Posted on 02/14/2019 7:08:49 AM PST by reaganaut1
One of the three “Sokal Squared” academic hoaxers, Peter Boghossian of Portland State University, has been accused of violating his university’s research policies. Boghossian is the only one of the three to hold an (untenured) academic position and so is the only one vulnerable to disciplinary action.
Boghossian and his compatriots parodied fashionable social-“science” research; now, some in the academy are crying that parody is not fair play.
The charge against Boghossian is a clever catch-22. Any research with human subjects—in this case, the “subjects” were the editors of the targeted academic journals—must be approved by the local Institutional Review Board. IRB rules always require the subjects’ consent. Since any hoax depends on the ignorance of its targets, a hoax always violates IRB rules. So, hoaxes are never allowed, then.
And that eliminates an important variety of intellectual criticism. The Oregon Association of Scholars, in this press release defending Boghossian, points out, “[T]he hoax or satire based on concocted data that is later revealed to be such as part of the search is a fundamental and long-standing method of intellectual inquiry in the Western liberal tradition.”
There are three questions about this attempt to punish Prof. Boghossian:
Is punishing a hoax actually an infringement of the faculty member’s free speech rights? Is an academic hoax actually “research?” Are there any other means available to prove the absurdity of what the hoaxers called grievance studies? The answer to the first question, I believe, is “yes.” A faculty member at a public university should be allowed to write whatever he or she wants. Boghossian’s intention was to deceive, but for an academic purpose that he later revealed. The attempt at punishment is an obvious attack on his academic freedom.
The answer to the second question is obviously “yes and no.”
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
Did he do anything wrong? Of course he did. He exposed the pure unadulterated crap that poses as “scholarship” and for that he must be made an example of.
I get it.
Juicy is going for his Doctorate.
BINGO!
IIRC, the boy who pointed out the emperor was naked didn’t fair well.
Yes.
First, as you said, he exposed that "pure, unadulterated crap".
But secondly, and the far more egregious sin on his part (in the eyes of the Left) was exposing them to open, deserved, and unreserved ridicule.
Leftists do many things, but one thing they are incapable of doing is to tolerate ridcule, of which they are so deserving.
It makes them mad with rage, and they were in a position to inflict injury on these intrepid reporters...which they did.
I also heard someone say (and I agree) the researchers were attacked for so obviously enjoying the excellent job they did, which compounded the insult to the Left, and the magnitude of their response.
The entire Greivance Industry is a a hoax, as is the current state of peer review, not only in the USA, but in the world.
It is now entirely politically driven.
peer review is completely broken in science & medicine!
Thanks for the expansion. You hit the nail on the head.
The consent is implicit - academic journals review all material submitted for publication, and each will only publish what the journal approves. That approval is based on the journal's own standards, which the journal may or may not choose to apply to any individual submittal. If the journal elects not to publish, then consent is (obviously) witheld...
Yes...a great topic for an essay would be the parallels between the decline of journalism and the decline of academic scholarship!
They lied.
Nope, I take that back.
Upon rereading it, I get what they did.
No, they did not.
The “Sokal Squared” trio showed how the entire social sciences area of academia is hopelessly politicized by leftists and unable to distinguish between real and fake peer reviewed science. America owes them a debt of gratitude as whistle blowers exposing the corrupt!
Heh, I think YOU hit the nail on the head...and I expanded!
Sadly. In a lot of areas, there is a lot of pressure to just...publish. I don’t think quality is they key anymore, just as long as you get something out there so you can check off a box.
Not to say there isn’t good quality research, there is just a lot of lackluster/bad/politically driven research, and the peer review process...well, it isn’t any better, and worse in some areas.
I agree.
Agree!
It really goes back to two questions: (They are related too!)
1. “How do I measure academic (college & university) contribution\production?”.
The difficulty of coming up with metrics to decide tenure always comes down to someone’s judgment. Which leaves the “judging person\committee” open to all sorts of lawsuits.
2. Pressure to rapidly increase the number of women & minorities in the faculty lounges (and to some extent in the student body!)
The pressure to do it “now now” is enormous. Letting time sort it out is not allowable. So its increased by creating a myriad of questionable academic disciplines. “Studies this & studies that” where intellectual (or any sort even emotional!) discipline is a dirty word.
Very true: Thou Shalt Not Mock Fun of a Liberal Socialist in Public.
The first commandment.
Unfortunately, your question “How do I measure academic (college & university) contribution\production?” is now, in a lot of places, tied to publishing work.
There are a lot of people who have to push something out to get that checkbox. And a lot of things pushed out of people’s brains to satisfy this resemble something pushed out the other end of the body!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.