Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
This story will be published over and over again because *no matter what direction it’s coming from* it plays to stereotypes about academia held by many who don’t know better while also serving as an effective anti-intellectual weapon for a segment of those who do.https://twitter.com/jimdowns1/status/1218612144448659458 …
1. Journal articles are not failed attempts to reach the public. Treating them as such is dishonest. They are generally designed to share research with specialists. 2. Writing for specialists is not better or worse than writing for the public. It serves a different purpose.
3. In fields that are actually generating new research, writing for specialists is necessary. For any given researcher, writing for the public may or may not be. 4. Writing for the public requires different skills than writing for specialists. Not more, not better, different.
6. Public and specialist audiences are not in competition with each other, except for an individual’s time. There is no general prescription for how to apportion that. 7. Nearly everyone writing these pieces *knows* all this. To that extent, the genre is inherently dishonest.
8. It is important that research be publicized and made accessible to those interested in it. It is far from obvious either that that work is always best done by researchers, or that all researchers can usefully be involved in it.
9. It is a depressing irony that so many arguments about making academic work accessible to the public should draw their force from amplifying popular stereotypes about the nature of academic work. It is hard to believe this is any way to fix a real problem.
10. In practical terms, this kind of argument, by failing to explain how academic research *happens* (treating it instead as a given, to be shared or not) contributes to the popular misconceptions it pretends to address. Whether this is intentional or not is, in a word, academic.
11. Here are some things we do when not writing for the public Teach Supervise research Read/absorb new research Edit/review/critique new research Plan, secure funds for, undertake, write up, present, revise, and publish our own research Which of these things is dispensable?
12. Arguing about the value or purpose of academic work as if it is merely a matter of publication, without dealing with how the knowledge published is produced in the first place, is a waste of time. It's the highbrow version of saying Ken Burns videos should replace teachers.
13. Because this argument is indeed published over and over again, here's something I wrote about a similar piece nearly three years agohttps://memoriousblog.com/2017/03/18/historians-public-intellectuals-in-waiting/ …
Oh god thank u so much ted
You are most welcome
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
