Background:

Revisit the case study on “When contact changes minds” and the problems surrounding it. Review the answers to the questions you chose. Additionally, review the responses of two of your peers, which you read over during Thursday’s discussion. Be sure at least one of the questions each person answered is different from the questions you answered.

7. What are some of the mentoring issues raised by this case? (Andrew Kimble III)

While reading this case study Donald Green was the mentor for Michael LaCour for his so called experiment. Green said to Retraction Watch that when Michael presented his first survey results to him he said he was so astonished that the findings would only be credible if another replica experiment was done and once Michael and Dave did the experiment again the results were the same as the first trial, but Green should have been there for both the trials so he can see how the experiment was done was he never was there to supervise the procedure which is bad mentorship especially when dealing with a research experiment.

## 6. Why didn’t the peer review system identify the problems? (Macy Neblett)

The peer review process entails experts of that area of science reviewing the new study. Perhaps because these “results” seemed so revolutionary, the reviewers were eager to have evidence contrary to older studies. For example, people used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. It wasn’t until Copernicus’ controversial model of heliocentrism that a scientific effort was made to prove this idea that went against people’s preconceived notions. Perhaps the reviewers thought along these lines; that maybe with the changing times, people’s attitudes were also changing.

3. What are the human subjects issues raised by this case? Were human subjects harmed and if so, how? (Self)

This case was wrongly conducted and reported. Initially the researcher claimed that he gave participants $100 for their input. Later, LaCour confessed to entering participants in a raffle for Apple products. The sponsors that LaCour claimed to have denied giving him any support. I think both of these parties, participants and so-named sponsors, are victims of LaCour’s actions. The participants weren’t compensated as they were reported and their information that they gave wasn’t recorded accurately. The sponsors that he named stated that they didn’t support his study at all. So, therefore he claimed their support without having it. This could be damaging to them in the future. I think the most harm was done to those who believed the findings that LaCour claimed to have observed; Such as his mentors and people seeking equality for homosexuals. Since his mentor believed his research to be done ethically, which it wasn’t, now his name and research probably carries less weight than before. As for those seeking equality; they now have much farther to go to repair the damage that LaCour caused by lying about his data and his results.

4. What data management issues does this case raise? (Self)

I find it completely ridiculous that LaCour deleted his original data to protect participant identity. He also manipulated it to get the results he desired. He lied about his survey company. In short his reported data was inaccurate and anything he reported was false. He wasted everyone’s time with his incompetence. His mentor should have been more diligent in checking LaCour’s research.

Review of Assignment #3

In what way(s) can GitHub (or comparable cloud based collaborative environments) help address the issues which these questions raise?

GitHub makes collaborative work more reliable. It is easier to communicate research while using GitHub. GitHub connects to R. This means that the data and analysis are connected to the research writing so as to avoid confusion and to maintain transparency. With the use of GitHub LaCour’s mentor, Greene, would have had no excuses as to why he failed to review LaCour’s work. This could have prevented false findings and misrepresented data.

# If you were asked to consult for a research project, how would you recommend the integration of GitHub into the workflow? Assume your collaborators have never used GitHub before. Be sure to also explain briefly how it works so they can understand.

Personally, I would want to research other cloud based platforms to identify which one suited the needs of the project best. I find GitHub difficult to use and it takes time to fully understand what GitHub is actually doing. I don’t feel very confident in using GitHub at all. However, it is a great way to collaborate using a cloud-based environment. I can work from home or anywhere with Wi-Fi and ensure that my research partners can have access to my work and fully understand how I did my work. The GitHub map that we were given is how I would explain how GitHub works. I think visualizing the process is extremely helpful as words push and pull mean different things depending on what process I am working on.