Tenure/promotion and unpopular opinion research areas

[ratherbehiking]

This question may be extremely controversial because of the sacrosanct principle of academic freedom. But, is there a research focus (especially in the social sciences) that a colleague could study that cause you to pause in granting them tenure and/or promotion? I can think of multiple examples, and I'll acknowledge that this is not entirely hypothetical for me:
- Normalizing pedophilia/child sexual abuse
- Writings that are pro-genocidal regimes
- Social media is good for adolescents' mental health

Would any of those, or something else you can think of, be too much for you to support tenure for someone whose record is generally good?

[Caracal]

This question may be extremely controversial because of the sacrosanct principle of academic freedom. But, is there a research focus (especially in the social sciences) that a colleague could study that cause you to pause in granting them tenure and/or promotion? I can think of multiple examples, and I'll acknowledge that this is not entirely hypothetical for me:
- Normalizing pedophilia/child sexual abuse
- Writings that are pro-genocidal regimes
- Social media is good for adolescents' mental health

Would any of those, or something else you can think of, be too much for you to support tenure for someone whose record is generally good?

Social media hardly seems comparable to the other two examples.

The problem is that these aren't neutral descriptions. What does "normalizing" mean? If someone is actually arguing that child sexual abuse is acceptable, that's a disgusting viewpoint. But, what if they are making a claim based on evidence that previous studies have exaggerated the long term harms of abuse by relying on faulty data, or that the long term harms really depend on the circumstance, while making it clear that the point isn't to excuse abuse, or downplay the suffering of survivors, but to better understand how people respond to terrible events, or to gain a better understanding of how to treat survivors of abuse. This would probably be controversial work, but it's exactly the kind of thing that needs to be protected.

Or what is a "genocidal" regime. If the person is defending Nazi Germany, that's one thing. But, there are lots of less clear cut cases. And I can also imagine writing being defined as "pro-genocidal regime" when that might not be a fair description of what the author is actually doing.

Social media seems like the most obvious case. There is all kinds of concern right now about the mental health effects of it on adolescents, but "social media" is an incredibly broad term and you have lots of teenagers using it in different ways. Perhaps if you mostly spend your time watching videos of dancing cats, it actually improves your mental health. Perhaps for some people it improves feelings of connection and well being. Or maybe the studies about how bad it is in general are flawed in some way. Are we supposed to just accept the idea that social media is bad for adolescents as dogma that can't be challenged? What matters is whether the work is good.

[Puget]

The evidence that teen social media broadly harms adolescent mental health is actually incredibly weak and has been way over-hyped. Tons of confounds, and as usual the actual picture is much more mixed and depends on the type of use and interactions.  I could cite tons research on this, but if you are only using that as a hypothetical then I think the broader point is don't bring your own limited understanding of a research area to your judgement of your colleagues' work.

[Ruralguy]

I would agree that one shouldn't go into judging a tenure case with too many pre-conceptions. You'll think its a joke, but for a very long time at a very reputable institution there was one camp that would deny everything (including tenure) to anyone who thought a particularly famous physical constant had a value that was anything but "canonical" (i.e., what this particular man theorized again and again). The hilarious thing is that Famous Constant is now measured to be more or less in between  what famous a-hole demanded, and what Poor Plebians   dared to measure and report on. That being said, if some candidate writes a lot of work that seems to say "Yay Hitler!", I might develop a negative view of said candidate.

[ciao_yall]

This question may be extremely controversial because of the sacrosanct principle of academic freedom. But, is there a research focus (especially in the social sciences) that a colleague could study that cause you to pause in granting them tenure and/or promotion? I can think of multiple examples, and I'll acknowledge that this is not entirely hypothetical for me:
- Normalizing pedophilia/child sexual abuse
- Writings that are pro-genocidal regimes
- Social media is good for adolescents' mental health

Would any of those, or something else you can think of, be too much for you to support tenure for someone whose record is generally good?

Well, at one point someone's researched normalized LGBTQs, pointed out that slavery/racism were not justified in the Bible, and that comic books encouraged reading instead of poisoning young minds.

So it's not so much the topic or my personal opinions about it. More a recognition of the reasons these topics are controversial, and a nuanced recognition of the harm these positions might cause versus allowing these topics to be spoken of in an open manner.

[mleok]

At least in the context of the social sciences, I would focus on the quality and rigor of the research, and the legitimacy of the methods utilized, as opposed to the conclusions one draws from them.

[Sun_Worshiper]

At least in the context of the social sciences, I would focus on the quality and rigor of the research, and the legitimacy of the methods utilized, as opposed to the conclusions one draws from them.

Agree. If someone analyzes data in an honest and appropriate way, then the results are what they are. Can't really punish them for the coefficient being negative instead of positive.

That said, if someone is building their career on a pro-geocidal regime research finding, are they really going to be able to get the publications that they need to make a strong case for tenure? I think peer reviewers and journal/book editors would give the tenure committee cover to deny the applicant.

[mythbuster]

Intelligent Design. Michael Behe at Lehigh is Exhibit A.  Here is the department statement on his position.
https://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/News/evolution.html#:~:text=Michael%20Behe%2C%20is%20a%20well,way%20endorsed%20by%20the%20department.

[jerseyjay]

I agree that these are rather broad descriptions (and that social media doesn't really belong).

"Normalizing pedophilia/child sexual abuse" can mean lots of things, from hanging up a sign saying, "Child Molesting is Good", to studying the age of consent. Similarly, "writings that are pro-genocidal regimes" can mean anything hanging up a sign saying, "Hitler was Right," to arguing against sanctions on Iran.

One question is, are these views related to the person's scholarship? Are the views extra-curricular or are they central to their academic work? Does the person study something, advocate something or actually practice it? Does the person use the classroom to push these views?

In short, given the information given, I don't really see how it is possible to even come up with a position.

[MarathonRunner]

This question may be extremely controversial because of the sacrosanct principle of academic freedom. But, is there a research focus (especially in the social sciences) that a colleague could study that cause you to pause in granting them tenure and/or promotion? I can think of multiple examples, and I'll acknowledge that this is not entirely hypothetical for me:
- Normalizing pedophilia/child sexual abuse
- Writings that are pro-genocidal regimes
- Social media is good for adolescents' mental health

Would any of those, or something else you can think of, be too much for you to support tenure for someone whose record is generally good?

I mean, both Canada and the US have committed genocide against the Indigenous populations, so ??? I don't have any answers. Sadly, many disciplines in Canada are founded on unethical experiments conducted in Indigenous communities and residential schools. Should we disavow those disciplines? My approach is to acknowledge the atrocities and their contributions to my discipline, and to advocate for truth and reconciliation.

[Caracal]

The evidence that teen social media broadly harms adolescent mental health is actually incredibly weak and has been way over-hyped. Tons of confounds, and as usual the actual picture is much more mixed and depends on the type of use and interactions. 

I'm not surprised to hear this. I'd imagine the basic problem would be amount of social media use is correlated with all kinds of things that might make mental health problems more likely. I'm sure you could do a study that showed that adults who watched more tv, were more likely to suffer from mental health issues. But it's obvious why you would find this. If you're sitting at home watching tv all day every day, it's probably not the tv that's making you depressed, it's the reason you don't have anything else to do with your time.

I would assume it would be easy enough to identify the cofounding variables with adults, but might be much harder with teenagers? But those problems would all still be there? If you find a teenager who spends 12 hours a day on social media, there are probably a lot of other things they aren't doing that might be more related to mental health problems than TIKTOK?

[jerseyjay]

On the issue of social media and adolescents' mental health: Yesterday I had a medical procedure at a fancy university hospital and while waiting, skimmed the glossy journal the medical school puts out to tout how wonderful it is.

It had an interview with a professor of adolescent psychology and she was asked about this. She said it is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, social medial increases bullying and this is bad for mental health. On the other hand, for some teens, like gay and lesbians, it provides a support communities, especially those who live in places where these groups are marginalized or discriminated against.

So I would imagine somebody who actually does research on the issue would probably come to a more nuanced conclusion instead of "social media is good" or "social media is bad". This seems to be the kind of research that would get somebody tenure.

[Puget]

Both Caracel and jerseyjay are on the right track here-- yes, there are many confounds, and yes, there are likely both positive and negative effects depending on the use, individual, and context. There really is a youth mental health crisis, but it is far from clear that social media has much to do with it.  I think this would only be an "unpopular opinion research area" to someone who just bought into the current moral panic about social media without having followed the actual research. There are in fact many people doing nuanced research on this topic, and earning tenure for it.

[Myword]

All statements and inferences about minorities and women and gay/lesbians should be positive with no hint of "cannot or
weakness " or fault. In PC culture
this is sacrosanct . Regardless of evidence  Of course. Everything is the fault of injustice and prejudice according to the left. The restrictions implied  are inherent like precensoring. Academic freedom is a figure of speech so it seems with grains of salt.

[marshwiggle]

This question may be extremely controversial because of the sacrosanct principle of academic freedom. But, is there a research focus (especially in the social sciences) that a colleague could study that cause you to pause in granting them tenure and/or promotion? I can think of multiple examples, and I'll acknowledge that this is not entirely hypothetical for me:
- Normalizing pedophilia/child sexual abuse
- Writings that are pro-genocidal regimes
- Social media is good for adolescents' mental health

Would any of those, or something else you can think of, be too much for you to support tenure for someone whose record is generally good?

I mean, both Canada and the US have committed genocide against the Indigenous populations, so ??? I don't have any answers. Sadly, many disciplines in Canada are founded on unethical experiments conducted in Indigenous communities and residential schools. Should we disavow those disciplines? My approach is to acknowledge the atrocities and their contributions to my discipline, and to advocate for truth and reconciliation.

The fact of the matter is that history (from all over the globe) is very much the story of unforseen consequences. Judging the motives of people in the past by the outcomes of the unforseen consequences is misleading and dangerous. It's dangerous because it allows us to tell ourselves that
as long as our motives are good, none of our actions will have terrible unforseen consequences.

For illustration, thalidomide was given to help pregnant women with morning sickness. Wasn't that a noble goal?

It's a pretty safe bet that our grandchildren will be appalled at some of our decisions because of the long term consequences that they see, and if they judge us the way we judge people in the past, we'll be monsters too.