A little mini-thread about the grievance studies hoax, responding to concerns from @ConceptualJames that the emphasis of my initial set of responses may have been in someway misplacedhttps://twitter.com/briandavidearp/status/1056611677251272706 …
-
-
... I could copy in dozens of more examples, but I referred to the 'replication crisis' generally because it is, well, a general problem. So I see your hoax as caught on the horns of a dilemma: if your point was that a person can, in bad faith, trick a small number of ...
-
... journals of unknown representativeness in a given field into accepting ideologically driven research with prima facie absurd conclusions, then I would say, nothing new to see here, that was already obvious. If your point was rather that you had provided good evidence of ...
-
... a special problem in gender studies and related fields, as compared to others that you don't see as so worrying to the integrity of academia, then I would say that your hoax was very poorly designed to provide strong evidence of such a thing & so did not provide such evidence
-
Here's a simple point: I understand the problem in grievance studies, and I know how to manipulate it, essentially at will. No other field I'm aware of is susceptible to this particular problem.
-
The particular problem of you, personally, being able to get *some* bad-faith papers into *a couple* of top journals in *any* other field, if you were sufficiently motivated? I think you sell yourself rather short. But anyway, you didn't try, so we have no evidence of this.
-
How many of our papers have you actually read?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Does that field possess the epistemological tools to correct that problem, or does it ask the authors to skew their analysis even further before considering the paper publishable? That is, what tool other that problematization is left to grievance studies to correct its errors?
-
Well, if you think that "problematization" is the *only* epistemological tool of what you call grievance studies, I'd take this as evidence of having a rather one-dimensional, caricatured view those fields. But perhaps you are exaggerating for effect.
-
Re: other tools: I have refereed many papers focused on gender studies in philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc., & I usually ask for: strong empirical data to support given claims, logical clarity in connecting ideas, making explicit unstated assumptions, falsifiability etc.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think you are willfully ignorant at this point.
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.