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 universitys 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 subjectsin this case, the subjects were the editors of the targeted academic journalsmust 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 members 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. Boghossians 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 ...
yeah I know I have worked in academia before.
Its done because its the easiest metric to colelct and the easiest for a lawyer to define when the inevitable bias law suit occurs.
Is it in anyway effective HELL NO!
I see the same thing in government & in industry for the same reasons.
Did the researchers do anything wrong? Yes. Dr. Boghossian should have waited until he had tenure to publish this. It might not be perfect protection but it would make it a lot harder for Portland State to take action against him without lots of lawsuits that he now has a better chance of winning.
You see it in healthcare too.
“I see the same thing in government”
Yes...the metric that the media use to measure the “productivity” of Congress is the number of new laws passed. That has to be the flat-out stupidest measurement of output ever conceived. Every law diminishes our freedom, imposes new regulations on us, creates newly defined crimes, or spends OUR money that they don’t have.
Better metrics would be how FEW days the congress critters spend in Washington, how FEW dollars they spend, how many laws they REPEAL, how many lobbyists they TURNED DOWN, and how much campaign contribution money they RETURNED to donors.
sorry fumble fingered today
“..colelct and the easiest for a lawyer to define ...”
should be
...collect and the easiest for a lawyer to defend...
not surprised!
Its everywhere!
Unfortunately the voters encourage that!
Most think a busybody in the legislature (city, county, state & federal) is great.
Haha I knew what you meant!
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.