WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.060 This is The Reading Instruction Show. I am your 00:00:03.060 --> 00:00:07.080 host, Dr. Andy Johnson. Topic of today's podcast, 00:00:07.700 --> 00:00:11.460 the importance of academic journals, full colon. 00:00:12.119 --> 00:00:15.560 John Stossel does not know what they are. Now, 00:00:15.580 --> 00:00:19.760 there's seven big ideas I want you to take from 00:00:19.760 --> 00:00:23.620 this two -part series. One, having a body of 00:00:23.620 --> 00:00:27.839 knowledge is important in any field. Two, disagreement. 00:00:28.120 --> 00:00:32.359 followed by academic discourse enables a field 00:00:32.359 --> 00:00:38.460 to evolve. Three, silencing opposing views results 00:00:38.460 --> 00:00:42.820 in cognitive inbreeding. Four, academic journals 00:00:42.820 --> 00:00:47.259 are an essential item for disseminating new knowledge 00:00:47.259 --> 00:00:51.439 and for academic discourse within a field. Five, 00:00:51.640 --> 00:00:55.140 the process used to get scholarly articles published 00:00:55.140 --> 00:00:58.939 in an academic journal is much higher than that 00:00:58.939 --> 00:01:02.299 used to get an article published in a newspaper 00:01:02.299 --> 00:01:06.200 or magazine. Six, having a body of knowledge 00:01:06.200 --> 00:01:09.280 that is shallow and disjointed is not optimal 00:01:09.280 --> 00:01:13.200 for academic discourse or TV interviews. And 00:01:13.200 --> 00:01:16.980 seven, John Stossel does not know what an academic 00:01:16.980 --> 00:01:22.159 journal is. So to review, I was invited out to 00:01:22.159 --> 00:01:25.519 New York City so that John Stossel could, quote, 00:01:25.560 --> 00:01:30.200 get my take, unquote, on whole word reading instruction. 00:01:30.819 --> 00:01:35.299 But John Stossel did not really want my take 00:01:35.299 --> 00:01:39.340 on whole word reading instruction. He didn't 00:01:39.340 --> 00:01:43.680 really want my take on anything. John Stossel 00:01:43.680 --> 00:01:48.120 wanted good TV. And I understood this before 00:01:48.120 --> 00:01:52.439 I flew out for the interview. I was hoping it 00:01:52.439 --> 00:01:55.340 would give me something to write about, and I 00:01:55.340 --> 00:01:58.840 thought it might be a good example of what happens 00:01:58.840 --> 00:02:02.780 when journalists insert themselves into academic 00:02:02.780 --> 00:02:08.539 conversations. And I wasn't disappointed. So 00:02:08.539 --> 00:02:12.580 let's look at the importance of knowledge. Most 00:02:12.580 --> 00:02:18.639 would agree that knowledge is a good thing. Knowledge. 00:02:18.939 --> 00:02:23.020 enables you to evaluate data, put information 00:02:23.020 --> 00:02:27.000 in relevant contexts, and understand phenomena. 00:02:28.240 --> 00:02:32.280 In any field or endeavor, having more of it is 00:02:32.280 --> 00:02:35.580 a good thing, and having less of it is not a 00:02:35.580 --> 00:02:38.819 good thing. And having less of it while thinking 00:02:38.819 --> 00:02:44.199 you have more of it is a dangerous thing. Interactive 00:02:44.199 --> 00:02:48.090 theories of reading. According to interactive 00:02:48.090 --> 00:02:52.030 theories of reading, the knowledge in our heads 00:02:52.030 --> 00:02:55.550 interacts with the information on the page to 00:02:55.550 --> 00:03:00.469 create meaning. Now I'm not trying to brag here, 00:03:00.889 --> 00:03:05.710 but I've got some knowledge in my head. I earned 00:03:05.710 --> 00:03:09.729 a PhD from a prestigious university in literacy 00:03:09.729 --> 00:03:14.520 instruction. This, combined with 30 years of 00:03:14.520 --> 00:03:17.280 reading academic books and journal articles, 00:03:17.800 --> 00:03:21.439 doing scholarly work, writing books and articles, 00:03:21.879 --> 00:03:24.620 tutoring struggling readers, reviewing articles 00:03:24.620 --> 00:03:27.759 for academic journals, and teaching graduate 00:03:27.759 --> 00:03:33.060 and undergraduate courses, has enabled me to 00:03:33.060 --> 00:03:36.699 accumulate quite a bit of knowledge in my head 00:03:36.699 --> 00:03:41.969 related to literacy instruction. And again, I'm 00:03:41.969 --> 00:03:46.629 not trying to brag. Those are just the facts. 00:03:47.689 --> 00:03:50.770 Putting knowledge in my head and disseminating 00:03:50.770 --> 00:03:56.150 it is what I do for a living. The state of Minnesota 00:03:56.150 --> 00:04:00.969 pays me to do this. I'm a professor of literacy 00:04:00.969 --> 00:04:05.849 instruction at Minnesota State University. The 00:04:05.849 --> 00:04:09.710 knowledge in my head enables me to easily read 00:04:09.710 --> 00:04:13.169 and understand an academic journal like Reading 00:04:13.169 --> 00:04:17.410 Research Quarterly. This knowledge in my head 00:04:17.410 --> 00:04:21.529 enables me to critically analyze and evaluate 00:04:21.529 --> 00:04:25.990 the articles. I know what information is pertinent, 00:04:26.949 --> 00:04:30.990 I recognize the research cited, and I can put 00:04:30.990 --> 00:04:36.009 things in a greater context. But most important 00:04:36.009 --> 00:04:40.730 is that the knowledge in my head helps me understand 00:04:40.730 --> 00:04:46.769 what I'm reading. But when this same head tries 00:04:46.769 --> 00:04:50.189 to read an article in an academic journal like 00:04:50.189 --> 00:04:53.850 the Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance, 00:04:55.170 --> 00:04:58.069 there's very little knowledge to help me create 00:04:58.069 --> 00:05:02.649 meaning with print. Same brain. But it takes 00:05:02.649 --> 00:05:07.529 me far longer to read an article. And I understand 00:05:07.529 --> 00:05:11.829 very little of what I've read. And I'm not able 00:05:11.829 --> 00:05:17.110 to evaluate the information. And other than the 00:05:17.110 --> 00:05:20.970 quality of writing, I wouldn't know a good article 00:05:20.970 --> 00:05:26.370 from a bad one. Same head, different kinds of 00:05:26.370 --> 00:05:31.089 knowledge. Having a body of knowledge is important. 00:05:32.170 --> 00:05:36.470 Now, I'm sure John Stossel has a lot of knowledge 00:05:36.470 --> 00:05:40.949 in his head. However, not much of it is related 00:05:40.949 --> 00:05:44.750 to reading instruction. And this was obvious 00:05:44.750 --> 00:05:49.550 from the first email. And it became abundantly 00:05:49.550 --> 00:05:52.610 clear at several points during the interview 00:05:52.610 --> 00:05:56.209 that he knew little about educational research, 00:05:57.170 --> 00:06:01.339 educational testing, or academic journals. And 00:06:01.339 --> 00:06:07.399 why is this relevant? Well, it's difficult to 00:06:07.399 --> 00:06:10.439 have a substantive interview, much less give 00:06:10.439 --> 00:06:14.660 your take on things, when the other party doesn't 00:06:14.660 --> 00:06:17.360 understand the questions that they're asking 00:06:17.360 --> 00:06:23.610 or the answers that you're providing. Also, the 00:06:23.610 --> 00:06:27.589 interview doesn't go too far when one is constantly 00:06:27.589 --> 00:06:31.310 having to correct mistaken assumptions upon which 00:06:31.310 --> 00:06:35.790 questions are asked. But the interview becomes 00:06:35.790 --> 00:06:39.509 a clown show when the unstated purpose of the 00:06:39.509 --> 00:06:42.850 interview is for the person with a little knowledge 00:06:42.850 --> 00:06:45.910 to disbelieve things put forth by the person 00:06:45.910 --> 00:06:50.589 with much knowledge. Now I know I'm not the brightest 00:06:50.589 --> 00:06:54.589 turnip in the carrot patch, but even a dull turnip 00:06:54.589 --> 00:06:59.970 like me knows what an academic journal is. I 00:06:59.970 --> 00:07:03.149 know their contributions to academic discourse, 00:07:03.649 --> 00:07:06.589 their necessity in research and the scientific 00:07:06.589 --> 00:07:10.170 processes, and their importance in addressing 00:07:10.170 --> 00:07:14.050 the salient and evolving issues in any field. 00:07:14.970 --> 00:07:18.839 I know these things. People in the scientific 00:07:18.839 --> 00:07:22.540 and scholarly communities know these things, 00:07:23.319 --> 00:07:27.259 and most people in the field of literacy instruction 00:07:27.259 --> 00:07:32.660 know these things. John Stossel does not know 00:07:32.660 --> 00:07:37.060 these things. So let's talk about dissemination, 00:07:37.399 --> 00:07:43.480 disagreement, and devolution. Academic journals 00:07:43.800 --> 00:07:47.360 are an important source of knowledge dissemination 00:07:47.360 --> 00:07:52.300 within any academic field. They're also a place 00:07:52.300 --> 00:07:57.699 where experts within a field disagree. Here, 00:07:58.040 --> 00:08:01.420 disagreeing ideas are put forth and supported 00:08:01.420 --> 00:08:06.800 by reason and research, and this is called academic 00:08:06.800 --> 00:08:11.540 discourse. Disagreement. followed by academic 00:08:11.540 --> 00:08:16.300 discourse is essential for the evolution of any 00:08:16.300 --> 00:08:21.339 field. It avoids the inbreeding of ideas that 00:08:21.339 --> 00:08:27.560 occur when opposing ideas are silenced. Cognitive 00:08:27.560 --> 00:08:31.279 inbreeding has led to the knowledge -based mutations 00:08:31.279 --> 00:08:34.879 and the conceptual deformities we see in groups 00:08:34.879 --> 00:08:39.470 like the Reading League. And when academic discourse 00:08:39.470 --> 00:08:45.149 is replaced by journalism, these mutations and 00:08:45.149 --> 00:08:50.450 deformities become magnified. Now it's important 00:08:50.450 --> 00:08:55.269 that people disagree. For me, being questioned 00:08:55.269 --> 00:08:58.549 or challenged invites me to review research, 00:08:58.889 --> 00:09:03.850 to reflect, and either reify or refize my thinking. 00:09:04.950 --> 00:09:08.929 And if you read my books, You will notice slight 00:09:08.929 --> 00:09:12.809 changes in my thinking as I encounter new information 00:09:12.809 --> 00:09:18.370 and as I was exposed to new ideas. To stay the 00:09:18.370 --> 00:09:24.730 same is to devolve. To change is to evolve. And 00:09:24.730 --> 00:09:29.250 it is only devolutionists, devolutionists such 00:09:29.250 --> 00:09:33.230 as Louisa Motes, Emily Hanford, and all the Hanford 00:09:33.230 --> 00:09:37.629 wannabes who think reading instruction is a settled 00:09:37.629 --> 00:09:42.929 science. It's not. John Stossel doesn't know 00:09:42.929 --> 00:09:47.789 this. And also he doesn't know what an academic 00:09:47.789 --> 00:09:53.210 journal is. So let's take a look at academic 00:09:53.210 --> 00:09:58.509 journals and journalists. Academic journals and 00:09:58.509 --> 00:10:03.750 journalists both have the word journal in them. 00:10:03.960 --> 00:10:07.700 But that's largely where the similarities end. 00:10:08.960 --> 00:10:13.100 Journalists are trained to ask questions and 00:10:13.100 --> 00:10:16.100 write down what people tell them. That's what 00:10:16.100 --> 00:10:21.059 they do. That's how they get their story. But 00:10:21.059 --> 00:10:24.419 their story is their interpretation of reality 00:10:24.419 --> 00:10:27.980 based on the interpretations of reality of the 00:10:27.980 --> 00:10:32.649 people who told them things. Now, my understanding 00:10:32.649 --> 00:10:36.470 of journalism comes from an intro to journalism 00:10:36.470 --> 00:10:40.389 class taken 40 years ago, and the movie All the 00:10:40.389 --> 00:10:43.769 President's Men starring Dustin Hoffman and Robert 00:10:43.769 --> 00:10:48.909 Redford. Here, the bar for getting a story published 00:10:48.909 --> 00:10:54.000 was two sources. According to the movie, it was 00:10:54.000 --> 00:10:57.320 only after Woodward and Bernstein had secured 00:10:57.320 --> 00:11:01.139 two sources that the Washington Post could run 00:11:01.139 --> 00:11:07.299 the Watergate story. Now, scholars have a slightly 00:11:07.299 --> 00:11:11.460 higher bar when publishing in an academic journal 00:11:11.460 --> 00:11:17.200 besides citing multiple sources throughout an 00:11:17.200 --> 00:11:20.960 article. Articles published in academic journals 00:11:20.960 --> 00:11:25.500 must first make it through a blind peer review. 00:11:26.679 --> 00:11:29.960 It's important to understand this process. So 00:11:29.960 --> 00:11:35.019 this is how blind peer review works. Once a study 00:11:35.019 --> 00:11:38.220 has been conducted or a theoretical article written, 00:11:38.980 --> 00:11:42.480 the authors send it off to an academic journal 00:11:42.480 --> 00:11:47.679 to be considered for publication. When the article 00:11:47.679 --> 00:11:51.659 is first received, the editor of the journal 00:11:51.659 --> 00:11:57.100 considers the alignment of the article with the 00:11:57.100 --> 00:12:00.600 academic standards within the field and the mission 00:12:00.600 --> 00:12:05.299 of the journal. The editor then selects reviewers 00:12:05.299 --> 00:12:09.279 with expertise related to the topic of the article 00:12:09.279 --> 00:12:14.470 to review it. These reviewers evaluate the article 00:12:14.470 --> 00:12:17.450 without knowing who wrote it, hence the term 00:12:17.450 --> 00:12:21.350 blind peer review. And the authors don't know 00:12:21.350 --> 00:12:25.909 who the reviewers are. For research articles, 00:12:26.289 --> 00:12:28.850 reviewers consider such thing as the clarity 00:12:28.850 --> 00:12:32.629 of the research question, the theoretical context 00:12:32.629 --> 00:12:36.330 in which the research question was asked, the 00:12:36.330 --> 00:12:39.250 adequacy of the methodology, the analysis of 00:12:39.250 --> 00:12:42.210 the data, the interpretation of the data, the 00:12:42.210 --> 00:12:45.629 validity of the conclusions, and the quality 00:12:45.629 --> 00:12:50.340 of the writing. For theoretical articles, reviewers 00:12:50.340 --> 00:12:53.620 consider such things as the alignment to research 00:12:53.620 --> 00:12:56.480 -based theory, the appropriate use of reason 00:12:56.480 --> 00:12:59.220 and research to support the thesis or claim, 00:12:59.919 --> 00:13:03.320 the reflection of a body of established knowledge 00:13:03.320 --> 00:13:07.139 within the field, and the quality of the writing. 00:13:08.259 --> 00:13:12.059 Reviewers then have four options. One, recommended 00:13:12.059 --> 00:13:15.759 for publication. Two, recommended for publication 00:13:15.759 --> 00:13:20.019 with revisions. 3. Suggest specific reservations 00:13:20.019 --> 00:13:24.279 be made and that it be resubmitted for consideration, 00:13:24.379 --> 00:13:30.919 or 4. Recommend the article be rejected. Blind 00:13:30.919 --> 00:13:37.159 peer review simply denotes a process. And the 00:13:37.159 --> 00:13:42.539 quality of this process varies. Reviewers and 00:13:42.539 --> 00:13:46.259 editors of highly prestigious academic journals 00:13:46.639 --> 00:13:51.340 use a process that's rigorous and very selective. 00:13:52.159 --> 00:13:55.580 These journals have low acceptance rates and 00:13:55.580 --> 00:13:58.820 tend to have considerable influence on the field. 00:14:00.120 --> 00:14:05.080 Other journals have a less rigorous review process 00:14:05.080 --> 00:14:10.000 and higher acceptance rates. However, all are 00:14:10.000 --> 00:14:13.320 still considered to be peer -reviewed journals. 00:14:14.000 --> 00:14:18.659 Once published, the article is examined by researchers, 00:14:19.100 --> 00:14:22.539 scholars, and practitioners within the field. 00:14:23.419 --> 00:14:27.519 Here it is further analyzed, evaluated, critiqued, 00:14:27.720 --> 00:14:33.139 debated, and embraced or rejected. This often 00:14:33.139 --> 00:14:36.600 leads to new studies conducted and new academic 00:14:36.600 --> 00:14:39.960 articles written to either support or denounce 00:14:39.960 --> 00:14:44.429 the initial study or article. These are followed 00:14:44.429 --> 00:14:47.529 by others, which are followed by others, and 00:14:47.529 --> 00:14:52.870 the cycle of academic life continues. And, by 00:14:52.870 --> 00:14:56.590 the way, if reading instruction really were a 00:14:56.590 --> 00:15:00.429 settled science, as Louisa Mote says it is, there 00:15:00.429 --> 00:15:03.629 would be no need for further research. It's all 00:15:03.629 --> 00:15:10.669 settled. A filter. Blind peer review is a form 00:15:10.669 --> 00:15:14.409 of a filter. to ensure that the knowledge we 00:15:14.409 --> 00:15:18.509 get is somewhat valid, somewhat accurate, and 00:15:18.509 --> 00:15:23.909 somewhat untainted by human subjectivity. Somewhat. 00:15:24.690 --> 00:15:29.889 It's not a perfect process, but it is a process, 00:15:30.210 --> 00:15:35.850 and it's used with academic journals. Journalists 00:15:35.850 --> 00:15:39.629 like Emily Hanford, Sarah Schwartz, and John 00:15:39.629 --> 00:15:44.480 Stossel don't have a process. There's no filter. 00:15:45.179 --> 00:15:50.600 They just say things or write things. And because 00:15:50.600 --> 00:15:54.480 they have a larger platform than most scholars, 00:15:55.159 --> 00:15:58.740 their voices are heard by the public and given 00:15:58.740 --> 00:16:03.220 more credence. Now I want to be very clear on 00:16:03.220 --> 00:16:07.519 my position here. Journalists and a free press 00:16:07.519 --> 00:16:12.379 are essential. in the functioning of a free and 00:16:12.379 --> 00:16:16.740 open democracy. I'm not one of those who cry 00:16:16.740 --> 00:16:20.179 fake news every time there's a story I don't 00:16:20.179 --> 00:16:25.779 like. But journalists have inserted themselves 00:16:25.779 --> 00:16:29.399 into our academic conversations about reading 00:16:29.399 --> 00:16:34.759 instruction. And I welcome them, but they don't 00:16:34.759 --> 00:16:41.500 get a free pass on ignorance. Now, I'm one of 00:16:41.500 --> 00:16:44.519 the founders and one of the managing editors 00:16:44.519 --> 00:16:48.379 of an academic journal called Equity and Social 00:16:48.379 --> 00:16:53.179 Justice in Education, and I'm very proud of our 00:16:53.179 --> 00:16:57.139 work. At the same time, I realize that words 00:16:57.139 --> 00:17:01.919 like equity and social justice are shark chump 00:17:01.919 --> 00:17:06.599 to libertarians and conservatives like John Stossel. 00:17:07.180 --> 00:17:11.619 These words are perceived as a threat somehow. 00:17:12.440 --> 00:17:15.579 Their bodies go into fight or flight mode when 00:17:15.579 --> 00:17:20.359 threatened, mostly fight, and blood is shunted 00:17:20.359 --> 00:17:24.059 away from their frontal lobes to their survival 00:17:24.059 --> 00:17:30.839 organs. They're less able to think clearly as 00:17:30.839 --> 00:17:36.140 they work themselves into a feeding frenzy. Thus, 00:17:36.589 --> 00:17:40.509 I was not surprised when during my interview 00:17:40.509 --> 00:17:44.829 with John Stossel, John Stossel referenced an 00:17:44.829 --> 00:17:48.609 article that was published in this journal titled 00:17:48.609 --> 00:17:52.450 Profit, Power, and Pedagogy, The Minnesota Read 00:17:52.450 --> 00:17:59.049 Act by Drake Burke. Burke's article is a solid 00:17:59.049 --> 00:18:03.250 piece of scholarly writing. Yes, it's complex 00:18:03.250 --> 00:18:07.069 and lexically dense but well worth the read. 00:18:07.910 --> 00:18:11.190 It was received very positively by the reviewers 00:18:11.190 --> 00:18:14.930 and it reflected the mission goal and goals of 00:18:14.930 --> 00:18:19.750 the journal. The editors selected it for publication 00:18:19.750 --> 00:18:25.630 and I strongly recommend that you read it. In 00:18:25.630 --> 00:18:29.430 the article, Burke used research and reason to 00:18:29.430 --> 00:18:32.769 support a strong case for the general theses 00:18:32.769 --> 00:18:36.490 and supporting arguments in that article. And 00:18:36.490 --> 00:18:41.950 this was done using 13 pages, 64 citations, and 00:18:41.950 --> 00:18:50.150 7 ,774 words. In our interview, John Stossel 00:18:50.150 --> 00:18:54.470 picked one sentence from this article. And he 00:18:54.470 --> 00:18:59.529 asked me if I supported that sentence. But it 00:18:59.529 --> 00:19:04.269 wasn't asked as a question. It was asked to be 00:19:04.269 --> 00:19:08.230 a challenge. The real question behind the question 00:19:08.230 --> 00:19:11.829 was this. How can you support this horrible thing 00:19:11.829 --> 00:19:14.750 you bad person knew? And why do you hate America? 00:19:14.990 --> 00:19:19.009 And when did you last kick a puppy? This, I guess, 00:19:19.089 --> 00:19:23.269 was to be the gotcha moment. And you can't blame 00:19:23.269 --> 00:19:28.740 John Stossel. This is what journalists do. You 00:19:28.740 --> 00:19:33.660 can't ask a skunk not to stink. Of course, the 00:19:33.660 --> 00:19:36.779 sentence was not representative of the article. 00:19:37.099 --> 00:19:41.259 It was pulled out of context and used to create 00:19:41.259 --> 00:19:45.660 a misperception. It would be like the editor 00:19:45.660 --> 00:19:49.079 of the book that this is taken from to ask that 00:19:49.079 --> 00:19:51.900 editor, do you support the idea that skunks don't 00:19:51.900 --> 00:19:56.650 stink? This is a common practice used to craft 00:19:56.650 --> 00:20:00.410 a narrative to create stories and sadly today 00:20:00.410 --> 00:20:03.549 this practice is not limited to journalists. 00:20:04.650 --> 00:20:07.329 Well -known scholars such as Louisa Moats and 00:20:07.329 --> 00:20:11.869 Claude Goldenberg have done similar things. The 00:20:11.869 --> 00:20:14.529 only reason I know this is because I've checked 00:20:14.529 --> 00:20:19.329 the sources they've cited. When this occurs, 00:20:19.569 --> 00:20:21.910 their scholarship becomes journal -ship with 00:20:21.910 --> 00:20:26.029 big words and long sentences. And as stated previously, 00:20:26.210 --> 00:20:29.529 the blind peer review process isn't perfect. 00:20:30.490 --> 00:20:34.569 But back to the interview. During the interview, 00:20:35.329 --> 00:20:39.809 it was clear that John Stossel had not read the 00:20:39.809 --> 00:20:44.019 article. It was also clear that John Stossel 00:20:44.019 --> 00:20:49.519 didn't know what an academic journal was. Why 00:20:49.519 --> 00:20:53.660 else would he ask an editor of an academic journal 00:20:53.660 --> 00:20:57.220 if they supported something that somebody else 00:20:57.220 --> 00:21:02.180 wrote? An academic journal is not a magazine, 00:21:02.599 --> 00:21:07.319 a newspaper, a cable TV show, a podcast, or publication 00:21:07.319 --> 00:21:12.390 like Education Week. Managing editors of academic 00:21:12.390 --> 00:21:16.410 journals don't silence the voices of people whose 00:21:16.410 --> 00:21:20.970 views don't align with their own. Managing editors 00:21:20.970 --> 00:21:24.289 of academic journals don't craft narratives to 00:21:24.289 --> 00:21:29.250 express their ideas or promote articles to advocate 00:21:29.250 --> 00:21:34.109 their views. A managing editor of an academic 00:21:34.109 --> 00:21:38.450 journal is like a referee making sure certain 00:21:38.450 --> 00:21:42.589 standards are adhered to and guidelines are followed. 00:21:43.690 --> 00:21:47.630 And a managing editor of an academic journal 00:21:47.630 --> 00:21:52.569 welcomes opposing ideas if a. the articles are 00:21:52.569 --> 00:21:56.509 well written b. they represent standards of scholarship 00:21:56.509 --> 00:22:01.109 and academic discourse and c. they go through 00:22:01.109 --> 00:22:08.420 a blind peer review. process. Since journalists 00:22:08.420 --> 00:22:13.140 have inserted themselves into the conversation, 00:22:13.700 --> 00:22:18.019 I want to make sure that you understand the difference 00:22:18.019 --> 00:22:22.799 between scholars and journalists. And of course, 00:22:23.019 --> 00:22:26.559 I make generalizations here, and I'm going to 00:22:26.559 --> 00:22:30.940 name a few, but if it walks like a clown and 00:22:30.940 --> 00:22:36.640 quacks like a clown, It is a clown. Scholars, 00:22:36.880 --> 00:22:39.319 their work is submitted to blind peer review 00:22:39.319 --> 00:22:43.599 for publishing. Journalists, they just write 00:22:43.599 --> 00:22:47.660 stuff. Scholars have extensive background knowledge 00:22:47.660 --> 00:22:51.400 about what they write. Journalists, they write 00:22:51.400 --> 00:22:56.400 what people tell them. Scholars understand the 00:22:56.400 --> 00:23:00.440 basic elements of science in determining causality. 00:23:00.819 --> 00:23:06.029 Journalists, randomly assign causality. Scholars 00:23:06.029 --> 00:23:09.609 know that correlation does not imply causation. 00:23:10.349 --> 00:23:13.269 Journalists assume that if two things occur together, 00:23:13.609 --> 00:23:18.650 one must have caused the other to occur. Scholars 00:23:18.650 --> 00:23:21.930 will generalize to larger populations only if 00:23:21.930 --> 00:23:27.160 the sample size is similar and ample. Journalists 00:23:27.160 --> 00:23:30.160 will generalize to larger populations based on 00:23:30.160 --> 00:23:35.500 a sample size of one or two. Scholars use anecdotal 00:23:35.500 --> 00:23:39.539 evidence and experience to illustrate research. 00:23:40.460 --> 00:23:43.920 And journalists will use anecdotal evidence and 00:23:43.920 --> 00:23:50.359 experience as research. These are just some of 00:23:50.359 --> 00:23:55.839 the difference. Final word. Seven ideas. Having 00:23:55.839 --> 00:23:58.700 a body of knowledge is important in any field. 00:23:59.039 --> 00:24:02.319 Two, disagreements followed by academic discourse 00:24:02.319 --> 00:24:08.119 enables a field to evolve. Three, silencing opposing 00:24:08.119 --> 00:24:13.160 views results in cognitive inbreeding. Four, 00:24:13.519 --> 00:24:16.680 academic journals are an essential element for 00:24:16.680 --> 00:24:19.380 disseminating new knowledge and for academic 00:24:19.380 --> 00:24:24.109 discourse within a field. Five, The process used 00:24:24.109 --> 00:24:27.490 to get scholarly articles published in an academic 00:24:27.490 --> 00:24:31.069 journal is much higher than that used to get 00:24:31.069 --> 00:24:34.430 an article published in a newspaper or magazine. 00:24:35.809 --> 00:24:38.690 Six, having a body of knowledge that is shallow 00:24:38.690 --> 00:24:42.950 and disjointed is not optimal for academic discussions 00:24:42.950 --> 00:24:48.390 or TV interviews. And seven, John Stossel does 00:24:48.390 --> 00:24:52.539 not know what an academic journal is. This has 00:24:52.539 --> 00:24:55.660 been The Reading Instruction Show. I am your 00:24:55.660 --> 00:24:57.059 host, Dr. Andy Johnson.