“and literally spends hundreds of pages confirming the validity of a statement of the central problem from a 1981 Washington Post editorial that it quotes at the outset.”
Here is the quote from the 1981 WaPo editorial:
"The fierce, unabating abortion controversy in this country is not over the moment one biological life commences. It’s over the tragic moment when two rights conflict. It’s not about whether a fetus has a claim to protection. It’s about whether the fetus’ claim is greater than the women’s”.
I saw the reasoning behind introduction of this quote as two-fold:
Historians will often use some encapsulating quote to introduce a piece of work (a chapter or a paper, for instance). They are not setting out to “verify” the quote, but rather use the quote (often a statement of some kid) as a dovetail to their own analysis. So in that context it’s simply not unusual, although one may find it annoying in a social science paper. Not to brag, but my own kid used a similar technique for an award-winning history paper and the quotes were very much a hit with the judges.
More substantively, the author uses that quote to introduce the conflict, as stated in the following footnote: “this quote encapsulates the essential controversy about abortion and, as reported in chapter 4 on p. 199, a majority (68%) of American participants agreed with this quote; as will be made clear in this thesis, error and confusion have distracted Americans away from this essential question, which might have contributed to differences in how both sides view each other, fetuses, and fetal rights.”
Anyway, the paper IS a bit of a hodge-podge of various methods. You really can’t assess quality of work by the thesis title, but for those who are curious here is a link to other dissertations in CHD. https://humdev.uchicago.edu/content/past-dissertations#2019
The CHD faculty itself consists of sociologists, psycho-linguists, historians, and cultural anthropologists, among others.
I think the author received an MA at CHD several years earlier so not sure he bounced around departments as much as thesis advisors. But I think that stint at NU Law was after he started his graduate studies at University of Chicago. He’s not the first UC student to delve into another specialty for several years while en route to a PhD. My husband’s roomie did the same with Math and I know there were more. One PhD econ guy we know went to Med school! But he uses both specialties in his current faculty appointment so it all worked out well.
Geez, you sure know how to make a fellow want to read that tome, JHS. Here I had thought it was too hot to handle, and it turns out it was all just a regurgitation of dull bromides. Was there nothing sufficiently inflammatory to warrant the Breitbart interview?
What warranted the Breitbart interview was his extensive quoting of all of those pinko commie lefty academics being mean. Any article which can be used to make left wing academics look bad is like candy for Breitbart.
^ Or maybe Breitbart just liked the When Does Life Begin survey results. As the author points out in his dissertation, data is always at risk of being misused or misconstrued.
All right, finished most of the paper. A few responses to @JHS, out of respect for his earlier efforts and perseverance:
“The paper is a awkward mixture of legal history, social psychology, opinion research, and models of conflict resolution used in mediation.”
Yes, this is a mixture. He used a combination of humanistic and social science approaches in order to explore the topic. While I haven't read anything else out of CHD, I got the impression that this kind of interdisciplinary work is consistent with that department. However, it could also be the case that "higher quality" papers will incorporate some primary method - say, sociologoical - perhaps with a bit of icing representing other approaches. The author didn't take that approach. His work was divided into neat chapters detailing each method. Not "awkward", in my view, but that's an understandable description. He should have had transitional sections to explain why each method was important. While he lays out his methods in one of the beginning chapters, that's a couple hundred pages back and he needed to be more clear on why he was using each one, rather than merely stating that his training at UChicago and NU gave him the skills and opportunity to conduct mediation analyses.
“It also purports to demonstrate use of the “SAGE” approach to qualitative social science research for mediation. Honestly, that felt like a suck-up to his advisor and committee rather than something he actually cared about. If it were convincing, it would probably be the most original part of the thesis, but . . . not so much. (What, exactly, the SAGE approach to qualitative social science research is proved to be too jargony and boring to sustain even my desperate procastinatory interest.)”
I don't get this comment. SAGE was incorporated as part of the social science section, and was something his own department originated, as the author explains. This paper depends on methods of mediation so if he didn't use SAGE he would have needed to use something else, right? Also, the "jargony" paper was an academic work noted in the footnotes. It was NOT a long-winded explanation detailed in the author's work. The author does SUMMARIZE how SAGE works in a couple of double-spaced footnoted pages. Plenty of opportunity for the lay-reader to pick up a general understanding. This reminded me of focus on the CRSP data set at Booth, which provided a ton of new and ground-breaking research by Fama and many others, and was highlighted in many a finance paper that I read while there.
“The mediation aspect is really simplistic, and amounts to “There’s really lots that most people agree about, and there could be a reasonably stable solution if only politicians were willing to find the majority rather than cater to the activists in their respective parties.” Yes, we knew that already, I think. And we also know that our political system really isn’t built that way.”
The "mediation aspect" was the entire point of the paper LOL. Obviously, people can disagree about the relevance of mediation as an effective method or whether the author used mediation methodology correctly. Not well versed in that so can't say much. But there is a difference between "Well, we ALL know THAT" and a formalized confirmation or refutation of whether that statement is actually accurate. Generalizing that clarification, that's why there is research into anything. Since the purpose of the paper was to clarify and move the debate forward, that was deemed by the author to be a necessary step. Hence his dissertation.
Additional observations:
Certainly do think that with a topic like this, it's possible to read through and emerge with prior biases not moving an inch, finding it irrelevant (from either side of the debate), etc. Any honest academic will also build on his/her work and that includes fixing mistakes etc. (Like what Levitt did when it was pointed out that his Abortion Lowers Crime research had some mistakes). Research isn't "the answer" to a LOT of issues. It merely opens the door to more questions.
My own take on the Group Mediation chapter was that he should have used a much more broad group of subjects. Hyde Park - not to mention Chicago itself! - is filled with people from all walks of life. Including some single moms or older residents of the community would have spiced things up and perhaps could have enabled the author to include the results more substantively. Or perhaps he could have done several rounds of mediation using randomly selected subjects. Relying on college kids from two elite institutions - even if they have different views - is relying on a rather homogenous group. Unless the author meant to control for some factors like education level. If so, I missed that section of the paper.
On the idea of "mediation" becoming an interdisciplinary branch of social science research - novel (to me at least). JHS might be better clued in since this involves some legal training as well as social science training. I do thing there is something to this approach that mere polls can't capture. Thinking we might have some interesting results to the pressing political questions of the day using this approach.
Finally, a huge bug-a-boo: Fix Your Typos, Dr. Jacobs, PLEASE. They were totally distracting and I fail to see how a dissertation can get through committee with so many of them. PhD students used to have to run their theses through an editor for format style and grammar and so forth. Does that not happen anymore? Or does this version precede the final-FINAL?
All Jacobs adds to this is the legally popular but otherwise irrelevant notion of trimesters (which, granted, roughly correspond to the historical determinant of “quickening” and the potential ethical tipping point – for those for whom biological life isn’t enough – of “viability”). I don’t think he actually demonstrates that people think trimesters are important, though, as opposed to thinking that the progression of pregnancy is important, and “trimesters” was how Jacobs was capturing that. Justice Blackmun made trimesters important in Roe, and they have generally remained something of a factor in litigation ever since. Blackmun was more or less explicitly looking for the social compromise Jacobs seeks.
For me, that’s one example (among many) of Jacobs’ “inside the box” thinking: he starts with what is relevant to judges and lawyers, and asks people what they think about that, rather than spending more effort figuring out what people outside courthouses think is relevant.
Mediation theory: I know there is theory of mediation, and academic work on mediation techniques, but that’s about as much as I know. Mediation theory can happen in sociology departments, in psychology departments, in clinical psychology and counseling programs, in “peace studies,” and in law schools.
^ Not sure your expectations for what the dissertation SHOULD have done match the author’s purpose. The author sees a landmark court decision originally constructed to present a compromise as having failed in that task. The author has chosen to frame both the challenge and the solution within a “legal” context, since that’s considered relevant to legislative processes as well as any future court decision (which will obviously address Roe/Casey directly). There are PLENTY of polls out there to highlight the “abortion question” from the perspective of “whether or when it’s OK.” NORC is no different (see the questions on page five of the GSS report). The author was actually asking different questions; regarding references to outside polling, Marist was actually more consistent with the author’s line of questioning. Neither polling group is “better” or “worse” - they are asking different questions. In that sense, this work is definitely outside the box, since it asked different questions than did NORC and many others. You may not like those specific questions, but they appear to be consistent with the issues brought up and addressed in Roe - and the challenges to and chipping away at Roe is the entire basis for this dissertation.
“There are PLENTY of polls out there to highlight the “abortion question” from the perspective of “whether or when it’s OK.” NORC is no different (see the questions on page five of the GSS report).”
Should clarify that the 2012 GSS specifically covers the "whether" - not the "when".
The actual thesis is nowhere near as bad as his blog posts or the various right-wing articles about him. But that doesn’t make it actually good, or original, or particularly worth paying attention to.
On the basis of this paper, would you hire Jacobs to teach students? Would you hire him to solve problems, to identify problems, to perform a mediation? I wouldn’t.
Well, to paraphrase and summarize my 10+ posts on the subject, what I thought was "outside the box" was the approach he took to framing and clarifying the debate. It seemed unusual and was clearly controversial. Scholarship shouldn't be afraid of risk or controversy; the scholar should go where the idea and the data lead, even if some are uncomfortable with what you might find.
“The actual thesis is nowhere near as bad as his blog posts or the various right-wing articles about him. But that doesn’t make it actually good, or original, or particularly worth paying attention to.”
Haven't read the author's blog posts and only read the Daily Wire article, since it was written by a UChicago alum. You seem to have done a lot more research on this person and "possible motivations", over and above spending time reading the paper. I'm reminded of the joke in mathematics where the prof. insists to the class that the answer to a particular theorum is "trivial." When questioned on that, the professor looked incredulously at the students, then back at the theorum. He then stared at the latter for several minutes. Then, he suddenly dismissed class - early. The next class, everyone showed up only to find that it had been cancelled for the day. So it was with the following class as well. Finally, on the third day of this, class was back in session. The professor opened with: "I was right. It IS trivial."
Academics posting their political opinions ("right-wing", "left-wing" and "center") on twitter or blog posts is nothing new. Nor is the journalistic temptation to grab a headline.
“On the basis of this paper, would you hire Jacobs to teach students? Would you hire him to solve problems, to identify problems, to perform a mediation? I wouldn’t.”
Hmm. I simply can't assess the questions you pose, and I wonder how you yourself can do so given that you profess to know little about mediation methods in social science work. Were someone to produce a similar piece of work getting the questions "right" and moving the debate along as a result, then we would have a good standard for comparison. Do you know of such a work? Or are you using standards other than the author's paper to make your judgements?
I am familiar with the law, the history, and the social/ethical/political debates about abortion. I have been reading that stuff for almost 50 years. There’s absolutely nothing new in Jacobs’ take on it. His work isn’t going to move the debate anywhere. At best, it more or less explains the current, uneasy status quo
What might be original about the paper is what is goofiest about it: The ideas that the techniques of small-scale, two-party mediation can help resolve a society-wide multi-lateral issue, and that survey research theory can inform such a mediation. I was a long way from being convinced about either.
^ Reasonable arguments. The question is whether it’s been done in academia before. Posing the questions for the debate from the perspective of the legal aspect seems new to me. Have you seen anything similar before?
Using mediation to address the debate also seems new (as I’ve stated already). @JHS, you have been familiar with the debate and yet you posted a survey report that asked different questions from what the author was asking. And - it was from 2012. Recent news articles have stated that opinions have shifted a LOT in just the past few years. For instance, this one from Vox (see link below) which specifically defines “abortion rights” as the new focus of the pro-choice movement (vs. preserving the procedure as something “rare” but available). So the author’s attempt to find out how to come to a closer understanding of balancing fetal rights with abortion rights seems timely. At least, he seems to have a more contemporary understanding of what the questions actually are now. And then, using mediation as the specific methodological framework? New approach (at least to me).
I posted that article from 2012 because it might have been available to Jacobs at the start of his research. As I also said, the GSS happens every two years, and it has been asking these questions continuously since the 1970s. There were a ton of articles written about it this spring, when they released the 2018 data. On top of that, both political parties and lots of advocacy groups on either side of the debate poll regularly. This is an area that has been thoroughly, and very professionally, studied.
Jacobs asking slightly different questions adds little, if anything. His big insight that there’s a substantial middle ground in the debate has been everyone’s big insight for decades. And (like many others) he elides some big differences in that middle ground – say, between people who think that there should be unrestricted, elective abortion early in a pregnancy, and people who think that abortion should be available early in a pregnancy only in cases of rape, incest, or serious genetic defect, and only after counseling and a waiting period. Some of Jacobs’ basic premises are downright insulting, like the idea that pro-choice people don’t acknowledge a fetus’ humanity but might be convinced by polling data to do so.
Without knowing much about mediation theory, I know mediation does not work if the parties involved don’t want to resolve the dispute other than by a total victory. In the abortion debate, there are critical parties who are not interested in any outcome but total victory. Mediators don’t mediate under those conditions.
It’s questionable why some grand compromise is necessary. For most people this issue is not exactly tearing society apart; we aren’t on the verge of a civil war. Most people have gotten used to the idea that different people can make different choices, and that another person’s choice does not affect your integrity. It has become much easier both not to terminate a pregnancy and to terminate a pregnancy very early on a self-help basis (Plan B ). When – as I and pretty much everyone else expects – the current Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, there is going to be real diversity among the states’ responses, as we are already seeing now. A few states will have very permissive laws, many (but representing a small percentage of population) will enact total or near-total bans, and some will probably wind up in Jacobs’ middle. Which is more or less where everyone is today, based on the last few Supreme Court cases.
“I posted that article from 2012 because it might have been available to Jacobs at the start of his research. As I also said, the GSS happens every two years, and it has been asking these questions continuously since the 1970s. There were a ton of articles written about it this spring, when they released the 2018 data. On top of that, both political parties and lots of advocacy groups on either side of the debate poll regularly. This is an area that has been thoroughly, and very professionally, studied.”
Could not agree more. There are a good number of polls and opinions on the topic. Would have been a helpful addition for the author to have a section on that explaining why he's using Marist and not NORC or another agency (maybe he did, indeed explain and I missed that).
“Jacobs asking slightly different questions adds little, if anything. His big insight that there’s a substantial middle ground in the debate has been everyone’s big insight for decades.”
The issue is what is the middle ground actually over. With the diversity of opinion out there, "middle ground" is a pretty broad term. Didn't interpret it as an "insight" as much as he reached that conclusion. What WAS an insight was that the question "when life begins" was such a strong factor in the debate.
“Some of Jacobs’ basic premises are downright insulting, like the idea that pro-choice people don’t acknowledge a fetus’ humanity but might be convinced by polling data to do so.”
He hits that topic of humanity throughout the paper but didn't that conclusion that you mention fall out of the research? Or was he speculating w/o testing? I thought it was the former but maybe you caught something in the beginning as a "premise" that would lead to bias?
We also have to remember that if the research is sound, then controversial or even “insulting” conclusions can result. This topic isn’t for the feint-of-heart.
“Without knowing much about mediation theory, I know mediation does not work if the parties involved don’t want to resolve the dispute other than by a total victory. In the abortion debate, there are critical parties who are not interested in any outcome but total victory. Mediators don’t mediate under those conditions.”
This is a good point, IMO. The polls (his, NORC's, Marist, and everyone else) suggest otherwise - as you have mentioned - but interest groups and those who are specifically invested in one potential victory or another have been working to secure that outcome. How to resolve? I thought that's what the author was trying to suggest - a way to resolve. However, something that @JHS pointed out upthread is that our Political System isn't necessarily set up for a "compromise." So the next step might be a discussion and a "connecting of the dots" - to the extent possible - between political majority outcomes and what goes on behind the scenes (which, in many cases and certainly with less "controversial" topics, obviously can involve a whole lot of "compromise"). It was the latter that the author seemed more concerned with.
“It’s questionable why some grand compromise is necessary. For most people this issue is not exactly tearing society apart; we aren’t on the verge of a civil war. Most people have gotten used to the idea that different people can make different choices, and that another person’s choice does not affect your integrity. It has become much easier both not to terminate a pregnancy and to terminate a pregnancy very early on a self-help basis (Plan B ). When – as I and pretty much everyone else expects – the current Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, there is going to be real diversity among the states’ responses, as we are already seeing now. A few states will have very permissive laws, many (but representing a small percentage of population) will enact total or near-total bans, and some will probably wind up in Jacobs’ middle. Which is more or less where everyone is today, based on the last few Supreme Court cases.”
Agree with pretty much all of this. Jacobs was biased toward a compromise that might be completely irrelevant if Roe is overturned and the question is returned to the states (where the legislative action has been busy already). I suppose then the question shifts to a more local issue, and there are real questions there (for instance, healthcare availability differences locally or even across states). So mediation could have a role to play - and might even be MORE relevant on a local level where the political process is active and to which the political decision has been returned.
If I may ask, why was that pint insightful? The Church has been making the point (that life begins at conception) for decades.
And that is why, a “grand compromise” is impossible IMO. JHS is spot on when s/he says,
However, there are really three choices for a mediator:
a) ban except in cases of mother’s health (and rape)
b) “safe, legal and rare” (which is where “most people” probably are)
c) full access perhaps up to and even thru the third trimester
The issue is that there is no compromise possible across the three. From a public policy (and political) standpoint, there are only winners and losers (IMO).
“If I may ask, why was that pint insightful? The Church has been making the point (that life begins at conception) for decades.”
You have misunderstood the author's findings. He found that the question "When does life begin" is the largest predictor in both abortion attitude and position. Obviously there will be differences of actual opinion on the question itself. Furthermore, he found that "religious identity" was a statistically insignificant predictor of abortion attitude and position.
FYI: author’s data set from MTurk: “Politically, the sample was predominantly pro-choice (62%), liberal (63%), socialist(54%), and Democratic (66%). The sample was well-educated (63% graduated from college) and had more females (57%) than males (43%). The demographics were consistent with previous findings on the demographics of MTurk samples9.” MTurk is a service that allows academics to connect with large data pools and has been used in the past to poll on issues such as political ideology. The author polled and received responses from over 4,700 participants.
"And that is why, a “grand compromise” is impossible IMO. JHS is spot on when s/he says, ‘Most people have gotten used to the idea that different people can make different choices, and that another person’s choice does not affect your integrity.’
The fact that Roe has been chipped away over the decades does, indeed, suggest a lack of national consensus. I guess it comes down to whether to give it the old college try one more time before the issue is 100% kicked back to the states, which might result in very disparate legislative outcomes across state lines. I guess it depends on whether one views this as a national issue or not. But then, that's why we elect representatives and send them to Congress :smiley:
"However, there are really three choices for a mediator:
a) ban except in cases of mother’s health (and rape)
b) “safe, legal and rare” (which is where “most people” probably are)
c) full access perhaps up to and even thru the third trimester
The issue is that there is no compromise possible across the three. From a public policy (and political) standpoint, there are only winners and losers (IMO)."
According to the Vox article at least, the "safe legal and rare" point of view might be losing ground recently to a more mainstream attitude concerning women's health and reproductive rights. But it is the case that in 2019 (and according to Pew Research), well under under 30% support "legality in all cases"; the majority support, at minimum, some sort of restrictions. So safe, legal and rare might still be the prevailing standard. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
There will continue to be areas and opportunities for compromise: for instance, if Roe is overturned, the new “national” arena for the debate will be Congress; states will continue to push - this time against any federal laws passed or in effect one way or the other; and the Supreme Court will settle any dispute, just like it does now. But mediation and “compromise” within the legislative branch of gov’t may actually work much better, despite the inevitable partisanship that accompanies a hot button issue.
Life is kicked off at fertilization. It does not necessarily mean However that a fertilized egg is human. It has to descend from the fallopian tubes and get embedded to the uterus first, otherwise it’s just a rotten egg. If it did not go down the tube, the egg did not “die”, it just did not develop into a human life. Even one that is recently attached to the uterus is not human. There’s a lot of things that need to happen before a fertilized egg becomes a human life
I think that’s where the respondents are coming from. They did not get clear instructions. What they answered was “when is the process of creating a human kicked off” Not “when is something first considered to be a living entity”.
Those are two different interpretations of the question “when does life begin?”
