I misread this in haste when I responded yesterday. https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/1054886048625541120 … It is not the empirical & generally reasonable scholars who are responding in deranged & vitriolic ways. Those opposed tend to respond by ignoring our point & referring to a number of extraneous factorshttps://twitter.com/clairlemon/status/1054883200525230081 …
-
Show this thread
-
"We all know some papers in these fields are mad but couldn't this be addressed straightforwardly? Are hoaxes not a form of deception? Weren't the papers actually in keeping with the genre so not really a hoax (yes, that's the point)? Wasn't reviewers' time wasted?
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Whereas before when we had tried to get reasonable academics to see that this was happening, they'd usually say "Oh, but some bad papers always get through. It's publish or perish. Most are still sound." Hence wanting to show the system is actually set up to be unsound.
2 replies 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
Now, the response has largely changed from " We do see the problem with the grievance studies approach but think you're exaggerating the structural embeddedness of it." to "We do see the problem with the grievance studies approach but don't think this is the way to address it."
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
I think, in these cases, the reality is "We'll claim to see the problem with the grievance studies approach if pushed & to differentiate our own work from it but don't really want anything to be done about it due to having internalised some of it & misguided loyalty to colleagues
4 replies 2 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
I think the reality is that very many people just don't see an evidence-based epistemology and consistent ethics around social justice issues as being that important & are happy not to argue with "other ways of knowing" & "judging ppl by gender, race & sexuality is OK sometimes."
1 reply 3 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Charitably, I'd say they perceive this as a daffy but relatively harmless alternative form of scholarship to empirical research & consistent ethics and so should be included as part of the productive diversity of ideas.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread
If so, I'd agree it's daffy, disagree that it's harmless, agree that it is an alternative epistemology and ethical system that should be part of the academic conversation but that the productivity of ideological diversity comes from robust argument & criticism not accepting all.
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.