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 -
-
-
You could reply with dozens of examples. I could send you thousands of grievance studies papers. Most of the canon, in fact. As you said, one really only needs to read the papers that are there to see the problem exists.
-
Okay, so then we agree that your hoax showed nothing new. As for 'most of the canon,' that seems strong. I've read a lot of it, and there is a good deal of work that, if approached charitably (rather than with the goal of mocking it), can open up useful avenues of thought
-
It wasn't meant to "show something new," and we never insisted it was. Hell, man, this was pointed out repeatedly at book length in the 1990s. The problem is that no one is paying it the attention it deserves. We sought to fix that.
-
I agree that your project brought a lot of attention to some of the problems that exist in some fields. I am doubtful that you convinced many who didn't already agree with you, however, so while a lot of heat has been generated, I don't know if much light has
-
From the private communications I've been receiving, it's likely to be a setup for a backdraft. Something will come along eventually now, I suspect, break a window, flood the space with oxygen, and the whole thing will blow the eff up.
-
Okay but again I'm concerned about your approach to representativeness, base rates, and so on. Presumably, the private communication *you* are getting is not representative of the private communication *being sent* about your hoax
-
Time will tell. :)
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.