A trio of academics, fed up with how badly things have gone awry in the Humanities departments of many universities, set out to gain some data about just how bad:
We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as “cultural studies” or “identity studies” (for example, gender studies) or “critical theory” because it is rooted in that postmodern brand of “theory” which arose in the late sixties. As a result of this work, we have come to call these fields “grievance studies” in shorthand because of their common goal of problematizing aspects of culture in minute detail in order to attempt diagnoses of power imbalances and oppression rooted in identity.
We managed to get seven shoddy, absurd, unethical and politically-biased papers into respectable journals in the fields of grievance studies. Does this show that academia is corrupt? Absolutely not. Does it show that all scholars and reviewers in humanities fields which study gender, race, sexuality and weight are corrupt? No. To claim either of those things would be to both overstate the significance of this project and miss its point. Some people will do this, and we would ask them not to. The majority of scholarship is sound and peer review is rigorous and it produces knowledge which benefits society.
Nevertheless, this does show that there is something to be concerned about within certain fields within the humanities which are encouraging of this kind of “scholarship.” We shouldn’t have been able to get any papers this terrible published in reputable journals, let alone seven. And these seven are the tip of the iceberg. We would urge people who think this a fluke (or seven flukes) which shows very little to look at how we were able to do that. Look at the hundreds of papers we cited to enable us to make these claims and to use these methods and interpretations and have reviewers consider them quite standard. Look at the reviewer comments and what they are steering academics who need to be published to succeed in their careers towards. See how frequently they required us not to be less politically biased and shoddy in our work but more so.
what is shows is the left will grab every one of those papers and run with it
Don’t take a few odd ball papers as an indictment of academia and their commitment to truth? I am sorry but what I see is far more than a few ‘papers’. Where are the voices within academia actually speaking out or writing about the corruption going on in their ‘professions’? They don’t necessarily have to rely on the MSM to publicize their views. This is why Petersen is such a star in conservative circles. He speaks out on multiple forums.
What is really going on? I think the kids who recorded a teacher, in class, telling them he would turn them into socialists is more in line with what academia is doing today.
Those three doing the “experiment” defined themselves as “hardcore leftist liberals.” They remain “hardcore leftist liberals” even after what they uncovered for themselves. Thus, intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with common sense and critical thinking.
“Those three doing the ‘experiment’ defined themselves as ‘hardcore leftist liberals.'”
An excellent example of just how meaningless political terminology has become these days. The oxymoronic badge “hardcore leftist liberal” ignores that true liberals were neither hardcore nor leftist.
Academic journals are caught up in massive hoax involving 20 FAKE papers on ‘dog rape culture’, ‘a conceptual penis’ and re-printing a version of MEIN KAMPF
Their aim was to expose how ‘absurdities’ get published in legitimate peer-reviewed academic papers due to a lack of critical review.
In total the team of three researchers wrote 20 hoax papers on a field of study loosely defined as ‘grievance studies’.
These papers – seven of which were accepted and four published online – were based on just ‘nutty or inhumane’ ideas that they ran with.
The authors claim their prank shows that higher education’s fixation with identity politics has created ‘absurd and horrific’ scholarship, according to an in-depth piece by Wall Street Journal.
They even associated male anatomy with climate change.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6239071/Academic-journals-caught-massive-hoax-involving-20-FAKE-papers.html
Peer review worked when it was a competitive and almost adversarial system, where new ideas that were published might undermine the work of a great many established academics, who would review the paper with an eye towards finding flaws and discrediting it before publication. Publishing one paper with genuine new discoveries like Pasteur or Newton could make a stellar career, and lesser lights could prove their worth replicating the research to verify.
Peer review broke when Universities started using publication counts, alleged prestige of the journals, and number of times the paper was cited in other papers as a metric for employment purposes. As soon as that happened people started to game the system, a business grew around journals providing the place to be published rather than providing the published research itself. This allowed ideologues to infiltrate and self replicate their toxicity throughout the system. I find it odd that so many papers can be published and cited without anyone attempting to replicate (or in some cases even read) the “research” to begin with.
Heh, it would seem that the führer’s book is your basic handbook for socialists. The only trick the socialist need to do is omit mention or the führer and because no plebeian knows the history, they are free to repeat it without undue stress.
You see, the socialist, international socialist, fascist, communist ideas work for them, all they have to do to put it in the proper perspective.
Seriously, it is no surprise that they used the führer’s book to expose obliquely the doings of the “social” studies.
What a parody.
No doubt the people that stayed in school for long time have learned how to snow on those that work for living. That is just about all that they learned. The bigger words they use, the more self impressed they are.
Yeah, they positively think they are Nobel material.
If not, they can always call them anti something.
at the very least they should be busted for plagiarism.
/sarc off
By the way, this was published on SDA yesterday.
They Want To Teach Your Children
October 3, 2018
David
late 60s? well dont blame it on me, I was still struggling thru my autism to figure wtf was going on (being hard wired with a penchant for the truth), alas the supply of BS was overwhelming and I DIDNT EVEN KNOW IT.
as far as *generating* the BS, that only happened in the face of false accusations.
Shapiro May Never Stop LOLing At This
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwFmrI5QQFI
That there are “disciplines” devoted to such non subjects as grievance and other “studies” is evidence enough of a debauched academia without delving into the fraudulent methodology of gaming the rent seeker’s bounty involved in socialized education. When, for example, adding the requisite “implications of climate change” to any environmentally related proposal is a virtual guarantee of funding, the corruption stinks from the head.
The posted article is a great read, that speaks loudly against the corruption in much of academia. I appreciate the hilarious titles and topics they chose, to write the 20 papers. I am an academic who has published refereed papers and has refereed other papers. I am an economist, where we try to think we are “objective” and do research, just like the three authors want research to be done.
These days I am a senior fellow with the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), a conservative, pro-small-government think tank. I get paid a small amount of money each month to write articles for AIMS and to referee their reports. Refereeing is important for conservative think tanks, for these institutions must bullet-proof their research to make sure their data and methodology are accurate — to prevent attacks from left-wing organizations. Last month I refereed a good, well-written report by AIMS, where I caught two factual errors. They took my report to correct the errors, before publishing the study. This is the point of refereeing.
One difficulty: the three authors tout their belief in objective truths as the ultimate goal of academic research. But what about fundamentally different paradigms? There are refereed journals that support the idea of interstellar aliens — journals that would horrify physicists. The same would be horrified by refereed journals in astrology. Would the three writers undertake the same phony-article attack against reputable Christian journals? Chistians academics bitterly disagree with anti-Creationist scientists. Both camps support fundamentally different paradigms.
One other problem, that the three writers leave unanswered, is whether or not the grievance culture will clean up their corruption. I suspect not, other than keeping a close watch against conservatives satirizing their rubbish that passes as wisdom.
All it takes is for the average Canadian to take a stroll through common places of any University to measure it’s depravity. I’m not pure like the driven snow, and have experienced much of this life, moreso than most humans, the halls of academia are detrimental to the social and mental health of all who pass. The trade colleges are slowly following suit, with their workplace courses including every dysfunction of humanity. It’s HR courses with an emphasis on diversity and inclusion. It’s mathematics courses with lowered standards for diverse people. It’s rallies for every cause that defies logic, and most of all the bureaucracy that seeks to mimic the Universities in scope and size.
In addition, most University degrees could be completed in three to six months, with exceptions to medical (two years) and engineering (2-3 years tops). The babbling lectures and the make work essays are an impediment to learning. And what is the f#$%ing point of making students drive to school to listen to an audio lecture????? (please excuse my language, it’s unladylike)
p.s. I hold three University degrees, and two college degrees, I’m well aware of which I speak.
Falsified studies and used poor or fake methodology from purveyors of “grievance studies.” Who saw that coming?
What’s next climate scientists falsified studies and used poor or fake methodology? How much more of this can we take?
Keep it coming; don’t worry we’ll be suitably shocked and surprised. Remember, all men are rapists, “scientists” agree.
Feminazi and Marxist academics happy to embrace collectivism and fascism that is. Kill the intolerants, kill them all!!
It always comes back to Popper, and falsifiable.
If it is not falsifiable, it is not science.
If it is not falsifiable, you are dealing with a religion or a cult.
As has oft been noted,if it says science in the title,it probably is not.
Contrast Engineering,Physics,Mathematics with Political Science,Social Science,Environmental Science.
By the way,does anyone know a Political Scientist?
What might such a creature do?
Human Rights meet Human Rites
I have a paper about white male grievances and that one hasn’t slipped by any peer reviewers yet, of course, none of my peers are reviewers so that might explain it.
If you want to get people riled up then point out the similarities between grievance studies group think and climate science group think. We’re all preaching to the choir here but take the message out to the rest of the world. Just make sure you’ve got your asbestos suit on first.