Academic writing and “intended misdirection”

I teach a research methods class for graduate students studying applied economics. In order to drive certain points about research and academic writing, I often give my students simple puzzles and brain teasers in class. I used the following today, which is widely known as the Missing Dollar Problem (MDP).

Three men walk into a hotel to rent a single room. The manager says the room costs $30, so each man pays $10. Later that day, the manager realizes that he overcharged for the room by $5; the room should have been $25 rather than $30. He gives the bellhop five $1 bills and asks the bellhop to give the money to the three men in the room. The bellhop is a bit dishonest and puts $2 in his pocket. When the bellhop gets to the room, he hands each man $1. Thus, instead of paying $10 each for the room, each man has now paid $9. Now, $9 paid by three men is $27, which added to the $2 in the bellhop’s pocket makes $29. Where did the extra dollar go?

Teachers can use the MDP to talk about the importance of math or why ethics matters. I use it to illustrate the importance of clarity and honesty in academic writing. The MDP is a problem because of a flaw in how the story is told. It is true that the men paid $27 instead of $30 for the room, but the $2 kept by the bellhop should be subtracted from the $27 rather than added to it. (The room cost $25, so the money returned to them means they paid $27; the difference between the cost of the room and the amount paid is the $2 kept by the bellhop.) In other words, an intended misdirection in the telling of the story resulted in readers having an incorrect understanding of reality.

Unfortunately, pressure exists for academics to produce and publish novel and important results, thus creating an incentive for “intended misdirection.” In extreme cases academics engage in “questionable research practices,” as one report of research on the topic noted, and worse–outright fabrication (see the discussion of Academic Integrity by the National Institutes of Health for examples).

Certainly, academia is not the only industry where “intended misdirection” happens (think lawyers, and politicians, and used car salesmen, and …). But surely academia can do better and should hold to a higher standard. Academic writing needs to be clear, precise and accurate … and honest.



News stories about children dying from handguns or alleged abuses by the TSA are inevitably followed by debates in the media about the tradeoff between safety and civil liberties. If we restrict handguns in the name of protecting our children, for example, then doing so entails a reduction in Constitutionally-protected rights.

This is a false tradeoff. The debate really ought to be about vulnerabilities we face in society, and what to do about them.

The problem with the safety-liberties debate is that it perpetuates the belief that vulnerabilities decline as safety measures increase. They do not; they only shift. Instead of being vulnerable to terrorist attacks, increased security measures at airport screening stations make us vulnerable to incompetent and corrupt screening processes (think groping and misuse of scanner images). Instead of being vulnerable to dying by gunfire, we become vulnerable to intruders who invade our homes not expecting armed resistance.

Vulnerabilities are ubiquitous in life. Too often we overlook this fact. Even more, we tend to think vulnerabilities are a bad thing. On the contrary, vulnerabilities are necessary, because without vulnerabilities there is no basis for trust, which forms the foundation for all economic, political, social and personal relationships.

For instance, we trust banks by putting our money in their institutions, knowing there is a chance banks will misappropriate or mismanage the money, resulting in the loss of our wealth. The fact that government insures banking deposits only shifts our vulnerability somewhere else. We trust the government’s ability and willingness to make good on their commitment to insure our deposits (up to $100,000, as most banking institutions tell us).

We trust public corporations by purchasing stocks and bonds, making ourselves vulnerable to the loss of our investment. The 50 percent decline in the price of Facebook shares following its IPO several years ago illustrates why vulnerability is central to all economic activity. Economic growth only occurs if individuals and organizations take risks. I will invest in you in the hope that you will turn that investment into a good or service that makes money for me, but sometimes that trust is misplaced. When people are trustworthy – that is, when people don’t take advantage of the vulnerability of others – Adam Smith’s invisible hand ensures that such investments improve society.

Vulnerability and trust are the foundation of effective political relationships. When facing a potential military adversary, showing one’s empty hands is a universal signal of vulnerability and a crucial step toward the establishment of peace. Of course, sometimes such vulnerable actions are misplaced, and the opposing side takes advantage of the peace signal by attacking. But this only illustrates why peace offerings are fundamentally about making oneself vulnerable. Will Israel and Iran avert war? Only if one side first takes a vulnerable position and the other side follows by not taking advantage of the vulnerability.

Vulnerability is pervasive in social interactions. A friend is someone in whom one can confide, which means that the foundation of friendship is a willingness to be vulnerable. Social ties are superficial when one does not make him or herself vulnerable to others. This is why talking about the weather is an easy way to initiate a conversation with someone you don’t know, but it is not the basis for a long-lasting friendship. For trust to develop between potential friends, one needs to offer something more vulnerable than an opinion about the chance of rain.

Vulnerability and trust are fundamental to the development of a healthy and long-lasting marriage. Married couples can sense the quality of their marriage based on the perceived willingness of partners to make themselves vulnerable to each other. While extramarital affairs are harmful to marriage, they need not be sexual to exploit the trust of one’s marriage partner. For instance, what kind of signal does a married man send if he regularly confides personal concerns or details about himself to someone other than his wife?

Social conservatives decry the decline in public morality, but they have not been clear in explaining why this is a problem. Social and personal relationships are enhanced when one person first places him or herself in a vulnerable position with respect to someone else, and then when the second person reciprocates by honoring and respecting the trust placed in him or her. This leads to a greater willingness of the first to make a vulnerable commitment, thus perpetuating a deepening and virtuous cycle of trust and mutual respect. But declining public morality clouds our sense of vulnerability and makes it difficult for others to respond with honor and respect.

This is why pornography is so damaging to society. Pornography breaks the cycle. Although one could say that by exposing one’s body to others through pictures or video is a vulnerable action, it is only a counterfeit vulnerability, because that vulnerability does not result in a reciprocal response of honor and respect to the person making the vulnerable offering.

A similar argument can be made about modesty in dress and appearance. Over the years women’s fashions have become more revealing. Plunging necklines, exposed midriffs, and hip-hugging jeans send a socially damaging signal about one’s willingness and ability to be vulnerable to others. By exposing herself in public through the clothing she wears, a woman is saying that she has nothing to hide, which is another way of saying that she does not perceive herself as vulnerable. Some may claim that fashion is about signaling personal strength and confidence, but it is really just the opposite. A woman who dresses modestly recognizes her vulnerability, exposing herself only when she has good reason to believe that such trust will be honored. That takes real courage and strength.

Of course, some men’s fashions deserve the same criticism. Men who wear underwear-exposing baggy jeans send the same signal as women who expose cleavage or midriff. Modesty in dress by men and women preserves one’s vulnerability, which is essential to the development and maintenance of trust in personal and marriage relationships.

Which is why the marriage honeymoon used to be a significant event. But not anymore. Couples who have already seen each other naked and have been intimate before marriage have little to gain from the marriage relationship, aside from the legal and tax benefits that marriage provides. Marriage is an institution where two individuals can share the most sacred, intimate and personal vulnerabilities they have with someone else. When offerings of vulnerability are made within a marriage, by removing of one’s clothing and presenting oneself in an intimate way to a spouse, for example, the trust needed as the foundation of a healthy marriage can develop. The definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman has been weakened because the honeymoon has lost its significance as a stark contrast between being unmarried and married.

In our quest for greater security, we should not become complacent about the vulnerabilities we face. Failure to recognize and respect vulnerabilities can result in mistrust – trusting when one shouldn’t (such as telling a secret to a known gossip) or not trusting when one should (such as not confiding a personal struggle to a faithful spouse).

Consolidation in the agricultural seed and chemical industry

The Wall Street Journal reported that German company Bayer increased its share-price offer for the purchase of Monsanto. If (or when) the merger happens, the combined company will dominate an already-concentrated agricultural seed and chemical industry. I don’t have current figures on global industry concentration ratios, but the main players in agricultural seed and chemicals are Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Dow Chemical, BASF and Bayer. According to the WSJ article, Monsanto previously tried taking over Syngenta but failed, DuPont and Dow Chemical are merging, and China’s National Chemical is buying out Syngenta. Monsanto is also seeking an alliance with BASF.

These companies are already tightly aligned. For example, all participate in cross-licensing agreements with each other in a host of technology sharing arrangements, most notably in genetically-engineered seed traits. Phil Howard, a sociologist at Michigan State University, graphically documented these relationships in 2013 (see his cross-licensing agreements and seed industry structure graphics). The Farm Journal provides a similar report (here), with graphics for the top five seed companies in each year from 2010 to 2014.

Many economists support mergers like these in the name of increased efficiency. Often there are economies of scale associated with the development and distribution of technologies, such as genetically modified crops and agricultural chemicals, which can lower costs for firms and, in theory, for buyers of the companies’ products. This is a good thing. But when choice is reduced in the name of efficiency, I wonder whether it is always worth it. Having options is powerful. Limiting choices has the potential to create dependencies and redistribute power. Are farmers’ and consumers’ interests really served by having fewer companies serve them? Some may say that choices and options will not be affected, since the products offered by the companies would still be available. But when they are offered by one firm rather than many, is that really the same?

Efficiency is good, but so is choice. Can we seek a balance of efficiency and choice?

Another three-peat

Continuing the theme of my previous post, a former doctoral student of mine, Heidi Stallman, has had the third essay of her three-essay dissertation published online. Heidi’s essay, “Farmers’ Willingness to Cooperate in Ecosystem Service Provision: Does Trust Matter?” was just published in the journal Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics. Her other two essays, “Ecosystem Services in Agriculture: Determining Suitability for Provision by Collective Management,” and “Determinants Affecting Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Cooperative Pest Control,” were published in the journal Ecological Economics. Congratulations, Dr. Stallman!


Three for three

Congratulations to my former doctoral student, Iddisah Sulemana, a Lecturer of Economics at the Ghana Institute of Management & Public Administration. He just received notification that his paper, “Environmental Kuznets Curves for Air Pollution in African and Developed Countries: Exploring Turning Point Incomes and the Role of Democracy,” has just been accepted for publication in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy. This is the third paper from his three-essay dissertation to be published. His dissertation essay, “Perceived Socioeconomic Status as a Predictor of Environmental Concern in African and Developed Countries,” was published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology. His other dissertation essay, “Perceived Environmental Quality and Subjective Well-being: Are African Countries Different from Developed Countries?” was published in the International Journal of Happiness and Development.

Latest issue of Agriculture and Human Values in print

The latest issue of Agriculture and Human Values, volume 33, number 3, has just been printed. It is one of the largest issues printed, with 15 regular articles, one in-the-field report, and five book reviews. There is an outstanding collection of articles in this issue. Here is a summary:

Clark and Inwood examine the extent to which the production of fresh fruits and vegetables can be scaled up to mainstream grocery venues in Ohio. LaCharite examines the evolution of university agriculture projects in the US. Soper reports on how indigenous peasant farmers in Ecuador prefer export markets over production for local markets and food sovereignty. Steckley shows how food sovereignty is related to class hierarchies and social preferences for imported foods in a study from rural Haiti. Suhardiman, et al use a case study in Laos to show why policies to promote sustainable intensification are difficult to implement. Guthman and Brown use the case of a soil fumigant and public comments that led to its withdrawal in California to discuss the nature of consumer activism. Phillipov uses a case study to explore how supermarkets use social media and other techniques to respond to consumer concerns about food ethics. Costanigro et al examine how product labels and preferences for corporate social responsibility activities of firms affect consumer purchase decisions of milk products. Lehberger and Hirschauer use a combination of economics and psychology to examine how the preferences of German women to become professional farm managers differ from those of men. Montenegro de Wit critiques the debate about the nature and extent of agrobiodiversity loss. De Bont et al examine how control over water resources evolves through a case study in Tanzania. Wertheim-Heck and Spaargaren review different ways Vietnamese consumers shop for vegetables and relate their findings to the historical development of supermarkets. Bonnave et al explore how seed exchanges in Bolivia relate to crop genetic diversity. Shete et al show how large scale farms affect soil health in Ethiopia. Ekers et al examine the economic and non-economic aspects of non-paid labor on Canadian farms. Finally, in their in-the-field report, Sardos et al examine the biodiversity of root and tuber crops in Vanuatu.

A direct link to the online version of the issue is available by clicking here. Some articles in the journal are open access. Others may require an individual or institutional subscription to read in full.

Joint 2017 Annual Meetings and Conference of the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society and the Association for the Study of Food and Society

The next annual meeting and conference of the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society (AFHVS) and the Association for the Study of Food and Society (ASFS) will be held June 14-18, 2017, in Pasadena, California. The conference is hosted by Occidental College. The conference is a great opportunity for scholars, policymakers and activists to examine issues relating to food, agriculture and the food and agricultural system and to network with other scholars, policymakers and activists. Submissions for individual papers, panels, roundtable discussions, lightning talks and other events will be accepted beginning December 15, 2016. Abstracts and submissions are due January 31, 2017. The conference website is at

Information about the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society is online at