I want to add an addendum to this thread from the other day to show why publishing an n=1 is so bad. It's because I can likely identify and put a name to this student.

(I'm not going to do that here but I am going to show you how easy it is.)

To do that, let's talk about the IPEDS data set. IPEDS is a US database that contains a range of information about US universities, such as enrollment, test scores, graduation rates, etc.

One notable data table shows graduated students by major and ethnicity.
(FYI, here is the IPEDS data: https://t.co/K4OwsyLLsE It's an open database so you can explore at your leisure.)
Back to the "Completions" table which shows ethnicity by major. This happens to line up with the n=1 from the offending article which identified a student by their ethnicity and major.
Sorry, the n=1 was year in school and ethnicity but I've now used the IPEDS data to find out their major. Linking datasets on minority populations is very very powerful.
At this point, I can do a little digging either by department "happy graduation" announcements or even the graduation program to winnow the list down to all of the majors for that degree for the year. Now it's a matter of figuring out which minority student is the n=1.
This may not be foolproof to get me the exact name of the student, but using only publicly available data I've gotten *really* close to identifying them.
Again, I'm not actually doing this to identify that n=1 student but rather I want to show you how easily it can be done. Give me 30 minutes and I will have a list of potential names, and if one name is not "white" I might actually have THE name.
This is the danger of publishing n=1. I CAN IDENTIFY THAT STUDENT FROM PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA. It's not that hard.
All that tells me is that they were in the study, not actually what they did at the library.

BUT it also tells me that you don't care enough to protect the identities of your minority students.
And it tells me that the journal and peer reviewers don't know enough about de-identification and re-identification to prevent a paper with n=1 to be published.
So if you were curious in my thread from the other day about why n=1 is so bad, this is why. I have enough information to identify a student in the study by name.
I would really really like this to be the last time I have to write a thread like this or do an exercise to potentially identify a student who in NO WAY deserves to be identified just because they use the library.
So let's never published n=1 ever again. Basically, if your n's are under 10, you should see a red flag and either group small n's together or obscure the data in some way (e.g. "n<20").
I'll end with the fact that none of this is okay. In any field but especially in a field that is supposed to protect patron's privacy. We need to do better. All of us. Researchers, writers, reviewers, editors, etc. to make sure this doesn't happen again.
And finally, thanks to @hedgielib and @IandPangurBan who suggested I add this information on exactly how easy it is to identify someone by name in a published example of n=1.

More from Society

This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.

You May Also Like

दधीचि ऋषि को मनाही थी कि वह अश्विनी कुमारों को किसी भी अवस्था में ब्रह्मविद्या का उपदेश नहीं दें। ये आदेश देवराज इन्द्र का था।वह नहीं चाहते थे कि उनके सिंहासन को प्रत्यक्ष या परोक्ष रुप से कोई भी खतरा हो।मगर जब अश्विनी कुमारों ने सहृदय प्रार्थना की तो महर्षि सहर्ष मान गए।


और उन्होनें ब्रह्मविद्या का ज्ञान अश्विनि कुमारों को दे दिया। गुप्तचरों के माध्यम से जब खबर इन्द्रदेव तक पहुंची तो वे क्रोध में खड़ग ले कर गए और महर्षि दधीचि का सर धड़ से अलग कर दिया।मगर अश्विनी कुमार भी कहां चुप बैठने वाले थे।उन्होने तुरंत एक अश्व का सिर महर्षि के धड़ पे...


...प्रत्यारोपित कर उन्हें जीवित रख लिया।उस दिन के पश्चात महर्षि दधीचि अश्वशिरा भी कहलाए जाने लगे।अब आगे सुनिये की किस प्रकार महर्षि दधीचि का सर काटने वाले इन्द्र कैसे अपनी रक्षा हेतु उनके आगे गिड़गिड़ाए ।

एक बार देवराज इन्द्र अपनी सभा में बैठे थे, तो उन्हे खुद पर अभिमान हो आया।


वे सोचने लगे कि हम तीनों लोकों के स्वामी हैं। ब्राह्मण हमें यज्ञ में आहुति देते हैं और हमारी उपासना करते हैं। फिर हम सामान्य ब्राह्मण बृहस्पति से क्यों डरते हैं ?उनके आने पर क्यों खड़े हो जाते हैं?वे तो हमारी जीविका से पलते हैं। देवर्षि बृहस्पति देवताओं के गुरु थे।

अभिमान के कारण ऋषि बृहस्पति के पधारने पर न तो इन्द्र ही खड़े हुए और न ही अन्य देवों को खड़े होने दिया।देवगुरु बृहस्पति इन्द्र का ये कठोर दुर्व्यवहार देख कर चुप चाप वहां से लौट गए।कुछ देर पश्चात जब देवराज का मद उतरा तो उन्हे अपनी गलती का एहसास हुआ।
Хајде да направимо мали осврт на случај Мика Алексић .

Алексић је жртва енглеске освете преко Оливере Иванчић .
Мика је одбио да снима филм о блаћењу Срба и мењању историје Срба , иза целокупног пројекта стоји дипломатски кор Британаца у Београду и Оливера Иванчић


Оливера Илинчић је иначе мајка једне од његових ученица .
Која је претила да ће се осветити .

Мика се налази у притвору због наводних оптужби глумице Милене Радуловић да ју је наводно силовао човек од 70 година , са три бајпаса и извађеном простатом пре пет година

Иста персона је и обезбедила финансије за филм преко Беча а филм је требао да се бави животом Десанке Максимовић .
А сетите се и ко је иницирао да се Десанка Максимовић избаци из уџбеника и школства у Србији .

И тако уместо романсиране верзије Десанке Максимовић утицај Британаца

У Србији стави на пиједестал и да се Британци у Србији позитивно афирмишу како би се на тај начин усмерила будућност али и мењао ток историје .
Зато Мика са гнушањем и поносно одбија да снима такав филм тада и почиње хајка и претње која потиче из британских дипломатских кругова

Најгоре од свега што је то Мика Алексић изговорио у присуству високих дипломатских представника , а одговор је био да се све неће на томе завршити и да ће га то скупо коштати .
Нашта им је Мика рекао да је он свој живот проживео и да могу да му раде шта хоће и силно их извређао