Here is the research question: Is
there a relationship between competence and meanness? Now you are supposed to laugh. This is called
humor, although I have seen a lot more nonsensical sociological projects!
Most of us in the academic world are
familiar with the peer review process. We submit a manuscript for a paper or a
book for publication, or for conference presentation. It is reviewed and either
rejected, or accepted, or accepted provisionally. In any of these three
scenarios, the author usually receives feedback from the referees. During the late1990s, I peddled a manuscript
for a new textbook in Social Psychology (a re-write of my Social Interaction,
which was first published in 1977, St. Louis: Times-Mosby). The various
publishers obtained a total of 17 reviews over three rounds of reviews.
Incidentally, I did finally get a contract and a modest advance payment, from
Holt-Rinehart.
After studiously reading all the
reviews, I came to the conclusion that they can be classified along two
dimensions or axes: (1) from courteous to mean-spirited and (2) from good to
incompetent. Now I realize that I am violating all the canons of validity and
reliability when I propose to use this sample of reviews for any test. But this
is only exploratory. I just want to conceptualize types of
reviews and reviewers, and formulate some hypotheses about the review process.
Table One shows the four categories generated by the combination of the two
dimensions.
Table I. Types of Reviews
Review is Mean-spirited
|
|||
Yes
|
no
|
||
Review
is
Competent
|
Yes
|
1
|
2
|
No
|
3
|
4
|
|
Definition and Operationalization of Terms: By “mean-spirited,” I mean a review by someone who would be colloquially called an asshole.
Some reviews exude the negative qualities of their writers. There are four
prominent negative qualities: (1) mean-spiritedness, (2) prejudice and bigotry,
(3) self-serving parochialism, and (4) temporary bad mood.
A few examples:
(1): “this author needs to go back to high school and
learn how to spell.” (Use of insult).
“This author is merely trying to cash in on the current humanistic fad.”
(Imputation of evil motives).
(2): “Clearly, this author is a
xenophobic redneck who has never experienced foreign cultures.” Or, “These
Symbolic Interactionists are all the same - they theorize and prove nothing.”
(3): “This book will never fly.
Symbolic Interactionism is passé. Certainly most psychologists are now aware of
that” (this reviewer is no doubt a psychologist, not a sociologist). Or, “The
author fails to recognize that the fundamental condition underlying all human
relationships consists of power and class-conflict.” (Reviewer is obviously a
Marxist).
(4): “I have no time for this
nonsense right now.”
Now for the operational definition
of what constitutes a good or a bad review (and it isn’t clear which of the two
dimensions in table One is the independent variable and which one is the
dependent variable - a point to which I shall return in a moment): A good review
has three characteristics: (1) it makes specific criticisms; (2) it
makes valid criticisms; (3) it makes important criticisms.
Some examples:
(1):Good criticism: “Chapter Two, section 3, should
also cover Ethnomethodology.”(Specific and helpful). Bad criticism: “The manuscript should be
re-organized.” (Vague and unhelpful).
(2): Good criticism: “You are
misreading Howard Becker’s article.” (Could be true). Bad criticism: George Herbert Mead coined the
term “Symbolic Interactionism.” (False).
(3): Good criticism: “The labeling
theory of emotions overlooks the importance of hormonal chemistry.” (Good
point). Bad criticism: “you misspelled definately,” or “pain means bread in French.” (Petty and
unimportant).
The Four Types:
Type 1: A well-done but mean review
Type 2: A well-done and nice review
Type 3: A poorly done and mean
review
Type 4: A poorly done but nice
review
The question is whether there is a
correlation between the two variables, or are the cell frequencies distributed
randomly? Table Two gives the null hypothesis - no correlation. Table Three
provides numbers that would support the hypothesis that mean reviews tend to be
more competent reviews.
Table
Two: No Relationship between Reviewer’s
Competence and his/her Meanness
Review is Mean-spirited
|
|||
Yes
|
No
|
||
Review
is
Competent
|
Yes
|
25%
|
25%
|
No
|
25%
|
25%
|
|
Table Three: Mean Reviews Tend to
be
Done more Competently
Review is Mean-spirited
|
|||
Yes
|
No
|
||
Review
is
Competent
|
yes
|
35%
|
15%
|
no
|
15%
|
35%
|
|
So the research question is whether there is a
correlation between the meanness of reviews, and how competently they are done.
The hypothesis is that there is one, namely a positive one. Why?
Well, one rationale could be this:
The more knowledgeable or simply the better a scholar is, the more difficulty
he/she probably has with reading flawed material. Unlike the mediocre
academician (say, one who teaches at a community college), the excellent
professional (e.g. the Berkeley professor) does not have patience with the many
inevitable flaws found in any manuscript. So his/her review is not only
correct, but it also expresses his/her displeasure. So you see, I end up treating competence as the independent
variable.
Now remember, this research question
leaves entirely aside the quality of the “stimulus,” i.e. the manuscript under
review. Obviously, good work can be expected to receive kinder feedback than
bad work. But that is a different question.
My rather grim hypothesis is
inspired by personal experience, common-sense and popular culture: We can all
remember the frightening teachers we had in junior high school, the witch-like
old ladies who still give us an occasional nightmare. They were a menace, but
they sure taught us something, didn’t they? They certainly taught us more than
those “cool” permissive teachers who just wanted to be our friends. The
frightening teachers taught us more, because they were both mean and competent.
Same with coaches. Would Bobby Knight have won more basketball games, NCAA championships
and Olympic Gold than any other man in history with love, rather than with the
fierce discipline and outright meanness for which he is famous?
But this is an empirical question. I
would be delighted to see my hypothesis disproved. What could be better than a
world in which quality performance is associated with love and kindness, rather
than the opposite?
