Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education

11-22

Authors: Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Freedom of speech in academia can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it gives the liberty to express opinions about issues that affect academics, but on the other, such freedoms can also be used against academics, even by other academics. Science finds itself in a state of reform, perhaps even crisis, in which a dense amount of transformational changes are taking place. As the academic playing field transforms itself, one method by which this is taking place is through the correction of the literature via an active process of critical analysis. In peer review, this is generally handled primarily by blinded (i.e., known to the editors) peers, while in a post-publication process, this may also be subjected to anonymous (i.e., unknown identity to authors and editors) critique. One of the more radical end-points of the post-publication process, which may reveal errors or faults, are retractions. Two organizations, Retraction Watch and PubPeer, are leading the way in terms of raising awareness and critique, but are using public shaming to expose science’s faults and ills. These science watchdogs have now attracted considerable funding, including from powerful politically-driven US philanthropic foundations. Pressure is placed on scientists and academics by these organizations to be transparent, open and forthcoming about their errors. Scientists should cautiously assess queries made at or by Retraction Watch and PubPeer, directly or indirectly, and reserve their right to offer feedback. This is because what they state in response, either by email or on those blogs, may in fact be used against them on and by these public shaming platforms. The same applies to the blog of Leonid Schneider, another vocal science watchdog. Academia is at a cross-roads between openness and transparency, but at what cost? Academics need to urgently appreciate the importance and risks that Retraction Watch, PubPeer and similar websites pose, before their legends become irreversibly transformed by interaction with such watchdogs. This paper also highlights comment suppression, manipulation or blocking by these science watchdogs, which may indicating a deliberate suppression of freedom of speech.

28-38

Authors: Mike Omilusi

It has become a familiar trend in Nigeria that many state governors see the national assembly as a retirement ground after an eight-year-tenure as heads of the executive arm. To many of these ex-governors, the Senate is another platform through which they could continue to be relevant and actualize their political goals as far as local and national politics are concerned. Though nothing is wrong with former governors aspiring to be senators, what is important is whether they are in the Senate to serve the interest of their constituencies or their own interest. The latter however, features prominently in the study’s findings.

45-58

Authors: Joseph Reginard Milinga, Mwajabu K. Possi

Despite the plethora of studies that have attempted to examine self-esteem in a variety of contexts, few studies have focused on investigating the self-esteem of students with visual impairments as a function of receiving help from their sighed peers within the context of inclusive schooling. Employing a qualitative approach, this study examines the ways sighted students assist their peers with visual impairments in an inclusive secondary school setting in relation to the self-esteem of the help-recipients. It does so, by highlighting the decision for seeking help and threat to self-esteem models. The findings have indicated that, sighted peers assisted their friends with visual impairments in a number of ways despite the fact that, some of the help-recipients were unsatisfied with the help given. Generally, students with visual impairments were comfortable seeking assistance from their sighted peers, with high self-esteem levels despite the concerns raised. Finally, discussions of these findings and recommendations are provided.