Yes Academic Bias is a Problem and We Need to Address it: a Response to Larregue

A Reply to this article was published on 24 May 2018

The Original Article was published on 25 November 2017

Abstract

Larregue argued that while there is an ideological imbalance among academics that this imbalance has not unfairly impacted our findings. He also implies that it is the activism of conservatives, rather than progressives, which has created real problems in academia. As such he disputes claims that activism among progressive academics has create a backlash from political conservatives. However, Larregue does not address the previous empirical work on the subject of academic bias. Furthermore, his argument of methodological rigor does not address the tendency of scholars to overlook alternate theories. His argument that progressive scholars are no more biased than conservative scholars fails to account for the sheer number of progressive scholars relative to conservative scholars as it concerns the possibly of institutional bias. I also find his focus on fraud to be misplaced since scholars do not have to engage in fraud to be in ideological silos that do not take alternative theories into account. As to his second major argument, I am unsure whether liberal academic activism leads to conservative mistrust and await further future research on this topic. I do commend Larregue in bringing the question of sources of conservative mistust to our attention.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    A similar argument has been made about the exclusion of African Americans scholars (Asante 1998; Karenga 2002) .

References

  1. Ames, B., Barker, D., Bonneau, C., & Carman, C. (2005). Hide the republicans, the christians, and the women: a response to “politics and professional advancement among college faculty”. The Forum, 3(2), 7 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D. A., Levin, S., & Milem, J. F. (2004). Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science, 15(8), 507–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Asante, M. K. (1998). The Afrocentric idea (rev. ed.). Philadelphia: Temple university.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bolce, L., & De Maio, G. (2008). A prejudice for the thinking classes. American Politics Research, 36(2), 155–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cofnas, N., & Carl, N. (2017). Does activism in social science explain Conservatives’ distrust of scientists? The American Sociologist, 1–14.

  6. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. deBoer, F. (2017). Republicans don't Trust higher education. That is a problem for liberal academics. LA Times, accessed January 8. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-deboer-higher-ed-republican-20170724-story.html.

  8. Ecklund, E. H., Park, J. Z., & Veliz, P. T. (2008). Secularization and religious change among elite scientists. Social Forces, 86(4), 1805–1839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gross, N. (2013). Why are professors liberal and why do conservatives care? Harvard University Press.

  10. Gross, N., & Simmons, S. (2007). The social and political views of American professors. Working Paper presented at a Harvard University Symposium on Professors and Their Politics.

  11. Grosz, E. A., & De Lepervanche, M. (1988). "Feminism and science." Crossing boundaries: Feminisms and the critique of knowledge. Wellington, NZ: Allen & Unwin Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Harding, S. G. (1986). The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press.

  13. Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture war: The struggle to define America. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 496–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes.

  16. Karenga, M. (2002). Introduction to Black studies. Racism: Essential Readings (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001):209–216.

  17. Ladd, E. C. Jr, Lipset, S. M. (1975) The Divided Academy: Professors and Politics.

  18. Larregue, J. (2017). Conservative apostles of objectivity and the myth of a “Liberal Bias― in science. The American Sociologist. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-017-9366-9.

  19. Milliken, F. J., Bartel, C. A., Kurtzberg, T. R.. (2003). Diversity and creativity in work groups. Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. 32–62.

  20. Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making: an integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis. Small Group Research, 25(2), 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Reinharz, S., Davidman, L. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. Oxford University Press.

  22. Rothman, S., & Robert Lichter, S. (2009). The vanishing conservative - IsThere a glass ceiling? In R. Maranto, R. E. Redding, & F. M. Hess (Eds.), The politically correct university: problems, scope, and reforms (pp. 60–76). Washington, D.C.: The AEI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rothman, S., Kelly-Woessner, A., Woessner M. (2010). The still divided academy: How competing visions of power, politics, and diversity complicate the mission of higher education.Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

  24. Tobin, G. A., Weinberg, A. K. (2007). Profiles of the American University, Vol. 2: Religious beliefs and behaviors of college faculty. Institute for Jewish and Community Research.

  25. Yancey, G. (2011). Compromising scholarship: religious and political bias in American higher education. Waco: Baylor University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Yancey, G. (2012). Recalibrating academic Bias. Academic Questions, 25(2), 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yancey, G. (2015). Both/and instead of either/or. Society, 52(1), 23–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yancey, G., & Williamson, D. (2014). So many Christians, so few lions: Is there Christianophobia in the United States? Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Yancey, G., Reimer, S., & O'Connell, J. (2015). How academics view conservative protestants. Sociology of Religion, 76(3), 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yaniv, I. (2011). Group diversity and decision quality: amplification and attenuation of the framing effect. International Journal of Forecasting, 27(1), 41–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Yancey.

Additional information

This comment refers to the article available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-017-9366-9.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yancey, G. Yes Academic Bias is a Problem and We Need to Address it: a Response to Larregue. Am Soc 49, 336–343 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-018-9374-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Academic bias
  • Conservative mistrust
  • Conservative scholars
  • Progressive scholars