Tweet
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...l-hoax/572212/
This is a little bit in the rear-view at this point (there were much larger political issues going on at the time.)
Synopsis: Group of academics were able to fabricate 20 papers and proceeded to see if they could get them published. Some were published or in review, some were rejected. Conservative media used this to say "bias proved." Some on the left instead have rallied around journals that frankly in sniffing this out. At least one of the academics responsible for writing has been brought up on academic charges.
Some valid criticisms I've seen:
- There is no control group here
- The non-gender/race studies journals rejected them (sociology, etc.)
- The journals and ideas are too targeted, thus "what else was work" isn't something we can even argue here. It demonstrates something within a few fields without replicating successfully elsewhere.
Sample Papers (the actual names are properly academic but this was their actual content)
- Mein Kampf rewritten as a "women's experience" paper
- Male solo (while thinking about a woman) masturbation as sexual violence
- "Experiential Reparations" suggesting white male students should be overtly oppressed
My take:
- Not only was this OK, this actually begs a follow up with proper controls
- The political fallout (and additional cognative rigidity from the right) is probably worse than merited. This is the left watching itself, not some great conservative moment.
- On the left, no one and I mean NO one should be defending these journals. They are the gatekeepers of academic advancement. If sophistry is OK, then actual academic rigour is at risk as staying "in the conversation" is more about ideology than study.
This is a little bit in the rear-view at this point (there were much larger political issues going on at the time.)
Synopsis: Group of academics were able to fabricate 20 papers and proceeded to see if they could get them published. Some were published or in review, some were rejected. Conservative media used this to say "bias proved." Some on the left instead have rallied around journals that frankly in sniffing this out. At least one of the academics responsible for writing has been brought up on academic charges.
Some valid criticisms I've seen:
- There is no control group here
- The non-gender/race studies journals rejected them (sociology, etc.)
- The journals and ideas are too targeted, thus "what else was work" isn't something we can even argue here. It demonstrates something within a few fields without replicating successfully elsewhere.
Sample Papers (the actual names are properly academic but this was their actual content)
- Mein Kampf rewritten as a "women's experience" paper
- Male solo (while thinking about a woman) masturbation as sexual violence
- "Experiential Reparations" suggesting white male students should be overtly oppressed
My take:
- Not only was this OK, this actually begs a follow up with proper controls
- The political fallout (and additional cognative rigidity from the right) is probably worse than merited. This is the left watching itself, not some great conservative moment.
- On the left, no one and I mean NO one should be defending these journals. They are the gatekeepers of academic advancement. If sophistry is OK, then actual academic rigour is at risk as staying "in the conversation" is more about ideology than study.
Comment