Thanks Merlin. I’d love to see his method used specifically on the dog paper (or any of the other Sokal square papers )
It is very possible to focus on a single problem which you know about and/or which affects you without asserting that there are no other problems in the world. In academia people do specialise & it is not at all suspicious if they address problems in one field and not every field
-
-
I don't have any particular sympathies to the academic or political tendencies you critique, btw. As an outsider, tho, you look like you're imagining a bigger target than you're hitting.
-
Where? What did we say that made you come to this conclusion?
-
Putting aside the debates about how you arrive at your assessments, the tendencies you guys decry are a much smaller enclave of the university than you think, and more importantly, that ppl reading your work will be lead to believe.
-
Show this, then. I've spent several years documenting with evidence what I am worried about.
-
Sure. Here's a more superficial one, but the impact factors of the journals you cite are all under <5. Gender, Place, and Culture has a 1.0something. They may have high within-field influence (for argument's sake), but university or humanities-wide? Not so.
-
That would only be a good argument if we'd claimed the problem to be within the whole university or humanities and not been very clear that we are not saying that.I asked for evidence we that we are saying it is a bigger problem, not stuff consistent with us saying it is specific
-
Gender, Place and Culture is the top feminist geography journal. We have been very clear that we are not criticising the field of geography but subdisciplines which approach it from a grievance studies perspective.pic.twitter.com/yBwc18RrBS
-
Why are you so determined to have a problem with our project when I have shown you evidence to answer all your concerns? It feels as though you want this to be bad somehow, even tho you have said you don't have sympathies with this kind of scholarship.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
That's fair (you critique what you know). But then why jump from that to broad-brush critiques of university culture (which you do in that essay you linked)?
-
You take an enclave - forget how fair or unfair the critique is - and make it a synecdoche of the humanities. I think that's why your critique rubbed me the wrong way. It uses a case to make a generalization about humanistic/soc. sci inquiry, which is vast and variegated.
-
No, we don't. PLEASE read the explanation if you want to address what we actually said. It specifically said that this does not represent the whole field of humanities and that we were afraid people would use it to claim that and asked them not to.
-
Even Mother Jones supported us because we did not cast too wide a net and because we urged other people not to. https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/10/cultural-studies-is-the-target-of-another-hoax-and-this-one-stings/ …pic.twitter.com/yJl4TESKdm
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.