"The papers are either sound or they aren’t."
I think this is a fundamental and disingenuous characterization of how scholarship functions and what its aims are
chronicle.com/article/Schola… via @chronicle
I think this is a fundamental and disingenuous characterization of how scholarship functions and what its aims are
chronicle.com/article/Schola… via @chronicle
just because something gets published does not mean it is 'right' or 'good'. It means it has passed some minimum litmus test of 'quality' to become part of a conversation.
bad, wrong, poorly conceived, and faddish things are published all the time in different disciplines. In the best scenario, a poor paper inspires a more rigorous response and knowledge is advanced
In a bad situation, a poor idea becomes part of the conversation for longer than it should. Sometimes institutional power and esteem or other forces keep certain ideas central for longer than they merit
but to declare that papers are sound or they are not is nonsense
Also: the authors keep attacking "white privilege"and "white fragility in their articles. .@chronicle and others are lazy and complicit for not calling them out for this.
DiAngelo's Article libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/v… is well written, well conceived, and well-researched. These oblique attacks which do not engage with its substance are sub-academic
.@matthewasears Why aren't media outlets like .@chronicle calling these authors out more?
