Watch (or listen to) @katrosenfield Blogginghead some more Feminine Chaos!https://youtu.be/NSSV0I8g560
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @tweetertation @katrosenfield
re: Grievance Studies hoax I agree that it would have been more convincing if the
@ConceptualJames,@HPluckrose and@peterboghossian had also demonstrated that other academic departments didn't have this problem, but...https://youtu.be/NSSV0I8g560?t=4199 …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @agoonforhire @tweetertation and
... realistically, there's no way they could have done that. Even if they had attempted the same thing with the economics journals, it would immediately (and reasonably) be suggested that they might have a political motivation to not try as hard with the other departments.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @agoonforhire @tweetertation and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @tweetertation and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @agoonforhire @tweetertation and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @agoonforhire and
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
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @tweetertation and
Oh! Then I guess I don't get what you were arguing. I thought that was what you were arguing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
People keep thinking that. "You haven't shown that this field has more problems with knowledge production than any other." Well, no. That's because we haven't tried to & don't claim this. It has a certain kind of problem we are trying to show you. Other problems exist.
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.