Talk:Raven Baxter

Outdated discussions about a previous version of the article (a show's character)

Requested move The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was page moved, histories merged.  Skomorokh  08:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Raven Baxter (character) → Raven Baxter — It makes better sense for the article to be listed with out "(character)" in the title since both links redirect to each other anyway. QuasyBoy 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Comment Raven Baxter existed as an article previously, there's an extensive edit history at Raven Baxter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I think the info contained on that previous version of this article should be merged here. 70.29.211.163 (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Comment it appears this article started as a duplicate fork of that article... should send it to WP:HISTMERGE then. The "Raven Baxter" article is several months older than this one. 70.29.211.163 (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Exactly, I don't know why "(character)" was added in the first place. Raven Baxter is a name that originated in the That's So Raven series pretty much. QuasyBoy 19:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. Merge proposal I come with this proposal to merge this article into the list of characters since the character has not managed to prove notability, which mean recieving coverage by reliable secondary sources, independent from That's So Raven and related Disney media, or show impact in popular culture. Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Absolutely should be trimmed and merge. Article is primarily trivia ("Catchphrases"?).—Kww(talk) 01:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Agree completely. Overdue. Eusebeus (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Molecular biologist

An edit on March 6, 2021, removed "molecular biologist" from the lead sentence in this article. JoelleJay (talk), I would like to explain my logic as to why I am going to slightly re-word and return the concept to the lead.

I am going to return it for a few reasons:

1. Baxter was recognized by Cell as one of the "1,000 inspiring Black scientists in America." While this is the least of all the reasons I would hold with keeping "molecular biologist" in the summary of her notability, in terms of sourcing it seems that if Cell Press is down with defining her as a molecular biologist and an "inspiring...scientist," who am I to argue?
2. Baxter holds an undergraduate degree in Biology and master's degree in Cell and Molecular Biology (thesis). She has held positions as a scientific researcher (internships and jobs with Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine and AMRI (Albany Molecular Research Inc.) and also held teaching positions and teaching assistant positions at post secondary institutions. Generally speaking, I would tend to expect people holding even junior teaching positions at post-secondary institutions to claim professional status in the field they teach. (Here, I only did a quick search, but base this assertion on a combination of the Fortune "40 Under 40" Profile about her, Buffalo Rising's (digital media outlet for the city of Buffalo) "Raven the Science Maven’s “Wipe It Down” Goes Viral on YouTube,", a profile by Buffalo State, and --perhaps most importantly -- Mother Jones' article "I’m a Black Female Scientist. On My First Day of Work, a Colleague Threatened to Call the Cops on Me." where she details why she left the world of professional research and academia before moving into arenas where you might see publications in peer reviewed journals. This is backed by scholarly papers she did write, such as "“Big Ole Geeks”: A Novel Study on Black Women’s STEM Identity Formation". I also used her LinkedIn profile to clarify a bit for myself the narrative I was seeing referenced vaguely in these other sources.
3. I've actually sat here and though for a long time about what the cut-off for being identified as a certain type of expert might be; does one need a Ph.D. to be a molecular biologist, for example? Baxter certainly was doing molecular biology work professionally, as I mentioned above. Now, the types of work Baxter does and hopes to do all take a strong disciplinary grounding, and are specifically intent of strengthening biology as a discipline. If we want expertise in the people doing the work to make traditional jobs in the sciences feasible, I think it is important to acknowledge and name the disciplinary expertise(s) they hold.

That was more long-winded than I meant to be, but I did not want to come across as terse or dismissive of your thinking. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page with any questions. Oughtta Be Otters (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've only skimmed over the sources, but her current PhD involves the science of learning, so I'd definitely say she's a scientist. Bit of a greyer area if she's a currently "molecular biologist" (as opposed to she was previously), but she certainly has some background in that field. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Her PhD is in science education, which is not a scientific discipline in the same way that other humanities are not science (people with an EdD or PhD in history, for example, are not scientists). They do research, but it's not experimental scientific research. JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Oughtta Be Otters, thank you for such a detailed and friendly response! I don't intend to come off as a harsh critic of Ms. Baxter's work--I think communicating science is critical to society, and is especially critical when it reaches audiences who would otherwise not have an opportunity for engagement. I think it's perfectly reasonable to note Ms. Baxter's degrees and work experience (as you do in your edit); my objection is limited to calling her in wikivoice a "scientist", either in the text or through categories. It's important to preserve consistency within the scientist categories -- essentially all of them profile people known for the impact of their scientific research, and the vast majority are professors with PhDs (people who don't hold a PhD generally do not become notable through their research since they aren't principal investigators--they don't originate or drive the experiments leading to innovations). Now to address your specific points:

1. I would argue that the Cell Mentor blog post is not actually reliable as it seems to be based entirely around her Wikipedia page (which is where it links to, unlike the other bios which link to the person's professional academic site); it also claims she has a PhD, which she does not as far as I can tell, and her PhD will not be in STEM anyway. The blog actually doesn't call her a scientist at all in her blurb, it just says Founder, STEMbassy, and Science Communicator as Raven “the Science Maven”, STEM College Coordinator, Health Sciences Charter School. Nevertheless, I'll note that I myself have been using that list to expand the categories assigned to those scientists -- when they have a wikipedia page I look up their publications to see what their specific subdiscipline is and add the relevant categories.
2. I couldn't find any independent sources supporting that she was an assistant professor at Erie CC (it always traces back to a claim she made in an interview or in a self-published account like the Mother Jones article). I don't doubt she held a teaching position there, but it's important to note being an instructor at a community college does not require the same educational background as a university professor and rarely includes any research. It's similar to why we don't consider high school science teachers or physicians or lab technicians scientists -- their impact on science is extremely important, but they are not engaged in original experimental research themselves. I would also argue peer-reviewed research publications, being such a critical component of science, should also be necessary for the title; there is no other way to contribute to the wider scientific understanding of a subject.
3. The predominant issue I have with expanding whom we (Wikipedia) define a "scientist" is that the term carries a rather stronger meaning when coming from a news/reference source -- it implies expertise in a way that doesn't really exist when you're just considering your personal criteria for the title. When news outlets discuss specific scientists, it's overwhelmingly in the context of expert advice or new discoveries, and the people referenced in these cases are typically tenured research professors or heads of biotech research labs (a low cutoff for "expertise" is an h-index of 20). Laypeople then automatically assign authority to people the media tell them are scientists because they expect that level of expertise. The danger with this is that reporters occasionally misidentify or mischaracterize the credentials of someone, either unintentionally or as an attempt at balance. This misplaced trust can and does lead to harm -- see for example the "experts" touted by anti-vax proponents and climate change "skeptics" ( this review does a great job discussing the credentials of claims-makers, and the role of media in establishing authority--These newspapers do not merely recruit scientific experts whose authority is pre-established. As “secondary validators” they play a central role in establishing who counts as an “authorised speaker.”). JoelleJay (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

   JoelleJay, Thank you for this thoughtful response. I have both loved and been frustrated with Cell's list -- I get to know lots of new scientists but the links are not terribly helpful with writing individuals into Wikipedia/expanding stubs. I will admit that for me, it is much more about the research and forethought that The Community of Scholars put into building the list than the links therein.

   I particularly adored your #3: In my field, we teach that "authority is constructed and contextual," and I spend a lot of time trying to "parse" expertise and teach students to do the same. I appreciate very much your explanation of muddying waters, category-wise, and will have to consider deeply. It has also become painfully obvious to me how hard it is to prove notability for certain individuals within the Wikipedia context, even when it is very much earned.

   Thank you for sharing your thoughts generously, and for all the work you do. Oughtta Be Otters (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Oughtta Be Otters, thank you so much for the kind words! I absolutely agree the positive societal impact of a lot of people, particularly from underrepresented groups, is unfortunately decoupled from the criteria Wikipedia uses for notability. Without strong media coverage, we just cannot capture the keystone effect of merely being visible as a minority STEM researcher. One of my earliest heroes was Mae Jemison, who was the subject of my 4th grade WASL test -- it was really inspiring as a 9-year-old (and to me now, of course) to hear about a woman (never mind a Black woman!) who was an MD, an engineer, and an astronaut. The reason she stood out so much to me that I still remember that question almost 20 years later was because I had never even considered the possibility someone like me could achieve so much in multiple STEM fields. I just didn't have any female engineering or multi-disciplinary role models until then. I think this was a symptom of (minority) women not being normalized within the public's perception of academia, which is still a very real problem that probably can only be solved with better representation in both hiring and news media depictions/reporting of academics. JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Oughtta Be Otters and JoelleJay

I greatly appreciate your discussion of what a professional scientist is and how credentialism and educational inflation happen. I hope you don't mind me hopping in here as someone who is both a biology professor with many journal articles, who works with citizen scientists accumulating local expert knowledge, and also, who has collaborated with a professor in social history on the ways that women practiced as biologists in the 19th century while they were excluded from holding professional scientist (academic) jobs.

It's my view that Ms. Baxter's experience in the pharma industry is part of the practice of a professional scientist, as per my note to JoelleJay Festucarubra (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC):

Raven the Science Maven page

Hello! Hoping you are keeping safe and well.

I note that you edited out the reference to Ms. Baxter being a scientist, due in part, to her not having any peer-reviewed publications: "No indication she is a scientist or engineer (no research publications, work appears exclusively educational/science comm, PhD study is in humanities)."

Nevertheless, I would draw your attention to the SUNY Buffalo article that states how prior to her starting a doctorate in education, she worked as a research scientist: "Becoming a scientist in the community Prior to becoming a STEM educator, Baxter worked as a corporate cancer research scientist in the pharmaceutical industry. But after learning that the only other African Americans working at her office were security guards and custodians, she decided to shift her career toward pushing more people of color toward STEM fields."

Which is to say that there is more than one way to practice as a professional scientist, and Ms. Baxter evidently did so. I hope that you will reverse or amend your edit to reflect this. best wishes Festucarubra (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Further commentary moved from user talk page:

Hello!
Hoping you are keeping safe and well.

I note that you edited out the reference to Ms. Baxter being a scientist, due in part, to her not having any peer-reviewed publications:

"No indication she is a scientist or engineer (no research publications, work appears exclusively educational/science comm, PhD study is in humanities)."

Nevertheless, I would draw your attention to the SUNY Buffalo article that states how prior to her starting a doctorate in education, she worked as a research scientist: "Becoming a scientist in the community
Prior to becoming a STEM educator, Baxter worked as a corporate cancer research scientist in the pharmaceutical industry. But after learning that the only other African Americans working at her office were security guards and custodians, she decided to shift her career toward pushing more people of color toward STEM fields."

Which is to say that there is more than one way to practice as a professional scientist, and Ms. Baxter evidently did so.
I hope that you will reverse or amend your edit to reflect this.

best wishes Festucarubra (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Festucarubra, I agree that she worked briefly as a scientist, which should definitely be reflected on the page (please also see the nice discussion I had with another editor on the talk page). However, I think it isn't appropriate to say that she is currently a scientist as that implies she is either doing research now or had a long-established career as a researcher. Categories should reflect what a subject is known for, and she is not known for her contributions in molecular biology (nor is that her occupation) -- I think it's helpful to look at the professional work of the vast majority of people categorized as molecular biologists. So, I think it is most appropriate to highlight the amazing work she has done in communicating science and expanding access to education instead. Thank you, and hope you're well too! JoelleJay (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear JoelleJay, I totally agree with you!!!! And I did see your conversation AFTER I sent this note. And you ma y have seen that too. Thanks and take care. Festucarubra (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Publications?

Some edit comments have claimed she has published peer-reviewed research in journals, however I have not found anything on Scopus and just an abstract for a conference presentation on Google Scholar. Do PhD candidates in education typically even publish in journals, or is their academic output more in conference proceedings (à la CS) or books? JoelleJay (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Raven mentioned on Twitter in March 2021 that there were no published papers at that time. This is not surprising given a background as a scientist in industry, where tangible outputs are considered more important than research papers. This is also not surprising given that recent work has involved completing a PhD thesis, which tends to suck up quite a lot of research and writing time. gringer (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Well generally a dissertation is accompanied by research publications, but I'm only familiar with STEM PhD tracks so it's perfectly plausible those in education aren't paper-heavy. I was hoping to add a publications section but we can just wait until that happens. I wouldn't have expected her to have any scientific papers in the first place since that's not a requirement for a master's and her pharma position (research scientist I) was a purely assistant role so she would not have been planning or running experiments herself (senior research scientists are the ones designing and running/overseeing the experiments -- if a lead drug was discovered they would be the paper authors). I could totally see her writing a book or contributing to curriculum design or a textbook though. JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not a PhD is accompanied by research publications is dependent on both the subject area of research and the university at which that research is done (or more specifically, the supervisor). gringer (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, Gringer, the "background in molecular biology" wording is distinct from "molecular biologist", the latter implying that she works as a biologist and that she is known for that work. A "research scientist I" is a purely entry-level support position tasked with assisting senior scientists in reagent prep, running routine assays, glassware cleaning, inventory, etc. -- very integral to research but also very different from what the rest of the people who are categorized as "molecular biologists" on wikipedia do/did. The discussion with Festucarubra and Oughtta Be Otters was quite productive, and one of the end results was our agreement "background in..." was a more appropriate descriptor of her work. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you are substantially underestimating Raven's abilities and work, both current and past. Raven's Science Communication videos (e.g. on melanin and immunology) demonstrate a high level of understanding of the subject area, and the very obvious title of "Doctor" adds substantial credibility to that. This is what Raven is known for; without science, there wouldn't be a Science Maven. gringer (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Gringer, I am certainly not arguing Dr. Baxter lacks in scientific understanding, since we have no evidence that she does or doesn't (the videos you link are for lay-people (high school level) so definitely do not go into the level of detail that would demonstrate expertise). Her doctorate is in education, not scientific research; it is actually really important that we don't ascribe authority to everyone who calls themselves a scientist and/or has a PhD (especially a non-science one). Her work is AWESOME for communicating general biology topics and is particularly important for engaging underserved minority populations. But she is not a scientific expert, nor does she purport to be, nor is she consulted as an expert on scientific issues. Her expertise is in science outreach and education, which is what she earns a living doing, what she excels at, and what she is known for. It's a disservice to our readers to call people scientists (=ascribe scientific authority) who have not done independent research, don't work as scientists, and have not even published. JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Gringer, JoelleJay is correct here; there is an important distinction between science communicator, which we all agree Baxter indisputably is, and a scientist. Based off of the material that Joelle provided, it seems more like Baxter's in the classification of science communicator (and possible "scientist-in-training") than a full-fledged scientist.

Over the next several months or years, it may become more appropriate for Baxter to be labelled as a molecular biologist or scientist or whatever, but at this current moment and based off of what is provided in these threads, I see no cause for the labelling to be "scientist". Remember, there is no deadline. Curbon7 (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Baxter has done independent research, as evidenced by the PhD qualification. Raven's expertise is in teaching scientists, which requires, as a prerequisite, expertise in being a scientist. gringer (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Gringer, PhD work is not independent research, and anyway she did not do scientific research for her PhD so it's irrelevant. She earned her doctorate studying "Culturally Responsive Science Communication: The Messengers, Messages, and Voices in Communicating Science through Hip-Hop"; I don't know where you are getting that she "teaches scientists". She once worked a bit over a year as a Research Scientist I (again, an entry-level job, behind RS II, RS III, and senior RS positions) and has taught intro biology courses at a community college. Neither of these supports calling her a scientist, especially when she is not known whatsoever for her contributions to science. And one definitely does not need to be a scientist to teach science... JoelleJay (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

PhD work *is* independent research. Wikipedia even declares that: Because it is an earned research degree, those studying for a PhD are required to produce original research that expands the boundaries of knowledge, normally in the form of a thesis or dissertation, and defend their work against experts in the field. The teaching science bit is from [www.scimaven.com/about]: ... that teaches and empowers those in STEM and beyond. Raven taught, and still teaches students. The antibody song was specifically written to provide a "... former student... help with their biology final exam" (see here). gringer (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That says PhD work is original research, not independent. PhD candidates are supervised by PIs/mentors (as are post-docs), they are not conducting these studies on their own. And again, her research was in science communication, not science. How is it relevant that the antibody song, which is again at an introductory level, was made for a former student? I am not disputing that she has taught students, although there are better refs for that than her own website. But teaching science != being a scientist and does not require having ever been a scientist -- surely we wouldn't consider every middle school earth science teacher a geologist? Anyone who has read Campbell for AP bio could make the same video (I'm thinking of the nice diagram they have of molecular patterns involved TLR signaling), so it is not a good indicator one way or the other of her expertise in the area and certainly doesn't require novel research in immunology. I see you have a PhD in what seems to be population genetics -- would you agree a much better indicator of expertise (but far, far less entertaining...) would be a rap on, like, troubleshooting phase errors by fiddling with [insert favorite SNP-calling algorithm] assumptions? Or how to determine the filtering parameters for your bootstrap sub-sampling method to get the most consistent associations? JoelleJay (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

PhD research is the ultimate demonstration of independent research: people write a book about their own opinion on an area of research that expands the boundaries of knowledge. I find it unbelievable that someone could claim otherwise. The overwhelming majority of other research that all scientists carry out is done in conjunction with other people. peer-reviewed research is explicitly published with the help of other people. It doesn't make sense to claim on the one hand that Dr. Baxter is not a scientist because there is no peer-reviewed published research, and on the other hand claim that Dr. Baxter is not a scientist because a thesis is not independent enough. You are underestimating the expertise and understanding that Dr. Baxter has. This is a molecular biologist who has enough expertise and understanding that they are able to explain core concepts of immunology to a university student in under a minute, turn it into a rap music video, and present it in a way that it gets exposed to millions of people. I have had immense trouble myself in doing any one of those things; they are, individually, difficult things to do... and Dr. Baxter has made a career out of combining it all together. gringer (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

And to respond to your readding the scientist label, the only independent source calling her a biologist is the medika one, which is of unknown reliability. Source #1 (primary, not independent) is her MS thesis -- nowhere does it call her a biologist. #3 (not independent) does not call her a biologist, and in fact states she stopped pursuing a career in science and chose to switch to science education. #4 (not independent) does not call her a scientist and instead repeatedly references her teaching and science communication activities. #5 (YT video, not independent) is specifically focused on her work in science communication, not her as a scientist. #6 is the MJ article written by Baxter herself (primary, not independent) and can be interpreted as PROMO. #10 is the (IRS) Fortune blurb, which again does not call her a scientist. #11 (primary, not independent) is the link to her spotify, which is UGC and not a reliable source. #12 is a Tweet and is definitely not RS. #13 is a promo blurb from her school (not independent) with descriptors taken directly from her website at the time (including the weird professional title of "molecular scientist", which isn't a thing except on job search engines...). #15 & 16 are tweets that do not call her a scientist.

Right now there are two earlier conversations that came to the consensus not to call her a biologist, and this current discussion where a fourth editor has agreed she should not be labeled a scientist. The lead should be reverted to the status quo until an agreement is reached. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

All references I referred to (in the order presented at the time I made that edit) label Dr. Baxter explicitly as a molecular biologist, scientist, or describe independent research that has been carried out. To declare Dr. Baxter as anything other than a scientist in the light of overwhelming supporting references demonstrates a strong bias that is very likely to cloud judgement in other matters of social and scientific importance. gringer (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

gringer, JoelleJay beat me to the revert, so what I was going to say was that (per WP:CITELEAD) citations are not preferred in the lede so long as the material in question is properly cited later in the article, which it is. Curbon7 (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I can only presume the references were put there directly in the lede to support the scientist label, because it didn't seem like having overwhelming support within the references in the article is enough. gringer (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)