Go Back   Fratching! > General > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Grievance Studies Affair / Sokol Squared
  #1  
Old 01-12-2019, 07:38 PM
D_Yeti_Esquire's Avatar
D_Yeti_Esquire D_Yeti_Esquire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 581
Default Grievance Studies Affair / Sokol Squared

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.

Last edited by D_Yeti_Esquire; 01-12-2019 at 07:45 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #2  
Old 01-13-2019, 11:37 PM
Gravekeeper Gravekeeper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,883
Default

Ugh, this has been brought up in other political discussion circles I frequent at least 3 times now. Always in a "Ha ha! CHECKMATE LIBTARDOS" type fashion.

While an actual look at what transpired reveals these are soft sciences and not exactly in world renowned academic journals. Nevermind that the bulk of the fake papers were rejected and/or never published.
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 01-14-2019, 07:30 AM
Canarr Canarr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 897
Default

It's certainly not a "CHECKMATE LIBTARDS!" situation. But it still would behoove the publications affected to review their processes in order to make sure that they don't publish garbage like that in the future.
__________________
"You are who you are on your worst day, Durkon. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain." - Evil
"You're trying to be Lawful Good. People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then." - Good
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 05:41 AM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.