It's the field of epistemology which we have expertise in. We support people with other expertise finding other problems with knowledge production in their fields - eg the current debate about whether fat has been unfairly linked to disease in service of the sugar industry.
-
-
LOL, I'm not so determined. Like you say, I don't have a dog in this. But big-picture, my greatest concern is collateral damage to public perception of hum/soc sci inquiry (writ large), esp. by conservatives who are attacking the institution with a new vengeance.
-
What would be the right way to address the problem we see? Should we not address it at all? How can it be fixed? Do you not think refusing to acknowledge a problem in our own fields and own political side can only weaken credibility of fields and left?
-
My own way is to instantiate critique by doing the scholarship in what you consider the right way and win over converts to your paradigm and way of approaching things. Ultimately, academic influence is about persuasion.
-
Don't you think we tried that!? I was told I was problematic and would have failed if I didn't produce what was wanted. One of us is forbidden from raising the issue in academia at all. We couldn't get published. We have still addressed it directly outside the academy.
-
Like I said, and like Kuhn observed, paradigms are more often than not hardened, intractable, and maintained by stubborn gatekeepers. (What's new?) But the academy is large enough now that you can be rejected by one quadrant and accepted by another.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
BTW, geography is a tiny field in the U.S. Most unis don't even have a geography department anymore. I teach at an R1, and we don't have one, much less a feminist geography wing. ;)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A lot of these scholars struggle to get topics like racism taken seriously by the traditional disciplines and the academy at large. You just made life a lot harder for them, even if that was not your intent.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The vast majority of scholars working on these topics are serious and sober people who substantiate their arguments with careful evidence: archival research, longitidunal data analysis, biomarker assessments of people suffering racism, interviews, and so forth.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And whatever your own intentions -- let's assume they're good faith -- you're naive to believe this won't be misappropriated by conservative politicos or the WSJ. That's not your fault, obviously, but again, naive to think it wont' happen.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes, you have hedging language at the start that tries to say you're not making a blanket characterization. But then you have assertions where you claim this stuff is "corrupting scholarship in the social sciences and humanities." That suggests wider influence than exists.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.