next »

[kedves]

This is an column from Mindy Stombler, one of the researchers and instructors involved, on the uproar in the Georgia state legislature and news media about courses and research on sexual behavior and meanings at Georgia State University.  (A report on the initial reaction appeared in CHE a few months ago.)

I don't know which is most depressing, the reaction of the legislature, the news coverage of it, Georgia State University students' comments about the courses (maybe because they sound like my students--"If you want to study oral sex, just Google it"), or how inane CNN's reporting for that morning looks in a transcript. (Here is the transcript of the CNN report in which Stombler, the sociologist who studies oral sex, was singled out.)  Stombler argues that the controversy gave her an opportunity to explain her research and encourages all of us to do more along those lines.  Good can come from a scandal of misunderstanding, I understand that--but I still find it discouraging.

[juanb]

I think it's difficult for non-academics to understand that the superficial "topic" of our research (for example. "oral sex") is rarely the point or reason for doing this work.  Rather these topics are just avenues for the exploration of deeper issues, in this case power and human relations, classic themes in sociology.

As such, most of the supposed topics of our research, as least as understood by outsiders, tend to sound pretty inane, silly, or just plain pointless.  I read an article the other day about a survey into which testicle hangs lower in men and an investigation into why.  Of course, no one actually cares about this.  But finding an answer might reveal something fundamental about body lateralization, or evolutionary processes, or human fertility, which might indeed have deeper significance. 

[crowie]

It's a very cautionary tale and I'm relieved that Professor Stombler felt so supported by the administration of her university.  Sometimes that is not even the case.  Imagine if Stombler had an enemy at the institution at some level (for whatever gratuitous reason, whether related to her research or otherwise), he or she might have been able to take the opportunity to throw her under the bus.  It's nerve-wracking.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Science is about smart people asking interesting questions and then trying to answer them.

The milieu of the question - whether it be about testicles, blowjobs, or quantum chromodynamics - is not an indicator of whether the question is interesting, and the answers to the questions in the first two areas might well have deeper and further-ranging implications than the answers to the third.  If we could predict which areas would be most productive in advance, we could eliminate 90% of science activity. - DvF

[temporaryname]

Science is about smart people asking interesting questions and then trying to answer them.

The milieu of the question - whether it be about testicles, blowjobs, or quantum chromodynamics - is not an indicator of whether the question is interesting, and the answers to the questions in the first two areas might well have deeper and further-ranging implications than the answers to the third.  If we could predict which areas would be most productive in advance, we could eliminate 90% of science activity. - DvF

Agreed all around--but I do think the story provides a cautionary tale for those of us working in areas that could easily be dismissed as trivial if people only pay attention to the soundbite summaries.

Basically, we need to be a bit more careful about how we describe ourselves. "I work on oral sex" may get people's (including our students') attention, but it leaves us vulnerable. Really, really vulnerable.