You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
The main pushback I’ve seen: 1) The journals they pranked aren’t serious 2) No control group 3) Other academic fields are also bad 4) It’s unethical to make people do work under false pretenses 5) They are tools of the right in the culture war I’ll take these in order. 2/n
I'm torn. I think the defensiveness among academics is ridiculous. But, I think it's crucial to distinguish btwn the true problem of publications defending positions taken up a priori for ideological reasons, & the largely illusory problem of frivolous choice of research topics.
Take for example the dog-park rape-culture article. In principle there's nothing wrong with studying animal 'cultures' as mirrors of human ones. This is e.g. what the anthropologist Tim Ingold does with Saami reindeer herders, & the results he comes up with are wonderful & impt.
Another real article from one of the pranked journals that is now being ridiculed is on 'pumpkins and whiteness'. It is bad, but the idea of studying the symbolic & ideological valence of food products is not bad. It is what Bourdieu did, again, to wonderful and important effect.
I'm made very uncomfortable by the anti-intellectual & incurious mockery of studying dog-parks & pumpkin flavouring, & want to insist that the anthropology of culture & study of everyday life need to be reclaimed, not rejected.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
