Watch (or listen to) @katrosenfield Blogginghead some more Feminine Chaos!https://youtu.be/NSSV0I8g560
This is true but we also couldn't have submitted a piece on socially constructed identity categories in relation to power dynamics to an economics journal any more than someone can submit an article on economics to an identity studies journal. They have very specific scopes.
-
-
I get that, but the question is whether economics journals have similarly low standards for economics papers, because if that's the case, then the problem might be with all journals, rather than there being a specific issue in the grievance studies departments.
-
That is *a* question but it's a different one. Answering it would require some kind of metastudy in which people with expertise in different fields would need to address the specific problems of that field & then this could somehow be measured & compared. Not sure how useful.
-
We are not arguing there is a problem in peer review within grievance studies fields in which papers that don't measure up to the standards of evidence for peer review get through anyway. That could be compared between fields which similar standards of evidence for peer review
-
On the contrary, we think grievance studies peer review works just fine and its passing things through precisely on the criteria it has set for peer review. You can see this in reviewer comments. We are criticising what that criteria actually is.
-
Therefore we submitted papers to a wide range of disciplines which pass papers through on very specific criteria which we outlned in our explanation in Areo in order to show they were doing that and draw attention to the problem.
-
Other fields can certainly have problems.Someone just submitted a paper to us looking at problems within journals which publish medical research claiming that the study design doesn't always meet the required standards for testing paediatric medication.This is a different problem
-
They could test this by sending research which falls short of this to a number of them and showing that this happens. They couldn't send it to a gender studies journal. Nor would it make any sense to do that because the problem of misleading medical data is not comparable.
-
Nor would it be reasonable to criticise them for focusing solely on potentially dangerous medicine rather than extending their critique to radical constructivism in identity studies. They're medical scientists. They're allowed to worry about their own field.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If economics has a problem with knowledge production, it will be a different one to the very specific epistemological and ethical issues we are addressing in relation to grievance studies. People with knowledge of economics would need to address it. We don't have that knowledge.
-
I agree! I think you should talk to them! Also, THEY think you should talk to them!
@tweetertation@katrosenfieldhttps://youtu.be/NSSV0I8g560?t=4347 …
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.