See guideline on how to identify the research the scientist is known for.

In this class, we will read about research done outside of and at Duke. You will contribute to the cognitive psychology community at large by creating Wikipedia profiles of underrepresented cognitive psychologists, and you will contribute to the Duke cognitive psychology community by writing about the research done at Duke for a lay audience.

Why Wikipedia?

One large inspiration for this project is Jess Wade, who has been writing Wikipedia profiles of female-identified STEM scientists to ensure that the contributions of women in science are not lost. Indeed, from that article on Jess Wade:

Only 17% of Wikipedia's biographies in 2016 were about women, according to the Wikimedia Foundation, the charity that runs the collaboratively edited, online reference project.

Moreover, there is a significant gender bias on Wikipedia in terms of who contributes to the site, which likely impacts how and which scientists are covered. Yet, this site is frequently appears first in ALL search engine results. A similar initiative has been launched for Women in Neuroscience. So, why Wikipedia? Well, let's combat bias ON Wikipedia and within science.

Writing a Wikipedia profile for a current female or underrepresented cognitive scientist, you will apply the science communication skills you have learned, with the Science Communication pitch and Duke Research blog post, to the general cognitive psychology community. You will help promote a more visibly inclusive face of cognitive psychology and inform the public about cool cognitive psychology research. At the end of the course, I will email the scientist who you profiled, with you CC’d and your profile attached, so that you can continue to belong to the cognitive psychology community.

You also won't have to start from scratch. There is an entire page full of suggestions for women psychologists who could have Wikipedia profiles, and the Spark Society is aiming to empower cognitive scientists of color, who may also qualify for Wikipedia pages. You don't have to cover someone who is on either suggestion list; in fact, most of these statistics have been focused on women, who do not constitute the only underrepresented population. The National Institutes of Health has a guideline for who is considered underrepresented in STEM.

The guidelines for choosing the scientist to cover are as follows: the person must constitute as underrepresented, fit Wikipedia's criteria for academics (see below), study cognitive psychology, and not already have a Wikipedia profile page. For the first assignment deadline (Choose scientist, May 28), you will have to choose a few psychologists in case someone else has also chosen the same psychologist. Ultimately, the goal is to broaden the inclusiveness of the cognitive psychology field and inform the public about cognitive psychology research.

Guidelines for the Assignment:

Wikipedia has specific guidelines for who constitutes a "notable" academic. The psychologist whose profile you write must meet at least one of these criteria:

  1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
  3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).
  4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
  5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
  6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
  7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
  8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
  9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

To summarize, the psychologist needs to fit one of these criteria: have lots of citations; pioneered a new technique; won academic honors at a broad level (e.g., Association of Psychological Scientists, American Psychological Association); elected to highly prestigious society or association; authored textbooks; has been consulted in science news articles; or wrote a popular science book. These criteria will inform how you write your Wikipedia piece and what to include. The list mentioned above includes psychologists who likely fit these criteria.

Helpfully, if you want to choose someone not on that list, other folks have also suggested additional criteria for picking women or underrepresented cognitive psychologists per the Wikipedia guidelines:

Women nominated for inclusion in Wikipedia should meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for academics which are similar to the requirements for Fellow Status in The American Psychological Association (APA). The APA requirements for Fellow vary somewhat by APA division. If a woman is an APA Fellow, she most likely meets the criteria for inclusion in this project. Many women psychologists may meet the criteria for Fellow status but may not have been nominated or applied for the honor. In that case the Wikipedia and APA Fellow standards can be consulted. In all cases, writers should make a clear case for the woman's eligibility for inclusion as an eminent woman psychologist in the section called "Summary of significant contributions to the field of psychology." Wikipedia also has special guidelines for writing biographies of living persons that serve as a guideline to appropriate content.

The suggested page structure from this site is as follows: Name; Photograph; Basic identifying information: dob, employment, degrees, universities; Summary of significant contributions to psychology; More detail: books, articles, professional service; Relevant personal history; References (VERY IMPORTANT): journals, books, magazines, newspaper, etc. sources supporting statements included above should be cited in line.

Several cognitive psychologists have Wikipedia pages that you can consult as good profile examples. See, for example, Anne Treisman, Susan Gelman, David Rubin (he's on our list of Duke researchers!), and Lisa Feldman Barrett (also someone whose work we will read!).

By May 28th, you will have chosen the scientist you will cover for Wikipedia (preferably not someone at Duke), and after approval from me, by June 5th, you will turn in a biography of the scientist (basic identifying information; awards; professional service; anything not related to the research). Afterwards, by June 14th, you will have outlined the research section from the scientist you will cover (summary of significant contributions) and you will provide a bibliography for the biography and these research contributions. Finally, by the end of class (June 24th), you will turn in a final draft of your Wikipedia profile. We will host these profiles on this site in case someone on Wikipedia gets delete-happy, and I will email your profile to the scientist in question so that they have an opportunity to add anything else they would like the public to know and you will have the opportunity to connect with a cognitive psychologist outside of Duke.

Sounds good? Let's get to work!

Return to the top of the page