January 2014
The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has revoked a reading specialist and
adjunct professor’s permission to discuss her research or otherwise use her data
on student athlete literacy, just weeks after she was featured in a network news
story on the topic. The university also questioned her methodology and the
validity of her findings.
Mary Willingham, who works in the Center for Student Success and Academic
Counseling and teaches an education course, cannot use data that could be used
to identify human subjects until she receives permission from the university’s
Institutional Review Board, it told her last week. Previously, the board
determined that review and approval of her research was not necessary because it
involved “de-identified” data – meaning that it did not contain personally
identifiable information about human research subjects, either to the
researchers or the public.
In
other words, the board believed it did not have to oversee Willingham’s work
because her data couldn’t be linked back to her student subjects by anyone.
Earlier this month, Willinghamtold CNNshe’d worked with 183 Chapel Hill
basketball and football players for her research, from 2004-12, while she was a
graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Some 10
percent read below a third-grade level, she said. Willingham also shared
anecdotes about students she’d worked with during her career, such as one who
was illiterate, and one who couldn’t read multisyllabic words.
Another student asked if Willingham could "teach him to read well enough so he
could read about himself in the news, because that was something really
important to him," she told CNN. Her quotes didn’t identify any students by name
or unique characteristics.
It’s unclear, however, if those comments were related to her work as a teacher
and adviser or researcher.
Willingham hasn’t published a paper on her research, but has spoken publicly
before about her experiences with student literacy at Chapel Hill. She is
credited with the blowing the whistle on ano-show course scaminvolving
athletes there that made national headlines and prompted several internal
investigations in 2010. (One of those investigations found that scam was
isolated to one department, and was not motivated by athletics, but dated back
to 1997. The university’s chancellor, Holden Thorp, resigned following the
scandal.)
In
a statement Friday, the university said the review board had noted, through
Willingham’s recent, public statements, that she had “collected and retained
identified data,” requiring review board oversight. It did not say which of her
statements revealed that.
“All human subjects research requires review by the university’s Institutional
Review Board,” a university spokesman said in a separate, emailed statement.
“Review and approval must be obtained before the research can begin. In
addition, any time there is a change to the research protocol, the researcher
must submit an updated application for review and approval.
Researchers are expected to describe in detail the data being used in their
work. That includes the specific data that a researcher and their collaborators
have collected and/or assembled, any further work on the data that is planned,
and how the data will be analyzed.”
The
review board concluded in 2008 and again 2013 that researchers involved in
Willingham’s project could not identify individual subjects and that any codes
that could allow linkage to identifiers were “securely behind a firewall outside
the possession of the research team,” according to the statement. The board
directed Willingham to submit a full application for its review, and said that
continued use of her data without its approval would violate university and
federal policies protecting human research subjects.
The
university also disputed Willingham’s claims that it admits athletes who lack
academic preparation.
"I
take these claims very seriously, but we have been unable to reconcile these
claims with either our own facts or with those data currently being cited as the
source for the claims,” Chancellor Carol L. Folt said in astatementposted on
the Chapel Hill website. “Moreover, the data presented in the media do not match
up with those data gathered by the Office of Undergraduate Admissions. For
example, only 2 of the 321 student-athletes admitted in 2012 and 2013 fell below
the SAT and ACT levels that were cited in a recent CNN report as the threshold
for reading levels for first-year students. And those two students are in good
academic standing.” (The news report cited that threshold as 400 on the SAT
critical reading or writing test, or 16 on the ACT.)
In
addition to Folt’s statement, the university published the results of its
analysisof eight years of admissions data for athletes, which says 97 percent
met the cited threshold. In 2013, it says, 100 percent of admitted student
athletes achieved those test scores. The student government released a similar
statement, slamming Willingham’s data.
Folt said the university was investigating further the discrepancy between its
data and those presented in the CNN report. “We also will do our best to correct
assertions we believe are not based in fact,” she added.
The
chancellor and other administrators also discussed Willingham’s research at a
scheduled Faculty Council meeting Friday. But a faculty member present who did
not want to be named or quoted directly said a lengthy presentation about the
project focused almost entirely on methodological concerns about Willingham’s
assessment tool and how accurately it could be used to correlate scores with
grade-level reading readiness, not the review board issue.
The
university published anews release late Fridayabout those findings, accusing
Willingham of making a “range of serious mistakes” in her research.
“Carolina has a world-renowned reputation for our research, and the work we have
just reviewed does not reflect the quality and excellence found throughout the
Carolina community,” Folt said in the release.
Willingham was not in attendance.
Via
email, Willingham said that she and her co-investigators will reapply to the
review board. She declined to answer specific questions about her case but said:
“The gap in academic preparedness between profit sport athletes and students at
[National College Athletic Association Division I] institutions perpetuates
educational inequality. Until we acknowledge the problem, and fix it, many of
our athletes, specifically men’s basketball and football players are receiving
nothing in exchange for their special talents.”
In
an emailed statement, an NCAA spokeswoman said: “Academic success of
student-athletes is a core priority for the NCAA and its member schools. NCAA
member schools have established academics standards student-athletes must meet
so they can compete in their sport. These are completely separate from the
admission standards colleges and universities use to admit and enroll students.”
Lewis Margolis, an associate professor maternal and child health at Chapel Hill
who has beenpublicly criticalof Division I institutions’ handling of recent
sports scandals, said that there had been “exasperation” among the faculty
leading up the Faculty Council meeting and subsequent news release. Many
professors called for greater transparency after the 2010 revelations at Chapel
Hill, he said, and detailed information about why Willingham’s research had been
halted was still slow in coming.
“Research is at the core of our mission as a research university,” he said.
“This is not peripheral to what we do.”
Susan Michalcyzk, assistant director of the Arts & Sciences Honors Program at
Boston College and member of the American Association of University Professors’
standing committee on teaching, research and publication, said via email that
review board guidelines have become more stringent over time and that she hoped
Willingham would reapply and be able to continue her research in the
“complicated” world of student athletes.
“As
college professors, our first priority is educating our students and advocating
for them,” she said via email. “At times, especially when attempting to deal
with controversial topics, such as college sports, the focus (the best interests
of our students) can be lost.”
Inside Higher Ed, January 20, 2014.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
