I teach many, many statistics classes. In addition to the core topics typically covered in Introductory Statistics, I think covering real-life controversies involving statistics is vital. Usually, these are stories of large organizations that attempted to bias/PR attack/skew/p-hack/cherry-pick data to serve their own purposes.  I believe that these examples serve to show why data literacy is so critical because data is used in so many fields, AND our students must prepare themselves to evaluate data-based claims throughout their lives. I put out a call on Twitter , and my friends there helped me generate a great list of such controversies. I put this list into a spreadsheet with links to primers on each topic. This isn't an in-depth study of any of these topics, but the links should get you going in the right direction if you would like to use them in class. I hope this helps my fellow stats teachers integrate more applied examples into their classes. If you h...

This example gets students thinking about how we operationalize variables. Psychologists operationalize a lot of abstract stuff. Intelligence. Grit. But what about something that seems more firmly grounded and countable, like whether or not a crime meets the criteria for a a mass shooting? How do we define mass shooting? As shared in this article by Chris Wilson for Time Magazine , the official definition is 1) three or more people 2) killed in a public setting. That is per the current federal definition of a mass shooting . But that isn't universally excepted by media outlets. The article shares different metrics used for identifying a mass shooting, depending on what source is being used. Whether or not to include a dead shooter towards the total number killed. Whether or not the victims were randomly selected. I think the most glaring example from the article has to do with the difference that this definition makes on mass shooting counts: You could also discuss wi...

This article from The Washington Post summarizes research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association . Both are simple, short articles that show how you can use regression to make an argument. Here, the authors use regression to demonstrate the paucity of funding and publications for research studying gun-related deaths. A regression line was generated to predict how much money was spent studying common causes of death in the US. Visually, we can see that deaths by firearms aren't receiving funding proportional to the number of deaths they cause. See the graph below. How to use in class: 1) How is funding meted out by our government to better understand the problems that plague our country? Well, it isn't being given to researchers studying gun violence because of the Dickey Amendment . I grew up in a very hunting friendly/gun-friendly part of Pennsylvania. I've been to the shooting range. And it upsets me that we can't better understand and stu...

Organizations have frequently tried to shut down/manipulate data for their own ends. Big tobacco and lung cancer and addiction research . The National Football League and Chronic Traumatic Encephaly . And for the last 20 years, the National Rifle Association has successfully blocked funding for research investigating public safety and gun ownership. Essentially, the NRA has concentrated on eliminating funding at the CDC for research related to a better understanding of how guns hurt people. It started in 1996 with the Dickey Amendment and no one has been willing to fight to bring back funding. The APA wrote a piece on this in 2013 that summarizes the issue. In the wake of the shooting in Orlando, NPR did a story explaining how the American Medical Association is trying to change the rules governing gun research  and  the L.A. times published this column . I think this precedence is unfortunate from both sides of the gun debate. I grew up in rural Pennsylvania. I've...

The Colbert Report's take on Kyle Copland's research studying whether or not gun ownership lowers crimes. Copland's method? Handing out free .22s in high crime areas (to folks that pass a background check and take a gun safety course). from ColbertNation.com This applies more to a research methods class (Colbert expresses a need for a control group in Copland's research. His suggestion? Sugar guns as well as a second experimental condition in which EVERYONE is given a gun). However, I imagine that you could show your students this video and pause it before they introduce the research project and ask your students how we could finally answer this question of whether or not gun ownership lowers crimes. Thanks to Chelsea for pointing this out!