I'd like to point out a factual error at the beginning of this week's @verybadwizards podcast. The presenters, esp. @tamler, stated that @HPluckrose & @ConceptualJames have never voiced any serious critiques of pomo-influenced fields, only hoaxes. (Thread)
-
-
Yeah- I agree with you there. At that point, though, your papers are indistinguishable from the actual work. Which is why I said the actual work in those journals provides plenty of examples of silliness without you guys writing fakes. (Did you really not want to call it “hoax”?)
-
No. Please read the Areo piece. We say it is best understood as a reflexive ethnography. Going inside a system and reflecting its ways back at it. To properly understand it. To become experts in it. And turn out exemplary papers addressing our main concerns.
-
And yes, we really didn't want to call it a hoax. We call that "the "H' word" and asked people not to use it. This is not a series a jokes. We asked the Wall Street Journal not to call it that repeatedly but we had no say over that ultimately.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
We didn't want to show a broken peer-review system. That works fine according to the criteria of the field. We wanted to show what that was from a perspective of up to two years of working inside it. We think it matters because it undermines both scholarship & social justice.
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.