Academics Expose ‘Grievance Studies’ Field by Submitting Hoax Papers to Journals

From NRO:

Three academics spent more than a year submitting absurd “hoax” papers to the preeminent journals focusing on race, gender, sexuality and other politically fraught disciplines that fall into what the perpetrators of the scheme call “grievance studies.”


The self-identified “left-leaning liberal” academics, told the Wall Street Journal they undertook the project out of concern “that certain aspects of knowledge production in the United States have been corrupted” by a hesitance among academics to question research based on privilege and identity for fear of accusations of bigotry.

Afilia, a peer-reviewed feminist journal, accepted one of their papers, “Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism,” which is a rewrite of one chapter of “Mein Kampf.” https://www.nationalreview.com/news...-field-by-submitting-hoax-papers-to-journals/

:lamo This reminded me of the Dr. Fox Hypothesis, which I first read about in Psychology Today decades ago:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/media-spotlight/201405/the-return-dr-fox

Preeminent journals? No. Third rate internet "publishing" with "peer review".

ecofarm said:

Preeminent journals? No. Third rate internet "publishing" with "peer review".

Click to expand...

I’m going to ignore your sour and point-missing lack of humor because I know you to be a scholar rather than a cheap idler or dilettante.

And I’m going to assume based on your throwaway comments above that unlike me,you’re a subscriber to the WSJ, read the entire linked article, and can discuss all the article titles referenced and the pubs and then provide a critique ofthe seven journals mentioned. I certainly wouldn’t want to think that you categorically turn your nose up at all Taylor and Francis/Routledge publications, however horrified you might be by the notion of a peer-reviewed publication that is open-access.

nota bene said:

I’m going to ignore your sour and point-missing lack of humor because I know you to be a scholar rather than a cheap idler or dilettante.

And I’m going to assume based on your throwaway comments above that unlike me,you’re a subscriber to the WSJ, read the entire linked article, and can discuss all the article titles referenced and the pubs and then provide a critique ofthe seven journals mentioned. I certainly wouldn’t want to think that you categorically turn your nose up at all Taylor and Francis/Routledge publications, however horrified you might be by the notion of a peer-reviewed publication that is open-access.

Click to expand...

Name a journal someone has heard of from the article.

ecofarm said:

Name a journal someone has heard of from the article.

Click to expand...

Nope. I won't even point out the obvious--that unless it's in your own discipline or a journal so well known that its articles make the ordinary metro newspapers' news section once a month (e.g. JAMA and Lancet)--you're highly unlikely to have heard of a journal, period.

nota bene said:

Nope.

Click to expand...

Because they don't exist. Your article is a gotcha against nobodies and you appear to have completely missed the point.

Your opinion on recognizing journals is ignorant. You wouldn't recognize one if it wasn't for the news. You have no idea who any of those journals are. And you still don't get it.

Haha. You thought this was an anti intellectual piece and it's not. You don't get it. Hysterical.



Them: "Hey guys, watch out for BS journals."

You: "Hey guys, good journals are BS journals!"

Rank idiocy.

ecofarm said:

Because they don't exist. Your article is a gotcha against nobodies and you appear to have completely missed the point.

Your opinion on recognizing journals is ignorant. You wouldn't recognize one if it wasn't for the news. You have no idea who any of those journals are. And you still don't get it.

Haha. You thought this was an anti intellectual piece and it's not. You don't get it. Hysterical.



Them: "Hey guys, watch out for BS journals."

You: "Hey guys, good journals are BS journals!"

Rank idiocy.

Click to expand...

You still don't get it. Good work, though, ruining what was intended to be a semi-fun thread.

nota bene said:

You still don't get it. Good work, though, ruining what was intended to be a semi-fun thread.

Click to expand...

I guess I'm a bit tired of the rampant anti intellectualism at the forum. Your article did not name a single meaningful, let alone preeminent, journal. They fooled nobodies.

submitting absurd “hoax” papers to the preeminent journals focusing on race, gender, sexuality and other politically fraught disciplines

Click to expand...

Pathetic deplorable-apologizing BS.

Why not just claim sociology is fake? Why be coy? Just claim the racists, sexists and homophobes are correct. That's what you're doing. Be up front about it.

Cheerleading for scumbags without pom poms is poor taste.

"Yay, racists!" That's your little bit of fun, huh? Classy.

nota bene said:

From NRO:

Three academics spent more than a year submitting absurd “hoax” papers to the preeminent journals focusing on race, gender, sexuality and other politically fraught disciplines that fall into what the perpetrators of the scheme call “grievance studies.”


The self-identified “left-leaning liberal” academics, told the Wall Street Journal they undertook the project out of concern “that certain aspects of knowledge production in the United States have been corrupted” by a hesitance among academics to question research based on privilege and identity for fear of accusations of bigotry.

Afilia, a peer-reviewed feminist journal, accepted one of their papers, “Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism,” which is a rewrite of one chapter of “Mein Kampf.” https://www.nationalreview.com/news...-field-by-submitting-hoax-papers-to-journals/

:lamo This reminded me of the Dr. Fox Hypothesis, which I first read about in Psychology Today decades ago:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/media-spotlight/201405/the-return-dr-fox

Click to expand...

From the National Review article:Great. Where's their paper detailing their research? I don't even see a link to it in the National Review article.

Red:
Though I don't expect the OP-er to answer because he didn't "coin" the phrase, I am curious to know WTH is "research based on privilege and identity?"

I've written and had published a few research papers and read literally hundreds (thousands?) of them. I've yet to come across any "research [papers/findings] based on privilege and identity." I've come across research about privilege and identity, but research founded on those two things.

Xelor said:

From the National Review article:

"In defending themselves against charges of unethically deceiving their colleagues, the perpetrators argue they were conducting legitimate research on a particular culture, which they would not otherwise have been able to access."​

Great. Where's their paper detailing their research? I don't even see a link to it in the National Review article.

Red:
Though I don't expect the OP-er to answer because he didn't "coin" the phrase, I am curious to know WTH is "research based on privilege and identity?"

I've written and had published a few research papers and read literally hundreds (thousands?) of them. I've yet to come across any "research [papers/findings] based on privilege and identity." I've come across research about privilege and identity, but research founded on those two things.

Click to expand...

See if you find any here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...+identity&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Xelor said:

From the National Review article:

"In defending themselves against charges of unethically deceiving their colleagues, the perpetrators argue they were conducting legitimate research on a particular culture, which they would not otherwise have been able to access."​

Great. Where's their paper detailing their research? I don't even see a link to it in the National Review article.

Red:
Though I don't expect the OP-er to answer because he didn't "coin" the phrase, I am curious to know WTH is "research based on privilege and identity?"

I've written and had published a few research papers and read literally hundreds (thousands?) of them. I've yet to come across any "research [papers/findings] based on privilege and identity." I've come across research about privilege and identity, but research founded on those two things.

Click to expand...

nota bene said:

See if you find any here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...+identity&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Click to expand...

Red:
I don't know what moves folks to read plainly composed passages and infer that what they just read means something other than what it says. Be that as it may, that appears to be what you've done.

What you've provided me with is research about/on, not "based on," privilege and identity. To wit, note the search parameter you used: "research studies on privilege and identity." Your search terms notwithstanding, I too have encountered plenty of research about privilege and identity, but not any that's based on those things.

I don't know whether you truly don't know the difference between "about" and "based on," which I why above I hyperlinked to content that may help you understand the differences; however, to fully understand the difference, you may also need to review the function of prepositional verbs.

Xelor said:

Red:
I don't know what moves folks to read plainly composed passages and infer that what they just read means something other than what it says. Be that as it may, that appears to be what you've done.

What you've provided me with is research about/on, not "based on," privilege and identity. To wit, note the search parameter you used: "research studies on privilege and identity." Your search terms notwithstanding, I too have encountered plenty of research about privilege and identity, but not any that's based on those things.

From the National Review article:

​

I don't know whether you truly don't know the difference between "about" and "based on," which I why above I hyperlinked to content that may help you understand the differences; however, to fully understand the difference, you may also need to review the function of prepositional verbs.

Click to expand...

Gosh, thank you. And you're right; I'm far too stupid and uneducated to know the difference but, luckily, have you on whom to depend.

nota bene said:

Gosh, thank you. And you're right; I'm far too stupid and uneducated to know the difference but, luckily, have you on whom to depend.

Click to expand...

You're welcome.

I appreciate your acknowledging as much, and I'm glad you found my input helpful.

nota bene said:

Gosh, thank you. And you're right; I'm far too stupid and uneducated to know the difference but, luckily, have you on whom to depend.

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

You're welcome.

I appreciate your acknowledging as much, and I'm glad you found my input helpful.

Click to expand...

Your remarks sardonic tone did not escape me; however, I chose to disregard it because I have no relationship with you that warrants my giving such a tone credence.