Thread by @angryhacademic

when it comes to engaging #STEM #academics (an essential task in order to gain max momentum to tackle problems like #casualisation), i think 1 difficulty is that #activism uses a lot of logical fallacies. this makes taking action appear irrational 1/15

#AcademicChatter #ucu

examples:
people going on #strike = potential bandwagon fallacy

stories of injustice = anecdote, appeal to emotion

statistics = potentially cherry picked

calling out management = potential ad hominem

quoting/critiquing management = potential strawman
2/15

identifying an issue (e.g. casualisation) and claiming it impacts other issues (e.g. mental health problems) = potential false cause, and/or hasty generalisation fallacy

making broad statements (e.g. gender pay gap is a real problem) = ambiguity fallacy
3/15

claims about what could happen in the future = slippery slope fallacy

you can see why this might seem unappealing if this is the way you're trained to think.

but i think there's 2 points:
1. activism is not science; such fallacies imo are ay okay 4/15

for me, if we got rid of 99 % of casualised staff, the anecdotes and appeals to emotion from the 1 % still suffering is more than enough reason to push for better

BUT that is me thinking with my activism #hat on, not my #STEM hat... 5/15

2. taking issue with these fallacies is in itself fallacious:

(i) THE FALLACY FALLACY: just because a conclusion has been reached fallaciously, does not mean the conclusion is definitely wrong
6/15

(ii) MIDDLE GROUND FALLACY: believing the middle ground/compromise/point between 2 extremes is right. in my experience #STEM #academics do this A LOT, esp w political topics, eg most i know were against brexit but gave credit to brexit arguments cos they seemed "balanced"
7/15

(iii) BLACK OR WHITE FALLACY: where two alternatives are seen as the ONLY options, e.g. go on strike & be on the pickets OR carry on going to work and ignore the strikes
8/15

ideally, it would be nice to spend some time educating everyone properly on political action and discourse. that's infeasible. equally, telling STEM academics they are using logical fallacies too i imagine would not go down well either 9/15

so i think we need to flip our own discourse instead: start talking about obvious tangible things that DIRECTLY affect the #academics we are targeting. e.g. casualisation is jargon-y, has loads of individual & social implications, & intersects with a host of other issues 10/15

these are all abstract holistic concepts. what is tangible to see though is that having #postdocs always on temporary contracts might add stress to the PI - constantly recruiting new people who might be rubbish, who you might not work well with... 11/15

...time sorting through applications & doing interviews, time wasted on the project w inducting them to the lab/office, getting them settled etc. imagine a world where you didnt have that stress!

i think this type of discourse could engage at least some of the unengaged 12/15

caveats:
1. i have no idea if this is legitimate, im speaking from personal experience
2. sorry to single out STEM academics; this is a group who seem universally more difficult to engage. the points prob apply more broadly & obvs ample exceptions!13/15
#academia #AcademicTwitter

the point of all this to fuel conversation about wider academic engagement in our highly politicised university. we are #StrongerTogether so i think leaving the unengaged unengaged is harmful to progress and creates a divided university = divided strength... 14/15

...since we want more people engaged, it is up to us to change tact. the ideas above are suggestions to consider, critique, and if you like, try. another tool for the tool box. we still need the rest of the tool box though ofc! 15/15

#brokenacademia #ecrchat #phdlife