\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}










\begin{document}

\title{Assumptions and Habits for Effective Scholarship}



\author[1]{C}%
\affil[1]{Regis University}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 04, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup








\sloppy


\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/IMG-2157/ivy-league}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\pagebreak

The process of social science scholarship - research, theoretical,
methodological, and conceptual work - does not happen in isolation nor
by accident. Scholarship builds on the ideas and efforts of others,
challenges established orthodoxies, and provides the insights and
evidence for a field of study. It is the collective process by which
we've developed high resolution understandings of phenomena, solutions
for complex problems, and more effective ways to flourish in our world.
There is nothing natural about effective scholarship. Human nature tends
toward confirmation bias, affiliatory preferences, and myopia. In other
words, scholarship is a process that must be diligently maintained or it
will regress back to the default characteristics of human nature.~

For something this important, there's surprisingly little discussion
about the assumptions, norms, and habits under which we operate in
scholarly environments. Perhaps it has always been assumed that those
engaging in scholarship were naturally enculturated as part of their
technical training.

\par\null

Maybe this was true at one point, but over the years, there has been a
noticeable decline in many of the long-established informal scientific
traditions. And to be clear, I am not referring to the differences
between~\href{https://revisesociology.com/2015/05/18/positivism-interpretivism-sociology/}{positivist
and naturalist orientations}, nor
between~\href{https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/quantitative-vs-qualitative-research/}{quantitative
and qualitative methods} of research. What I am referring to here is a
decline in a basic understanding of what constitutes good scholarship.
This has been supplanted with a deterministic orientation to press a
preferred narrative, and the subjugation of scholarship toward that end.
That, of course, is not scholarship, it's advocacy. And while advocacy
certainly has it's place, the two should not be conflated.

\par\null

The recognition of this decline has changed the way I introduce my~
graduate students to research. Rather that assuming that certain
assumptions and habits will germinate and develop naturally over time, I
have begun explicitly articulating them as a launching point for
discussions. As with any thesis, there are statements here that
thoughtful people may disagree with; and I welcome any constructive
feedback a/or criticisms.

\par\null

\section*{Assumptions and Habits}

{\label{352806}}\par\null

\begin{enumerate}
\tightlist
\item
  To claim that you understand an idea you must be able to
  operationalize it, provide examples of it, and articulate what should
  follow from it.
\item
  The scientific method does not prove, it only disproves. A theory only
  remains tenable through the accumulation of evidence that fails to
  refute it. ~
\item
  Research can be used selectively to support most any position. Examine
  the full body of evidence before accepting an evidence-based argument.
\item
  Demagoguery does not edify nor does it further understanding of ideas.
  If you disagree with something, then present a better argument.
\item
  Peer review does not necessarily mean quality. Know what constitutes
  quality scholarship so you can distinguish the good from the not so
  good.
\item
  Scholarship is not immune to narrative, politics, and culture. Mind
  the exogenous influences when evaluating a body of scholarship.
\item
  Statistical significance is not the same as practical importance. Know
  the established benchmarks within a field before evaluating the
  importance of a claim.
\item
  Scholarship is grounded in reason. The integrity of an idea is what
  matters, not the passion that surrounds it.
\item
  Affiliatory biases inhibit scholarship. Guard against reflexively
  accepting ideas because they are from within a familiar group or
  reflexively dismissing them because they are extrinsic to the group.
\item
  Humility is the inevitable outcome of effective scholarship. Be
  cautions of those who claim to hold a monopoly on the truth.
\end{enumerate}

\par\null

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

