Recent discussions of this issue have apparently finally produced a direct witness to Dr. John Lott's 1997 survey on defensive gun use! Professor James Lindgren writes that he has completed a "long substantive interview" with a person who was apparently a respondent in the 1997 survey. Professor Lindgren found the respondent's account "credible," and plans to issue an updated report within days concluding that the 1997 survey likely occurred.
Professor Lindgren concludes, "The inquiry, though necessary painful, was basically successful--and better, I think, than the even messier alternative. Suspicions about whether Lott ever did the 1997 study have been hanging around for over 3 years. If we hadn't had this effort, the suspicions that he had entirely fabricated a study would still be hanging over him."
Supporters of gun rights - and supporters of free academic inquiry - should breathe a sigh of deep relief today. Dr. Lott has done some of the most important scholarly work on fireams-related issues, and we are truly grateful to him for looking hard at empirical questions about firearms and violence from which too many other academics have shrunk.
I'll link to Prof. Lingren's updated report when it becomes available. Julian has a few additional details.
UPDATE: Curiouser and curiouser. Dr. Lott has apparently conceded that he has been posting comments in defense of his work to websites and newsgroups for some time under an online pseudonym, Mary Rosh. "Mary Rosh" even reviewed Dr. Lott's own book on Amazon. Bloggers including myself have received recent personal emails from "Mary," who has at times claimed to be a former student of Lott's. Let's just hope the credible witness James Lindgren spoke to is on the up and up, and this story is about over.
UPDATE II: James Lingren's January 17th updates to his report are now available online, and are less "positive" than some - including myself - had anticipated. Rather than concluding that Dr. Lott did likely conduct the 1997 survey (as I predicted above), he chose to withold judgment and encourage further investigation of the matter. He also expressed ocncerns about Dr. Lott's changing stories with respect to their conversations. Here are a few of Professor Lindgren's newer remarks:
"I think it prudent to withhold judgment on the question whether the 1997 study was done until an email inquiry of University of Chicago students has been done and its results are known. I hope that John Lott and the University of Chicago Press will join in encouraging the administration of the University of Chicago to conduct or coordinate the appropriate email inquiry. Further, I think it advisable that Lott examine the University of Chicago undergraduate picture book for the classes of 1997 and 1998, if such a book exists. Perhaps a few names or faces might seem familiar and be worth contacting.
I remain hopeful that University of Chicago undergraduates will come forward with a credible story about hours of phone calling in January 1997. Everyone would be enormously relieved were that to occur. If no one does come forward, Lott has done his career a great disservice this January by changing his story in so many ways. Although most of these changes are small ones, the fact that he would make them at this worst possible time is profoundly disappointing to those of us who would like to think the best of him. As it stands now, unless someone comes forward to verify working on the study--as I still hope occurs--we may never know with any certainty whether the 1997 study was done."
Of course, Professor Lingren authored this update several days before recent revelations regarding Dr. Lott's alternative net identity. I guess we'll sit tight and wait for further word from Lingren.
Posted by Marie Gryphon on January 21, 2003Marie,
Both in private and in the public newsgroups I've had these notes from a Mary Rosh quoting you on your quoting John Lott. Conclusively.
It turns out that "Mary Rosh" is John Lott.
The guy is skulking around pretending to be his own fan club, statistical arbitrator, marching band and chowder society.
Not my idea of an impartial academic.
Apparently it's true, David. Dr. Lott has actually conceded to Julian Sanchez that he has been posting defenses of himself under a pseudonym. Defending yourself under a faux net identity - though a rather juvenile move - obviously doesn't rise to the level of academic dishonesty, so let's hope that Lindgren's credible witness is on the up and up, and this story is about over.
Posted by: Marie on January 22, 2003 10:10 AMI don't know, I consider it fairly dishonest to pretend to be your own student. Especially since Lott used this "Mary Rosh" persona to relate facts and opinions about Lott meant to sway people into believing that he is honest. When you lie to try to get people to believe you, even if you're not lying about the thing you're trying to get them to believe you about, that seems like a good reason to view you as dishonest. That's what Lott did, and it was wrong.
Posted by: Amy Phillips on January 22, 2003 2:19 PMAlthough trivial in the broader scheme of things, Lott's Amazon review might prove his undoing. There's no doubt that this is academic dishonesty - it's like writing a reference for yourself.
I'm particularly annoyed because I put up a post yesterday accepting Lindgren's judgement. I imagine Lindgren must feel even more annoyed.
Posted by: John Quiggin on January 22, 2003 8:04 PMI somewhat doubt that. It may look like a grand plan for covert deception from this side of things, but that's hardly in character for someone of such status who gets no shortage of opportunity to express himself in major media outlets and a greater amount of positive attention from other high-profile personalities. To me (if I try to imagine myself in his shoes) it looks like he engaged in fairly routine online-second-identity to blow off some steam in online forums where there are no rules (or rules that are easily and freely broken by many) without getting bogged down under his own name, and quickly made up the bit about being his own student when Mary was asked how she knew so much. The Amazon review strikes me as a small prank/in-joke. To write your own review in a major publication would be quite fraudulent, but to add your own review to Amazon when there's already countless glowing reviews seems more like the product of a beer too many after a hard day. There's egg on his face to be sure, but it ain't no ostrich egg.
Posted by: Pepe on January 22, 2003 10:29 PMJust to be clear. My Jan. 17th report you quote from above is where things stood before David Gross came forward to say that he believed he had been surveyed by Lott. Further, any headline saying that I exonerated Lott went a bit farther than I did; I thought and still do (as does Tim Lambert) that it is more likely than not that Gross was surveyed by one of Lott's students in 1997. My posting on Monday night (reprinted on Tim Lambert's list) also emphasized that there were still serious concerns about the 1997 study and Lott's account, even if it appears that the study was done.
As to Gross's pro-gun rights views and attachments to Lott's views on guns, that was clear from Gross's original post to FireArmsRegProf to which my Monday posting was responding. As both I and Tim Lambert make clear on his website today, we were aware of that to a substantial degree, though we should have anticipated that, without mentioning it, others who had not read Gross's posting (or who were unfamiliar with the names he mentioned) might not have understood how obvious his pro-gun orientation was from the moment he came forward.
Posted by: James Lindgren on January 23, 2003 5:00 PM