but to critically evaluate the evidence and logic upon which the claims are based. It’s also necessary to understand that many of the challenges facing the criminal justice system are intractable; they have persisted for a long time and that there are no simple solutions.
Although I’m not suggesting that everyone needs an advanced degree in criminology/criminal justice, philosophy or logic, it couldn’t hurt.
What I am arguing for, however, is that it’s now more important than ever for the public to engage in and learn critical thinking skills. This is not simply criticizing something, or using a left leaning perspective (e.g., critical theory). It’s using the methods of logic to examine important controversial issues of the day.
Widely touted to be the magic bullet for higher education during the 1990s, the term “Critical Thinking” has faded into the woodwork of educational trends.
What researchers, especially educators, believed back then, as many still do now, is that many people hold illogical or irrational beliefs and if they are taught basic principles of logic, they may be able to make better decisions.
What researchers slowly learned however, is that most people’s beliefs, no matter how irrational they may sound (or are) to outsiders, when confronted with empirical research to the contrary, are very difficult to change. Many people do not know what constitutes expertise, nor how this is achieved. That is why it is not simply the presentation of empirical evidence, but also the method by which this information is introduced to belief holders.
What the literature and best practices indicates is that there are better and worse ways to teach and introduce critical thinking. A simple search of the web will provide this kind of information. But as educators, and concerned citizens it’s time to implement these kinds of techniques, rather than easily giving up, which is the natural tendency of most people to do.
Photo Credit: Blink O’fanaye
Gun Control March
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/8424102616_9de13b049c_o-scaled.jpg6922560Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-05-27 00:44:512022-05-27 00:44:51Arming oneself with critical thinking skills
Why is the Committee to investigate the January 6th attack holding televised hearings now?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossIn any public performance or activity there are always stated and unstated objectives. After a year of hearings, most behind closed doors, last week the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol started to hold their televised public hearings.
This prompts a number of questions, but two of the most important ones are why are the hearings being held in this manner and why now?
To begin with the committee is governed by Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that allows public hearings. But it is up to this body to determine when and how this will occur. And here is now.
The more interesting issues are the stated and unstated reasons for the televised public hearings and the timing of the same.
But keep in mind two things:
First, the committee primarily has a fact finding purpose. It does not have the power to charge any one they believe are conspirators or co-conspirators to the events leading up the January 6, events. But they have subpoena power and have been using it. All the documents and testimony that the committee has collected can and will be handed over to the Department of Justice (DOJ). It will be up to Attorney General Merrick Garland to go forward with any further investigations and DOJ prosecutors to lay charges.
Second, the hearings, regardless of the findings, format and timing, are not going to convince the Maga cult that former President Donald Trump, and his inside circle broke the law. Many of them believe that the “election was stolen,” don’t really understand the constitution, nor criminal law, and a significant number of them believe that the Jan 6th insurrection was a legitimate act of political violence.
Although the committee may be using the televised public hearings to prepare and warn the American public about the seriousness of the information uncovered and recommended criminal charges, having public televised hearings now may be designed with other objectives in mind including:
1. Wrapping things up in a bow and provide a more consistent and accessible message to their audience
Over the past year the public has been given snippets of information related to the work of the committee that has been released both by the committee and through the news media. But in the minds of the public this information is a garbled mess and needs to be organized into a narrative so that the public can best understand how the pieces are linked together.
2. Capitalizing on the current attention spans of their audience
This month may be the best time to coherently present the findings of the committee to individuals who are interested in its work. This constituency may have a brief window in their attention spans to better pay attention to the committees’ messaging. Their children have finished (or are completing) the spring semester, and it’s a few weeks before they begin their summer plans if they have any. Meanwhile congress and the senate will go into recess, and legislators will go back to their constituencies and try to convince the uncommitted to vote for them.
3. Appeasing Democratic Party loyalists who have been critical of the process
Over the past year a number of well-respected ostensibly Democratic Party stalwarts, including the Lincoln Project have criticized the committee. The most important criticism has been a perception that the committee is going too slow.
4. Signaling the Department of Justice that they will be holding them accountable for carrying the ball once the information is handed over to them
Once the information gathered by the committee has been given to the DOJ, they cannot simply go through the motions. If they do not do a thorough investigation, lay appropriate criminal charges, and start prosecutions, not only will Garland be criticized but so will Biden. After all, he has the responsibility for managing the DOJ.
5. Stressing the importance of electing Democratic candidates in the upcoming November elections
In five months the United States will ostensibly face one of the most important elections since November 2020. The Dems desperately want to hold on to the seats they have both in the house and the senate and if possible gain a few more seats that are in precarious jurisdictions (ones likely to shift).
For individuals who have been closely monitoring the activities of the committee, the public televised hearings will probably not provide any new revelations, but they should give insights on the inside workings of this political body, and their rhetorical strategy.
What’s the best way to choose a research agenda?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossBefore, during, or after graduate school some academics (including researchers, investigators, and scholars) struggle with determining what questions they want to answer, disciplines they want to contribute to, or what their overall research agenda is or should be. Although this dilemma may continue throughout a scholars’ entire career, making decisions connected to this process is not as simple as outsiders to this task might think.
Some of the choices regarding a research agenda have to do with the type of job and institution scholars or aspiring ones currently study at, work at, or want to get a job at. One of the first decisions is whether the research will be conducted in a private sector setting (e.g., research consulting organization, social media corporation, etc.), or in the context of an institution of higher education. In the former the choice of research subject is pretty much pre-determined by the organization, while in the latter scholars almost always have free reign to choose the subjects they want to explore, and the questions they want to answer.
Thus, one of the issues that researchers must confront is determining which research setting appeals to them the most, and where they believe that they can realistically get a job that will adequately financially support them. Not everyone who earns a Ph.D. can or wants to work in the private sector, nor at an R1 university. Instead they may find employment at a small college or university that may not place a high value on scholarly research.
Another factor that can influence the choice of research agendas are the subject matters and kinds of research, program and mentorship a graduate student or incoming assistant professor is exposed to (e.g., graduate programs in anthropology are not suited for candidates who are interested in conducting chemistry related research). The kinds of research and questions scholars attempt to answer may also be predicated on where they live, work, or visit.
Many graduate programs attempt to provide students with a variety of different courses, and expose them to different research teams so they can ostensibly make their own choices about what suits them bet. Others pair incoming graduate students with supervisors whom they believe share similar research interests, and rarely do students switch to other advisors or mentors.
Many investigators simply continue the research trajectory established by their graduate school supervisor or mentor they worked with. This has an element of predictability. One knows the landscape, the important conferences, and network. It’s a safe environment that minimizes risk.
That being said, it’s often hard to change subject specializations because of a researchers’ beliefs surrounding sunk, start up, and switching costs. But researchers, however, need to ask themselves if conducting research in the area that no longer interests them or that they believe does not assist them, then it may be time to move on.
Then again a scholars’ research agenda may ebb and flow. Certainly the requirements of securing a job, and moving up through the ranks may drive the choice of research a scholar conducts.
Nevertheless, there are at least six interrelated processes that can guide the choice of a research agenda. They include:
1. Serendipity
Sometimes the subjects and questions that researchers choose to focus on are mainly done through chance. For instance, the investigator goes on a vacation, discovers something that interests them, and over time they increasingly conduct research on the subject.
2. Grants driving the process
Alternatively some scholars make decisions regarding the topics and questions they choose to research based on the availability of grant funding. They learn what funding sources are interested in, determine if they have the knowledge and capabilities to receive a grant from the organization, and if it makes sense to them, they craft proposals that they believe the funders will choose. If the research proposal is accepted then they carry out the research to complete the project.
3. The burning question approach
Another motivation driving some researchers are burning questions they want to answer. These questions may be longstanding, based on lived experience, activism, and originated during at an early age in the persons’ life or they emerged after the person was exposed to different life circumstances. In these cases the question is so fascinating that the person is motivated to find answers to the questions beyond what they read through doing a normal literature review. The question may sustains the researchers’ interest for a long time, or there may be a situation/s where the scholar shifts from one question that they are passionate about answering to another.
4. The discipline determines the unanswered questions
Sometimes researchers, after they become familiar with a subject area, start looking for gaps in the literature or knowledge and then try to fill them in. The gaps are discover after the researcher becomes increasingly familiar with the subject matter.
5. A theory drives the process
Most subfields develop hypotheses, theories, and models. These building blocks are tested by analyzing relevant data. Over time new research methods and data are applied to the hypotheses, theories and models to understand the situations that they do or do not apply to.
6. Access to data may drive the process
Data exists in a variety of different forms and are of different levels of quality. Sometimes it is readily accessible (e.g., in an archive), whereas at other times it is not (e.g., nonobservable). Many researchers chose to answer questions based on this availability and quality of the data to which they apply certain tests.
Knowing and understanding that there are about six interrelated processes may help researchers, have a better understanding of the multiple ways they can go about finding appropriate research topics and fields to explore.
Whatever your motivation, it’s important to keep in mind that research agendas can and do change throughout a scholarly career, and this is predicated on the fact or possibility that over time, not only do interests change, but so do motivations surrounding conducting research and opportunities too. As it turns out there is no one best way for researchers to determine questions to answer, fields to explore or a research agenda. The answer is it depends.
Photo credit:
Joel Kramer
gambling
Arming oneself with critical thinking skills
/by Jeffrey Ian RossThis week one of the deadliest school shootings in American history occurred at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas.
In addition to the 19 school children and 2 teachers killed, 17 injured, and the trauma that it has permanently inflicted on the families, loved ones, and community, the response by the public, law enforcement, activists, and politicians of all ideological stripes was mostly predictable.
The left repeated its’ pleas for more gun control, and the right engaged in thoughts and prayers rhetoric, attributed the attack to a series of real and imagined causes (e.g., mental illness), and offered dubious solutions that have not been supported by empirical evidence (e.g., hardening schools, arming teachers, etc.)
There is nothing new here. But for the general public, whose interest in 2nd Amendment issues, and attention spans that ebb and flow, it’s extremely important to not simply brush aside the arguments, or blindly pick a side, but to critically evaluate the evidence and logic upon which the claims are based. It’s also necessary to understand that many of the challenges facing the criminal justice system are intractable; they have persisted for a long time and that there are no simple solutions.
Although I’m not suggesting that everyone needs an advanced degree in criminology/criminal justice, philosophy or logic, it couldn’t hurt.
What I am arguing for, however, is that it’s now more important than ever for the public to engage in and learn critical thinking skills. This is not simply criticizing something, or using a left leaning perspective (e.g., critical theory). It’s using the methods of logic to examine important controversial issues of the day.
Widely touted to be the magic bullet for higher education during the 1990s, the term “Critical Thinking” has faded into the woodwork of educational trends.
What researchers, especially educators, believed back then, as many still do now, is that many people hold illogical or irrational beliefs and if they are taught basic principles of logic, they may be able to make better decisions.
What researchers slowly learned however, is that most people’s beliefs, no matter how irrational they may sound (or are) to outsiders, when confronted with empirical research to the contrary, are very difficult to change. Many people do not know what constitutes expertise, nor how this is achieved. That is why it is not simply the presentation of empirical evidence, but also the method by which this information is introduced to belief holders.
What the literature and best practices indicates is that there are better and worse ways to teach and introduce critical thinking. A simple search of the web will provide this kind of information. But as educators, and concerned citizens it’s time to implement these kinds of techniques, rather than easily giving up, which is the natural tendency of most people to do.
Photo Credit: Blink O’fanaye
Gun Control March