 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Academic Scholarship or Advocacy Research? The credibility of scholarly research traditions depends upon their intellectual honesty and political "objectivity." Academic paradigms and philosophic perspectives fundamentally shape the questions that we ask, the research methods that we employ, the empirical data that we collect, the intellectual guidance that we seek, and the conclusions that we reach. Although scholars with divergent political perspectives may interpret the world differently, even through "rose colored" lenses, the transparency of the academic enterprise and the rigors of the peer review process offer security that the integrity of the research process is not violated. Due to our concerns over the uncritical examination and widespread dissemination of the Barron and Staten study prior to its publication, we believe that it is incumbent upon us to prepare a critique of the article in order to stimulate an informed debate on the veracity of its conclusions. Hence, the preparation of our essay for the readership of the JSFA. Professors Barron and Staten, it should be noted, are not strangers to public scrutiny of their research or its use in promoting the economic interests of the credit card industry (cf. Summers, 1998; Rampton and Stauber; 2002; Warren, 2002). In a June 9, 1998 Wall Street Journal article, entitled "Ivory Tower Inc: When Research and Lobbying Mesh," Robert Cwiklik raised serious questions regarding the objectivity of the research produced by the Credit Research Center (CRC) and the scholarly credibility provided by its affiliation with Georgetown University following its relocation from Purdue University. The impetus for the WSJ article was the controversy that erupted over a series of research papers, co-authored by Professors Staten and Barron on consumer bankruptcy, that supported the public policy agenda of the credit card industry during U.S. Congressional debate on the Bankruptcy Reform Act. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Credit Research Center "is supported entirely by credit-card companies, banks, retailers and others in the credit industry. The [bankruptcy] study itself was produced with a $100,000 grant from Visa U.S.A. and MasterCard international Inc." (Cwiklik, 1998, p. B1; Warren, 2002). In fact, the U.S. Bankruptcy Reform Commission rejected the veracity of Professors Staten and Barron's findings (which were substantially modified over criticisms of its methodological shortcomings), leading one Commission member to conclude that "The CRC ... studies seem to always support what the credit industry wants to do. It is kind of like the Tobacco Institute for the credit industry (Summers, 1998: 7). Based on concerns over its dubious assumptions and questionable research methods, Senators Charles Grassley (R- Iowa) and Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) formally requested the General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine the CRC study. This unlikely bipartisan inquiry ultimately resulted two critical GAO reports (1998; 1999) and a sharp rebuke by America's leading bankruptcy scholars (Sullivan, Warren, and Westbrook, 2000). Throughout its investigation, GAO staff repeatedly requested access to the authors' data in order to verify the empirical findings that constituted the basis of their policy conclusions. Unlike the rigorous standards of a contentious academic peer review process, the GAO reported that "The authors of the [Credit Research] Center report declined to provide us a copy of the automated database used for their analysis, citing their interest in maintaining its proprietary value (GAO, 1998, p. 5). In the realm of intellectual honesty, such overtly deceptive actions are antithetical to the scholarly enterprise, especially the responsibility to examine competing ideas and perspectives. In conclusion, by promoting the integrity of the academic research process, we hope that our critique furthers the goal of promoting transparency in scholarly activities and the sanctity of academic objectivity. Otherwise, we fear that advocacy research will become difficult to distinguish from objective scholarly inquiry and thus become an increasingly important stratagem for influencing public policy. Indeed, the decline of rigorous academic safeguards could have potentially profound consequences. That is, it could sharply erode the societal value of scholarly research and, in the process, undermine the moral foundation of the higher education system
|
|||
