#AcademicIR "controversies" usually involve one obscure technical idea pushing back against a slightly less obscure technical idea.
But every once in awhile, #AcademicIR offers an opportunity to ask a broader question: "should we engage an idea or simply say `WTH'?"
[THREAD]
But every once in awhile, #AcademicIR offers an opportunity to ask a broader question: "should we engage an idea or simply say `WTH'?"
[THREAD]
This thread is inspired by @ole_waever's response to a HIGHLY controversial piece recently published in @SecDialogue.
The piece in @SecDialogue accused "Securitization Theory", largely developed by @ole_waever, of being racist.
@ole_waever & #BarryBuzan's response (the thread is worth reading in full): the original paper (besides possibly being libelous) had a host of methodological problems.
Rather than dismissing the paper out of hand, they take the time to meticulously lay out these problems.
Rather than dismissing the paper out of hand, they take the time to meticulously lay out these problems.
This raises a bigger question: should the original paper have been published in the first place?
To illustrate that imperfection, consider another #AcadmeicIR piece published this year that also raised questions about the peer-review process and when ideas/claims should be given academic credence.
Back in February the journal "Alternatives" published this piece:
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…
Unlike the @SecDialogue piece, the "Alternatives" piece didn't single out a particular author or theory. Instead, it was a call for IR scholars to take 9/11 conspiracy theories seriously.
Even if we take the core claim of the article seriously, the paper itself was difficult to engage.
The piece was essentially just a laundry list of claims made by a variety of individuals. The piece doesn't really evaluate the claims, but simply says "why aren't IR scholars looking into this?"
Why don't IR scholars take conspiracy theories seriously?
I think the answer is pretty straightforward
I think the answer is pretty straightforward
In the two above examples, the claims made by the papers were rebutted pretty quickly.
But some controversial claims in IR are NOT immediately dismissed. Most notably (notoriously)
foreignaffairs.com/articles/unite…
But some controversial claims in IR are NOT immediately dismissed. Most notably (notoriously)
foreignaffairs.com/articles/unite…
There are a lot of problems with "Clash of Civilizations".
But like the two examples above, it simply doesn't hold up to conceptual or empirical scrutiny
But like the two examples above, it simply doesn't hold up to conceptual or empirical scrutiny
Some controversial pieces have been retracted due to their controversy. See the dust-up over the infamous @thirdworldq piece from a few years ago
chronicle.com/article/Last-F…
chronicle.com/article/Last-F…
But most pieces are not retracted. Once they are out there, they are out there.
The best way to approach any work that makes it through peer-review -- whether it "cuts against the grain" or makes you say "wait, what?" -- is to engage: evaluate whether it can conceptually and/or empirically substantiate its claims.
[END]
[END]
