Thread by @aeryn_thrace

Just taught two more seminars on learning to read science papers.

Some rambly thoughts (tired)

It is the most amazing thing to see the wonder in the students' eyes. That moment when they get it, especially when they SEE that who researchers are matters to the science they do.

We've been using a paper on baseball players to study the malleability of perception. When they first read it they take it at face value, then we deconstruct that the authors are American, living in the US & using an American activity about which they make universal claims. 🤢

We add time as a factor, and they realise the participant pool would have looked dramatically different just 100 years ago because of sexism and racism.

Then we discuss the decision-making process in the science & in how it was documented, the many choices made at both stages.

All of this and more is discussed using narrative as the information organising framework, and the universal interrogatives as the guides.

Asked if they would want a semester long course on how to read science. All raised their hands.

Asked if they would attend sessions like these even if not paid, most (😋) raised their hands and added "yes! because we need to learn this."

Several asked if there were follow up classes to this one to which I said "sure, once we get funding"

We also discussed briefly how learning to read science is part of #OpenScience and introduced how problematic it was that all the papers we read had positive results.

So, #OpenScience tweeps: explain to me why I've had such a hard time getting people in power to take this work seriously. The students need & want it to understand the science being made open in general, and to learn to truly be critical of all science.

What gives?