The Grievance Studies Affair; One Funeral at a Time: A Reply to Pluckrose, Lindsay, and Boghossian

IF 6.5 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS Sociological Methods & Research Pub Date : 2021-04-29 DOI:10.1177/00491241211009949
G. Cole
{"title":"The Grievance Studies Affair; One Funeral at a Time: A Reply to Pluckrose, Lindsay, and Boghossian","authors":"G. Cole","doi":"10.1177/00491241211009949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2018, Lindsay, Boghossian, and Pluckrose published four “hoax” articles within a number of disciplines that rely on critical theory (e.g., gender studies, feminism). When revealing the project, the authors argued that they wanted to expose these fields as being primarily motivated by ideology and social justice rather than knowledge generation. Their method tested the hypothesis that editors and reviewers will support papers that advocate “ludicrous” ideas including “fat bodybuilding.” In the pages of this journal, I presented a critique of their procedure, and the authors have provided a commentary on my article. After discussing the issue of whether their project was a hoax or not, I will argue that the crux of the matter is whether the papers were ludicrous/absurd. I will show how the authors made a fundamental error in their method; they failed to assess whether their ideas were indeed ludicrous/absurd.","PeriodicalId":21849,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Methods & Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/00491241211009949","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Methods & Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241211009949","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2018, Lindsay, Boghossian, and Pluckrose published four “hoax” articles within a number of disciplines that rely on critical theory (e.g., gender studies, feminism). When revealing the project, the authors argued that they wanted to expose these fields as being primarily motivated by ideology and social justice rather than knowledge generation. Their method tested the hypothesis that editors and reviewers will support papers that advocate “ludicrous” ideas including “fat bodybuilding.” In the pages of this journal, I presented a critique of their procedure, and the authors have provided a commentary on my article. After discussing the issue of whether their project was a hoax or not, I will argue that the crux of the matter is whether the papers were ludicrous/absurd. I will show how the authors made a fundamental error in their method; they failed to assess whether their ideas were indeed ludicrous/absurd.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
申诉研究事务;一次一个葬礼:对普拉克罗斯、林赛和波格森的回复
2018年,Lindsay、Boghossian和Pluckrose发表了四篇“恶作剧”文章,涉及一些依赖批判理论的学科(例如,性别研究、女权主义)。在揭示该项目时,作者认为他们想要揭示这些领域主要是由意识形态和社会正义驱动的,而不是知识的产生。他们的方法验证了一个假设,即编辑和审稿人会支持提倡“可笑”想法的论文,包括“肥胖健美”。在这本杂志的页面上,我对他们的程序提出了批评,作者对我的文章进行了评论。在讨论了他们的项目是否是个骗局之后,我认为问题的关键在于这些论文是否荒唐可笑。我将说明作者是如何在他们的方法中犯了一个根本性的错误;他们没能判断出他们的想法是否真的荒唐可笑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Sociological Methods & Research is a quarterly journal devoted to sociology as a cumulative empirical science. The objectives of SMR are multiple, but emphasis is placed on articles that advance the understanding of the field through systematic presentations that clarify methodological problems and assist in ordering the known facts in an area. Review articles will be published, particularly those that emphasize a critical analysis of the status of the arts, but original presentations that are broadly based and provide new research will also be published. Intrinsically, SMR is viewed as substantive journal but one that is highly focused on the assessment of the scientific status of sociology. The scope is broad and flexible, and authors are invited to correspond with the editors about the appropriateness of their articles.
期刊最新文献
Sharing Big Video Data: Ethics, Methods, and Technology Dynamics of Health Expectancy: An Introduction to the Multiple Multistate Method (MMM) Seeded Topic Models in Digital Archives: Analyzing Interpretations of Immigration in Swedish Newspapers, 1945–2019 A Primer on Deep Learning for Causal Inference Untapped Potential: Designed Digital Trace Data in Online Survey Experiments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1