Discussion: View Thread

I believe Consulting is the right term and it should not be changed.  Consulting can be either external or internal to a company or organization.  The key is that the consultant is using his/her unique expertise to assist someone without that expertise.  That's the section I signed up for and not one that includes collaborative work, which is another topic altogether.

Alan J. Salzberg, Ph.D.

Principal

(646) 461-6153 (office and virtual)

(917) 805-3107 (mobile)

77 Water Street, 8^th Floor

New York, New York 10005

Mailing Address:

I believe Consulting is the right term and it should not be changed.  Consulting can be either external or internal to a company or organization.  The key is that the consultant is using his/her unique expertise to assist someone without that expertise.  That's the section I signed up for and not one that includes collaborative work, which is another topic altogether.

Alan J. Salzberg, Ph.D.

Principal

(646) 461-6153 (office and virtual)

(917) 805-3107 (mobile)

77 Water Street, 8^th Floor

New York, New York 10005

Mailing Address:

I too believe that collaboration is different.  I am of the opinion that "collaboration" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a good consulting relationship.  While my clients are external, I believe that this applies for those who work internally as well.

David J. Mangen

I believe Consulting is the right term and it should not be changed.  Consulting can be either external or internal to a company or organization.  The key is that the consultant is using his/her unique expertise to assist someone without that expertise.  That's the section I signed up for and not one that includes collaborative work, which is another topic altogether.

Alan J. Salzberg, Ph.D.

Principal

(646) 461-6153 (office and virtual)

(917) 805-3107 (mobile)

77 Water Street, 8^th Floor

New York, New York 10005

Mailing Address:

Thanks to everyone who took the time to respond with your thoughts.  There seems to be enough support on both sides that it's worthwhile to bring it up at the EC meeting and possibly for a vote to amend the charter.  Please feel free to add more posts to this thread if you feel there are other substantive arguments for or against the change.

Thanks,

Chris

_________________________________________

Chris Holloman  •  ICC Advanced Analytics

Chief Data Scientist

o. 614.523.3070 ext 215  •  m. 614­­.668.7894

2500 Corporate Exchange Dr. • Columbus, OH 43231

www.icctechnology.com

Rereading the original post about this proposal, I think it would be helpful if the proponents explained how they believe the role of the statistician on collaborative teams has changed and what they regard as "the traditional role of the consultant."  The apparent implication is that "traditional consultants" don't work collaboratively-a notion which, it seems to me, is directly contradicted by the manner in which Deming, Hunter, and many other successful consultants have approached their role for decades.

______________________________________________________

Duane Steffey, PhD

Principal Scientist & Director, Statistical & Data Sciences

E^xponent^® | 149 Commonwealth Drive | Menlo Park, CA  94025

Office: 650-688-7262 | Mobile: 650-862-9869 | Fax: 650-326-8072

Email: dsteffey@exponent.com | Website: www.exponent.com/duane_steffey/

Thanks to everyone who took the time to respond with your thoughts.  There seems to be enough support on both sides that it's worthwhile to bring it up at the EC meeting and possibly for a vote to amend the charter.  Please feel free to add more posts to this thread if you feel there are other substantive arguments for or against the change.

Thanks,

Chris

_________________________________________

Chris Holloman  •  ICC Advanced Analytics

Chief Data Scientist

o. 614.523.3070 ext 215  •  m. 614­­.668.7894

2500 Corporate Exchange Dr. • Columbus, OH 43231

www.icctechnology.com

Rereading the original post about this proposal, I think it would be helpful if the proponents explained how they believe the role of the statistician on collaborative teams has changed and what they regard as "the traditional role of the consultant."  The apparent implication is that "traditional consultants" don't work collaboratively-a notion which, it seems to me, is directly contradicted by the manner in which Deming, Hunter, and many other successful consultants have approached their role for decades.

______________________________________________________

Duane Steffey, PhD

Principal Scientist & Director, Statistical & Data Sciences

E^xponent^® | 149 Commonwealth Drive | Menlo Park, CA  94025

Office: 650-688-7262 | Mobile: 650-862-9869 | Fax: 650-326-8072

Email: dsteffey@exponent.com | Website: www.exponent.com/duane_steffey/

Rereading the original post about this proposal, I think it would be helpful if the proponents explained how they believe the role of the statistician on collaborative teams has changed and what they regard as "the traditional role of the consultant."  The apparent implication is that "traditional consultants" don't work collaboratively-a notion which, it seems to me, is directly contradicted by the manner in which Deming, Hunter, and many other successful consultants have approached their role for decades.

______________________________________________________

Duane Steffey, PhD

Principal Scientist & Director, Statistical & Data Sciences

E^xponent^® | 149 Commonwealth Drive | Menlo Park, CA  94025

Office: 650-688-7262 | Mobile: 650-862-9869 | Fax: 650-326-8072

Email: dsteffey@exponent.com | Website: www.exponent.com/duane_steffey/

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THIS EMAIL: While I may not object to any of several proposed section names (including the current one), I do object to asking volunteers to spend their time on a task unless their efforts will yield a meaningful benefit to the organization.  From my perspective, the Pain/Gain ratio is way too high to bother changing the name.

DETAILS (if you care to read them):

Can I see a distinction between "consultant" and "collaborator" (even if ignoring the second definition of collaborator that was noted, "a person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy; a defector")?  Yes.

But the distinction being in or out of the Section's name matter in terms of my ASA section membership? Not a bit.

What would be the consequences of changing the name?

--Would anyone join the section who had previously been unwilling to join because of the absence of the word "collaborator" in the section name?  I doubt it.

--Has anyone ever been harmed, personally or professionally, by the absence of the word "Collaboration" in the ASA Section name? I doubt it.

--Would a significant number of people in the ASA feel substantially better about themselves or their standing in the world for being a member of the "ASA Section on Statistical Consulting and Collaboration" instead of the "ASA Section on Statistical Consulting"?  I personally don't hang my professional identity on the name of this section.  My career in no way depends on the section name.  No one would be more impressed with my CV if the section name were to change.

--Would the ASA charter need to be rewritten?  Yes.

Some may think, "So, ok, we'll just change the charter.  No big deal."  But what are consequences of trying to update an ASA section charter? 

--The Section leadership would spend a considerable amount of time discussing first the new name and then the revised wording of the charter.  Numerous rounds of emails would be exchanged and meeting time would have to be devoted to trying to get the wording just right.  When the dust finally settled, some people would be offended that their preferred wording was not accepted.

--I believe that a vote is necessary.  This takes time too, for those conducting the vote and publishing the results.

--If the name change passed, the ASA Board would then need to take time to review and approve the change.

--An Amstat News article would then probably be needed, taking more time and providing another opportunity to miff people by not including their perspectives in just the right way.

--Changes would be needed to the ASA website to accommodate the change.

--Etc.

For those in favor of a name change, I ask: do you think that the benefit to be sufficient to be worth asking the section leadership and the ASA Board to expend their personal time (remember-they are volunteers) to make the change?  There would also be ASA staff time involved.

As noted above, while I may not object to any of several proposed section names (including the current one), I do object to asking volunteers to spend their time on a task unless their efforts will yield a meaningful benefit to the organization.  From my perspective, the Pain/Gain ratio is way too high to bother changing the name.

Katherine Monti

Katherine's comments brings to mind another thought.  The word collaborator is generally used in the academic world.  When I started school I was at a university physics department.  The professors working on a particular experiment were often at a number of universities (especially in large experimental areas, but also in theoretical groups). These were called collaborators, as in "...the collaborators met...".

Now, having been involved in Statistics and talking to professors and looking at bios I see many of them highlighting their consulting activities, not their collaboration activities.  These include consulting outside of academia as well as consulting with other departments within a school. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THIS EMAIL: While I may not object to any of several proposed section names (including the current one), I do object to asking volunteers to spend their time on a task unless their efforts will yield a meaningful benefit to the organization.  From my perspective, the Pain/Gain ratio is way too high to bother changing the name.

DETAILS (if you care to read them):

Can I see a distinction between "consultant" and "collaborator" (even if ignoring the second definition of collaborator that was noted, "a person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy; a defector")?  Yes.

But the distinction being in or out of the Section's name matter in terms of my ASA section membership? Not a bit.

What would be the consequences of changing the name?

--Would anyone join the section who had previously been unwilling to join because of the absence of the word "collaborator" in the section name?  I doubt it.

--Has anyone ever been harmed, personally or professionally, by the absence of the word "Collaboration" in the ASA Section name? I doubt it.

--Would a significant number of people in the ASA feel substantially better about themselves or their standing in the world for being a member of the "ASA Section on Statistical Consulting and Collaboration" instead of the "ASA Section on Statistical Consulting"?  I personally don't hang my professional identity on the name of this section.  My career in no way depends on the section name.  No one would be more impressed with my CV if the section name were to change.

--Would the ASA charter need to be rewritten?  Yes.

Some may think, "So, ok, we'll just change the charter.  No big deal."  But what are consequences of trying to update an ASA section charter? 

--The Section leadership would spend a considerable amount of time discussing first the new name and then the revised wording of the charter.  Numerous rounds of emails would be exchanged and meeting time would have to be devoted to trying to get the wording just right.  When the dust finally settled, some people would be offended that their preferred wording was not accepted.

--I believe that a vote is necessary.  This takes time too, for those conducting the vote and publishing the results.

--If the name change passed, the ASA Board would then need to take time to review and approve the change.

--An Amstat News article would then probably be needed, taking more time and providing another opportunity to miff people by not including their perspectives in just the right way.

--Changes would be needed to the ASA website to accommodate the change.

--Etc.

For those in favor of a name change, I ask: do you think that the benefit to be sufficient to be worth asking the section leadership and the ASA Board to expend their personal time (remember-they are volunteers) to make the change?  There would also be ASA staff time involved.

As noted above, while I may not object to any of several proposed section names (including the current one), I do object to asking volunteers to spend their time on a task unless their efforts will yield a meaningful benefit to the organization.  From my perspective, the Pain/Gain ratio is way too high to bother changing the name.

Katherine Monti

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THIS EMAIL: While I may not object to any of several proposed section names (including the current one), I do object to asking volunteers to spend their time on a task unless their efforts will yield a meaningful benefit to the organization.  From my perspective, the Pain/Gain ratio is way too high to bother changing the name.

DETAILS (if you care to read them):

Can I see a distinction between "consultant" and "collaborator" (even if ignoring the second definition of collaborator that was noted, "a person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy; a defector")?  Yes.

But the distinction being in or out of the Section's name matter in terms of my ASA section membership? Not a bit.

What would be the consequences of changing the name?

--Would anyone join the section who had previously been unwilling to join because of the absence of the word "collaborator" in the section name?  I doubt it.

--Has anyone ever been harmed, personally or professionally, by the absence of the word "Collaboration" in the ASA Section name? I doubt it.

--Would a significant number of people in the ASA feel substantially better about themselves or their standing in the world for being a member of the "ASA Section on Statistical Consulting and Collaboration" instead of the "ASA Section on Statistical Consulting"?  I personally don't hang my professional identity on the name of this section.  My career in no way depends on the section name.  No one would be more impressed with my CV if the section name were to change.

--Would the ASA charter need to be rewritten?  Yes.

Some may think, "So, ok, we'll just change the charter.  No big deal."  But what are consequences of trying to update an ASA section charter? 

--The Section leadership would spend a considerable amount of time discussing first the new name and then the revised wording of the charter.  Numerous rounds of emails would be exchanged and meeting time would have to be devoted to trying to get the wording just right.  When the dust finally settled, some people would be offended that their preferred wording was not accepted.

--I believe that a vote is necessary.  This takes time too, for those conducting the vote and publishing the results.

--If the name change passed, the ASA Board would then need to take time to review and approve the change.

--An Amstat News article would then probably be needed, taking more time and providing another opportunity to miff people by not including their perspectives in just the right way.

--Changes would be needed to the ASA website to accommodate the change.

--Etc.

For those in favor of a name change, I ask: do you think that the benefit to be sufficient to be worth asking the section leadership and the ASA Board to expend their personal time (remember-they are volunteers) to make the change?  There would also be ASA staff time involved.

As noted above, while I may not object to any of several proposed section names (including the current one), I do object to asking volunteers to spend their time on a task unless their efforts will yield a meaningful benefit to the organization.  From my perspective, the Pain/Gain ratio is way too high to bother changing the name.

Katherine Monti

I've been following this interesting discussion and hesitate to make the thread even longer. So I'll just say that I agree with the proposal to poll the "silent majority" on this listserv before moving forward with the proposal to change the section name. Personally, I would not be in favor of a name change.

Having started my career in Academia, I understand where the sentiment for a name change is coming from, but I believe that this sentiment is a knee-jerk reaction to "statistical consulting" being (reductively) perceived as "less than" because it is usually performed for pay (or a 10% budget line on an NIH grant). Consulting in the broader sense includes serving as a resource for internal and external clients as well as peers.

Anyway, I don't want to rehash many of the fine comments posted so far, both for and against. But I did want to provide a link to the O*NET summary report for statisticians, which uses BLS data and can be accessed here: http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-2041.00. Note that "collaboration" is not specifically listed as a task or work activity; but "providing consultation and advice to others" and "coaching and developing others" are listed.

All the best,

Makram Talih

NCHS

I would like to cast my "vote" for keeping the section name the same based on the arguments presented to date. I don't see any value added by changing the name. Thanks to everyone's helpful comments.

Best regards,

Tom

Thomas M. Bohman, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
Center for Social Work Research
University of Texas at Austin
 1717 West 6th Street, Suite 335
Austin, TX 78703
bohman@austin.utexas.edu

I've been following this interesting discussion and hesitate to make the thread even longer. So I'll just say that I agree with the proposal to poll the "silent majority" on this listserv before moving forward with the proposal to change the section name. Personally, I would not be in favor of a name change.

Having started my career in Academia, I understand where the sentiment for a name change is coming from, but I believe that this sentiment is a knee-jerk reaction to "statistical consulting" being (reductively) perceived as "less than" because it is usually performed for pay (or a 10% budget line on an NIH grant). Consulting in the broader sense includes serving as a resource for internal and external clients as well as peers.

Anyway, I don't want to rehash many of the fine comments posted so far, both for and against. But I did want to provide a link to the O*NET summary report for statisticians, which uses BLS data and can be accessed here: http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-2041.00. Note that "collaboration" is not specifically listed as a task or work activity; but "providing consultation and advice to others" and "coaching and developing others" are listed.

All the best,

Makram Talih

NCHS

Matt and all,

I like collaboration, but I just see consulting as something distinct.  I see consulting as mainly as a professional field (i.e., for pay) wherein you advise others regarding, in our case, statistics, but also include internal consulting at larger organizations.  The last time I gave a talk at a conference (2013) regarding consulting, most of the interest was from people trying to be more effective professional consultants.  Of course, I wouldn't leave the group simply because of a name change, but I would worry that the particular difficulties and challenges of consulting (e.g., explaining statistics to lay people, providing effective assistance for an industry you have little or no exposure to) are different from when you are a true collaborator, and that these issues would be addressed less if we had a name change.

Take care,

Alan

Alan J. Salzberg, Ph.D.

Principal

(646) 461-6153 (office and virtual)

(917) 805-3107 (mobile)

77 Water Street, 8^th Floor

New York, New York 10005

Mailing Address:

I have a great deal of difficulty distinguishing "collaboration" from "consulting" in the context of statistical work.  It's a distinction without a difference, as the lawyers say.

Dr. Nelson R. Lipshutz

Regulatory Research Corp.

According to the Oxford Dictionary:

Consulting: engaged in the business of giving expert advice to people working in a professional or technical field

Collaboration: the action of working with someone to produce or create something

To me there is a difference, they can be linked, but not necessarily.  You can give advice and not be working jointly and vice versa.  Thus, I would support the new name as I believe it is more encompassing.

I find the proposed name change problematic.  Virtually all statisticians in academia, government, and industry collaborate in the general definition of that word (as cited by Matthew Mayo).  The purpose of ASA sections, as I understand it, is to bring together subsets of the membership with focused professional interests and activities in a particular topic or area of application.  In its general sense, collaboration is a process with nearly universal applicability, and its inclusion in the name could add more confusion than clarity about the section's purpose and mission.

If, instead, we are concerned with a specific notion of collaboration in the context of consulting, then it truly is "a distinction without a difference" and better addressed, as Stephen Simon suggests, by revising the section's overview description or mission statement than in burdening the section with a longer and potentially more confusing name.

Sincere regards,

Duane

______________________________________________________

Duane Steffey, PhD

Principal Scientist & Director, Statistical & Data Sciences

E^xponent^® | 149 Commonwealth Drive | Menlo Park, CA  94025

Office: 650-688-7262 | Mobile: 650-862-9869 | Fax: 650-326-8072

Email: dsteffey@exponent.com | Website: www.exponent.com/duane_steffey/

According to the Oxford Dictionary:

Consulting: engaged in the business of giving expert advice to people working in a professional or technical field

Collaboration: the action of working with someone to produce or create something

To me there is a difference, they can be linked, but not necessarily.  You can give advice and not be working jointly and vice versa.  Thus, I would support the new name as I believe it is more encompassing.

Collaboration vs. Consultation debate:

                (drop the "vs")

Don't force collaboration or give the appearance of trying to do so. We suffer as a community.

The field already has an "image" problem of being aloof and sending down edicts in some corners. Evidence: the most emphatic complements paid to me often involve some mention of how I'm more like [insert field], than a statistician. UG! What a back-handed complement. All I do is listen, learn, and invest. I don't tell them anything remarkably different than any other statistician would in terms of design and analysis.

Renaming the Section:

Even though I have an obvious "side" in the larger debate, I don't think that "The Section on Statistical Consulting and Collaboration" is close enough to forcing the issue to genuinely worry me. It includes both, so neither is devalued. I'd support it.

The NIH is continuing to push "Team Science"...which I think is closer to what we really need. That approach promotes mutual respect across fields without implying we should leapfrog earning each other's personal respect. Play as a team from the get-go...earn long standing collaborations.

If we were smart, we'd ask our collaborators what they think we should call them. Coke/Pepsi/Disney would not name something without studying the how of various names impacted the goals of their business models.  ...and you can BET we statisticians would be the first chastise them if they didn't!

Statisticians analyze thy selves!

J

"A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers." - Plato

Jason T. Machan, Ph.D.
Director, Lifespan Biostatistics Core,
     Lifespan Hospital System
Research Scientist, Biostatistics, Research
     Rhode Island Hospital
Associate Professor, Departments of Orthopaedics and Surgery, and Department of Molecular Pharmacology,

     Physiology, and Bioengineering, Brown University
Director Biostatistics Externship, Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Psychology
     University of Rhode Island

Grads Dorm 206a (click for map)
593 Eddy Street
Providence, RI, 02903
office: 401-444-1493
cell: 401-639-3942
fax: 401-444-8271
Request biostatistical assistance: http://www.LifespanBiostatisticsCore.org
Request research technology assistance: Click here for special research technology support
Lifespan Biostatistics REDCap (incl. new user requests): http://www.LifespanREDCap.org

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or distribute this e-mail message or its attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

According to the Oxford Dictionary:

Consulting: engaged in the business of giving expert advice to people working in a professional or technical field

Collaboration: the action of working with someone to produce or create something

To me there is a difference, they can be linked, but not necessarily.  You can give advice and not be working jointly and vice versa.  Thus, I would support the new name as I believe it is more encompassing.

Collaboration vs. Consultation debate:

                (drop the "vs")

Don't force collaboration or give the appearance of trying to do so. We suffer as a community.

The field already has an "image" problem of being aloof and sending down edicts in some corners. Evidence: the most emphatic complements paid to me often involve some mention of how I'm more like [insert field], than a statistician. UG! What a back-handed complement. All I do is listen, learn, and invest. I don't tell them anything remarkably different than any other statistician would in terms of design and analysis.

Renaming the Section:

Even though I have an obvious "side" in the larger debate, I don't think that "The Section on Statistical Consulting and Collaboration" is close enough to forcing the issue to genuinely worry me. It includes both, so neither is devalued. I'd support it.

The NIH is continuing to push "Team Science"...which I think is closer to what we really need. That approach promotes mutual respect across fields without implying we should leapfrog earning each other's personal respect. Play as a team from the get-go...earn long standing collaborations.

If we were smart, we'd ask our collaborators what they think we should call them. Coke/Pepsi/Disney would not name something without studying the how of various names impacted the goals of their business models.  ...and you can BET we statisticians would be the first chastise them if they didn't!

Statisticians analyze thy selves!

J

"A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers." - Plato

Jason T. Machan, Ph.D.
Director, Lifespan Biostatistics Core,
     Lifespan Hospital System
Research Scientist, Biostatistics, Research
     Rhode Island Hospital
Associate Professor, Departments of Orthopaedics and Surgery, and Department of Molecular Pharmacology,

     Physiology, and Bioengineering, Brown University
Director Biostatistics Externship, Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Psychology
     University of Rhode Island

Grads Dorm 206a (click for map)
593 Eddy Street
Providence, RI, 02903
office: 401-444-1493
cell: 401-639-3942
fax: 401-444-8271
Request biostatistical assistance: http://www.LifespanBiostatisticsCore.org
Request research technology assistance: Click here for special research technology support
Lifespan Biostatistics REDCap (incl. new user requests): http://www.LifespanREDCap.org

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or distribute this e-mail message or its attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

I am in total agreement with Stephen. There has to be a compelling reason for a name change. The only reasons I'm seeing are of the form "more inclusion" or "harmful to no one." I would like to know why consultants feel excluded because "collaboration" is not in the section name, and how this affects their participation in the section. With respect to "harm," Stephen adequately illustrates how changing the name consumes time and resources and creates confusion. Furthermore, filling my inbox with e-mails on collaboration that have nothing to do with solving problems involving data, communicating results, and implementing solutions is harmful to me because it wastes my time.

Consulting and collaboration are not mutually exclusive, and they are not the same thing. With respect to my membership in this section, I really have no interest in learning how people collaborate except as it relates to consulting. If I want to learn how people collaborate in other areas, I'll join another group. I am here to teach and learn about consulting. All of those supporting the name change talk about how collaboration is an important part of consulting. So is communication. Statistical Consulting, Collaboration, and Communication Section? Programming can also a useful component of consulting. Statistical Consulting, Collaboration, Communication, and Programming Section? As Stephen suggests, perhaps these observations are better left for a mission statement. Furthermore, in a consulting organization, you often have collaborative teams, where one team member might be a coder having zero social skills and poor communication skills. That person might feel excluded if you put too many defining (restrictive) terms in the section name. Consequently, "inclusion" appears to be a relative term.

To extend one of Stephen's points, in a pure Boolean sense, Statistical [Consulting] AND [Collaboration] Section suggests the intersection of consulting and collaboration, which would likely exclude at least a few current members, in particular, those one-person collaborative teams that make up many consulting organizations.

In conclusion, I do not support changing the name of the section.

Terry J. Woodfield, Ph.D.

Principal Analytical Consultant ▪ SAS Education

Tel: + 1 919 531 9639 ▪ Terry.Woodfield@sas.com

www.sas.com

Chris,

Based on the responses I have read to your email, it does not appear that many of the respondents support your proposal. I don't think that is surprising, as the basis or rationale you provided is really quite limited. Perhaps another attempt at addressing the basis for your suggestion, with a few concrete examples and incorporating feedback you have already garnered, would put the discussion in a different context.

I must also note that I find your suggestion for members to in essence not vote (I ask that you avoid making posts that add nothing beyond "I (dis)agree with x") to be quite ironic considering the election season that is upon us.

Kind regards,

Brian

Brian Fergen

Boehringer-Ingelheim Vetmedica Inc

Frankly, I would not vote for the change.  Even within various companies I have worked for the term for the senior individual contributor contains the word consultant, or consulting.  Consultants are collaborative and I believe that this name change just muddies up what is meant. 

So, I agree with Mark on this.  As Randy mentions, it is not really an issue, but I still believe it is not necessary.

I disagree with X, where X is the proposed name change.

Jesse (et al),

Short version:

Eric does not speak for all of academia. He merely is passionate about his position.

Longer version:

I'm not sure many fields would feel happy to have their expertise boiled down to the role of question answerer...particularly the MDs with whom we may want to collaborate.

If I can butcher Justice Potter Stewart famous quote to address defining collaboration: "I shall not today attempt further to define the relationship I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the post involved in this case is not that."

My points:

1)      Trying to arrive at consensus definitions of these roles may be impossible...and may not be terribly important. I'm not likely to adopt any definition with which I disagree...and none of this impacts how I work with my clients and collaborators.

2)      The tact Eric's using risks undermining his authority on the very subject OF collaboration. That's just a shame. I disagree with Eric, but I love his passion and drive.

I don't want my reaction to the delivery to cloud my judgment on the question of the section name. It seems that even the most vehement defenses of consulting generally refer to collaboration as a good thing, even better in some instances.

So, we mostly agree they are different, if not exactly how. We all seem to value collaboration. Currently collaboration isn't part of the name.

I would reiterate from my early post that I think the opinions and reactions of our clients and potential collaborators are relevant...and that I think forcing "collaboration" is neither collaborative nor likely effective. Rather it will behave as a filter, and I'm not sure we wouldn't strain out some of the world's best collaborators and endeavours.

J

"A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers." - Plato

Jason T. Machan, Ph.D.
Director, Lifespan Biostatistics Core,
     Lifespan Hospital System
Research Scientist, Biostatistics, Research
     Rhode Island Hospital
Associate Professor, Departments of Orthopaedics and Surgery, and Department of Molecular Pharmacology,

     Physiology, and Bioengineering, Brown University
Director Biostatistics Externship, Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Psychology
     University of Rhode Island

Grads Dorm 206a (click for map)
593 Eddy Street
Providence, RI, 02903
office: 401-444-1493
cell: 401-639-3942
fax: 401-444-8271
Request biostatistical assistance: http://www.LifespanBiostatisticsCore.org
Request research technology assistance: Click here for special research technology support
Lifespan Biostatistics REDCap (incl. new user requests): http://www.LifespanREDCap.org

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or distribute this e-mail message or its attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

I will not be as critical as Jesse, but equally blunt.

I am a professional Statistical Consultant, not a Statistical Collaborator. The projects in which I am involved are, more often than not, collaborative in nature, but up to this point I hadn't even thought about the distinction. I consider a collaborator as anybody that can help with some statistical aspect of the project (think a programmer), while a consultant is hired for his/her specific statistical expertise and subject knowledge. Under those parameters, I am a consultant, not a collaborator. Having said that, I couldn't care less what they call me. I am not that sensitive. Far more important is the environment in which I work and the if project is interesting and appropriately remunerated.

When people do web searches looking for statistical help, they do not search for 'Statistical Collaborators'; they search for 'Statistical Consultants'. The ASA maintains a directory of 'Consultants', not 'Collaborators'. I have occasionally obtained referrals through the directory. I doubt those would have come through if the section was called 'Statistical Collaborators' or whatever.

There's more than a few of us who make a living or supplement their income through consulting, as shown by the numerous questions posted to the group from time to time about what type of entity to set up, where to find liability or professional insurance, how to set your rates, boiler-plate contracts, and the like.

It has been pointed out that a name change will involve a lot of work and would bring little real benefit. Personally, it would hurt me and if it does come to a vote, I will vote against it. I might even reconsider my membership in the group.

Just my 0.02

Bet regards,

Carlos Alzola

calzola@verizon.net

Jesse, Thanks for sharing your concerns and feelings, which are very understandable.  They point to an issue that's larger than just the discipline of Statistics.    

Despite well-meaning goals (stated from time to time by granting agencies and in research mission statements) to break down research and departmental 'silos', there can definitely be an exclusive feel to the academic world.  Just ask a young (or not so young) aspiring academic which activities/accomplishments of theirs get weighted and valued most highly, and which are just given a polite nod, at crucial periods of tenure and promotion decisions.  

    (Disclosure:  I (eventually) entered and survived the process's hoops; but hope I bring some balance, when I'm in turn on the decision committees.)

Universities are aware that even if it was desired or desirable, there aren't enough spots for all graduates who have the requisite talent and training to find their way into the finite academic circle in their discipline.  (I feel for long-term sessional instructors with heavy teaching loads, if they also hope to get inside, who must navigate getting suitably valued accomplishments.)  I totally agree that a talented grad/practitioner outside academia should not have to feel being outside the discipline in its larger sense or a second class citizen.  

àPlease note, I'm not suggesting that anybody in this thread meant to be disrespecting in any way.  But as I say, I've experienced Jesse's perspective.

I'm happy to share that for me personally, the JSM conferences' and the ASA's strong selling point has been that they do have sessions and sections that welcome and are applicable for those who are not necessarily in or representing academia.   Jesse's letter reminds me that having a "Consulting" section is part of that broader, and inviting tent, and we should take it seriously if people feel changing the name implies taking away the invitation.  (An earlier letter-writer in this thread, also a consultant, also shared that sense that the outreaching invitation was being withdrawn.)

My sense, as I write this, is that the name change idea is emerging, in good faith, by those wanting to express an outreach for the statistical 'silo'. 

 But maybe not changing the name is even better:   If there's no silo, then there's no apologies needed for being on one side or the other.

Bill

Consulting hat:  "Decision Opportunities"

Some of the recent postings are helpful in providing insight into possible motivations for the proposed section name change.  As someone who began his postgraduate career in academia, co-founded a university consulting center, and ultimately resigned a tenured full professorship for the opportunity to lead an industrial consulting group, I understand firsthand the concerns about how such work is valued within the university.

Nonetheless I fail to see how magnifying the distinction between two essentially inseparable activities advances the cause of academic statisticians engaged in applied, multidisciplinary projects.  How many reappointment, tenure, and promotion (RTP) decisions will be affected positively when the university committee learns a candidate holds membership or office in an ASA section with collaboration, not just consulting, in its name?  None, I think.

Instead of seeking to rename the ASA section, statisticians providing consulting services at universities would be better served by

·         negotiating with clients for joint authorship on publications in subject-matter journals as non-monetary compensation for their intellectual contributions;

·         obtaining for RTP submissions testimonial letters from principal investigators who, as clients, can speak to how at the proposal stage the statistician's contributions were necessary and important to the research team's success in winning external funding;

·         documenting in RTP submissions how problems encountered in consulting have stimulated methodological or theoretical research leading to publications in peer­-reviewed statistics journals; and,

·         documenting in RTP submissions how consulting projects have generated dissertation or thesis topics for statistics graduate students working under their supervision.

The additional discussion of the proposal has reinforced my opposition out of concern the name change will be perceived as aligning the section with a personal definition of consulting as "answering a client's statistical question":  a definition that is incredibly narrow, historically inaccurate, needlessly divisive, and-to the extent it alters the perspective of prospective clients and colleagues-damaging to those recognized as consultants who work in industry, government, and academia.

______________________________________________________

Duane Steffey, PhD

Principal Scientist & Director, Statistical & Data Sciences

E^xponent^® | 149 Commonwealth Drive | Menlo Park, CA  94025

Office: 650-688-7262 | Mobile: 650-862-9869 | Fax: 650-326-8072

Email: dsteffey@exponent.com | Website: www.exponent.com/duane_steffey/

When I look back on the dozens of comments on the Section name topic, I think we are missing the primary issue. It is sort of like mathematicians getting all steamed up over carrying pi to 100 decimal places that will never be used. Isn't it true that nobody much sees the Section name but Section members? And we all know what we do-it could as well be named Section Six (the 6^th section listed on the ASA website) for all we care on the inside. So I would think the name makes not a whit of difference to our relationship in our outside-ASA consulting/collaborating. I suggest that we chalk the discussion so far up to better understanding of the nature of our work and forget all about the name.

--Bob Riffenburgh

Some of the recent postings are helpful in providing insight into possible motivations for the proposed section name change.  As someone who began his postgraduate career in academia, co-founded a university consulting center, and ultimately resigned a tenured full professorship for the opportunity to lead an industrial consulting group, I understand firsthand the concerns about how such work is valued within the university.

Nonetheless I fail to see how magnifying the distinction between two essentially inseparable activities advances the cause of academic statisticians engaged in applied, multidisciplinary projects.  How many reappointment, tenure, and promotion (RTP) decisions will be affected positively when the university committee learns a candidate holds membership or office in an ASA section with collaboration, not just consulting, in its name?  None, I think.

Instead of seeking to rename the ASA section, statisticians providing consulting services at universities would be better served by

·         negotiating with clients for joint authorship on publications in subject-matter journals as non-monetary compensation for their intellectual contributions;

·         obtaining for RTP submissions testimonial letters from principal investigators who, as clients, can speak to how at the proposal stage the statistician's contributions were necessary and important to the research team's success in winning external funding;

·         documenting in RTP submissions how problems encountered in consulting have stimulated methodological or theoretical research leading to publications in peer­-reviewed statistics journals; and,

·         documenting in RTP submissions how consulting projects have generated dissertation or thesis topics for statistics graduate students working under their supervision.

The additional discussion of the proposal has reinforced my opposition out of concern the name change will be perceived as aligning the section with a personal definition of consulting as "answering a client's statistical question":  a definition that is incredibly narrow, historically inaccurate, needlessly divisive, and-to the extent it alters the perspective of prospective clients and colleagues-damaging to those recognized as consultants who work in industry, government, and academia.

______________________________________________________

Duane Steffey, PhD

Principal Scientist & Director, Statistical & Data Sciences

E^xponent^® | 149 Commonwealth Drive | Menlo Park, CA  94025

Office: 650-688-7262 | Mobile: 650-862-9869 | Fax: 650-326-8072

Email: dsteffey@exponent.com | Website: www.exponent.com/duane_steffey/

Some of the recent postings are helpful in providing insight into possible motivations for the proposed section name change.  As someone who began his postgraduate career in academia, co-founded a university consulting center, and ultimately resigned a tenured full professorship for the opportunity to lead an industrial consulting group, I understand firsthand the concerns about how such work is valued within the university.

Nonetheless I fail to see how magnifying the distinction between two essentially inseparable activities advances the cause of academic statisticians engaged in applied, multidisciplinary projects.  How many reappointment, tenure, and promotion (RTP) decisions will be affected positively when the university committee learns a candidate holds membership or office in an ASA section with collaboration, not just consulting, in its name?  None, I think.

Instead of seeking to rename the ASA section, statisticians providing consulting services at universities would be better served by

·         negotiating with clients for joint authorship on publications in subject-matter journals as non-monetary compensation for their intellectual contributions;

·         obtaining for RTP submissions testimonial letters from principal investigators who, as clients, can speak to how at the proposal stage the statistician's contributions were necessary and important to the research team's success in winning external funding;

·         documenting in RTP submissions how problems encountered in consulting have stimulated methodological or theoretical research leading to publications in peer­-reviewed statistics journals; and,

·         documenting in RTP submissions how consulting projects have generated dissertation or thesis topics for statistics graduate students working under their supervision.

The additional discussion of the proposal has reinforced my opposition out of concern the name change will be perceived as aligning the section with a personal definition of consulting as "answering a client's statistical question":  a definition that is incredibly narrow, historically inaccurate, needlessly divisive, and-to the extent it alters the perspective of prospective clients and colleagues-damaging to those recognized as consultants who work in industry, government, and academia.

______________________________________________________

Duane Steffey, PhD

Principal Scientist & Director, Statistical & Data Sciences

E^xponent^® | 149 Commonwealth Drive | Menlo Park, CA  94025

Office: 650-688-7262 | Mobile: 650-862-9869 | Fax: 650-326-8072

Email: dsteffey@exponent.com | Website: www.exponent.com/duane_steffey/