More bad academics
I’ve covered news about bad academics here before.
In previous stores, the academics in question tried to bullshit the public with college sounding mumbo-jumbo jargon.
This one is a lot more nefarious and if accepted will be the end of research in the Western World.
From The Washington Post: Why these professors are warning against promoting the work of straight, white men.
Academics and scholars must be mindful about using research done by only straight, white men, according to two scientists who argued that it oppresses diverse voices and bolsters the status of already privileged and established white male scholars.
Geographers Carrie Mott and Daniel Cockayne argued in a recent paper that doing so also perpetuates what they call “white heteromasculinism,” which they defined as a “system of oppression” that benefits only those who are “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.” (Cisgendered describes people whose gender identity matches their birth sex.)
Forget having to wade through piles of bullshit to find scientifically rigorous research, what is important in a paper is that the authors of a paper have the right ethnic background and sexual orientation.
Mott, a professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, and Cockayne, who teaches at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, argued that scholars or researchers disproportionately cite the work of white men, thereby unfairly adding credence to the body of knowledge they offer while ignoring the voices of other groups, like women and black male academics.
Oh, Canada.
When I got published, nobody asked about my race or gender. They wanted to see the evidence I collected, the methods I used for collection, and the analysis I did of the data.
When I reviewed other papers for publication, that’s what I cared about.
Although citation seems like a mundane practice, the feminist professors argue that citing someone’s work has implications on his or her ability to be hired, get promoted and obtain tenured status, among others.
Now it makes sense, they’re feminists.
“This important research has drawn direct attention to the continued underrepresentation and marginalization of women, people of color. … To cite narrowly, to only cite white men … or to only cite established scholars, does a disservice not only to researchers and writers who are othered by white heteromasculinism …,” they wrote in the paper published recently in the journal Gender, Place and Culture.
Despite what these people might think, one doesn’t become an “established scholar” by being a white man. One does that by doing a lot of research and publishing rigorous work frequently. Anybody, with enough effort, can become an “established scholar.” It is based on a career of achievement.
Work done by women and other minorities have often been overlooked by their peers, hindering their professional advancement and depriving disciplines of diverse perspectives, she argued.
When citations are predominantly those of the work of white, straight males, “this means that the views and knowledge that are represented do not reflect the experience of people from other backgrounds,” she told Campus Reform. “When scholars continue to cite only white men on a given topic, they ignore the broader diversity of voices and researchers that are also doing important work on that topic.”
My hackles are being raised by this statement. Scientific inquiry is not dependent on race. These academics are geographers. Coastlines do not vary by race. The mighty Mississippi doesn’t flow south to north if you are a woman. The “diverse background” statement seems to want to reinforce social justice science hacks, like feminist glaciology.
The authors offer what they describe as practical strategies for fellow geographers who work in a largely male-dominated discipline. According to the American Association of Geographers, men and women account for 62 percent and 38 percent of its members, respectively.
One of them: Scholars should read through their work and count all the citations before submitting their work for publication, and see how many people of diverse backgrounds — women, people of color, early-career scholars, graduate students and non-academics — are cited.
Ah, yes, quotas. Nothing is more intellectually honest and scientifically rigorous than making sure you have the right number of gay, black, female geographers in your citations.
“Today, the field is more diverse, but this diversity is largely represented by earlier career scholars. Citing only tenured, established scholars means that these voices are ignored, especially when it is well-known that today’s brutally competitive academic job market continues to privilege the white heteromasculinist body,” they wrote.
Let me fix this for you: “Today, the field is filled with bullshit artists, and is largely represented by earlier career scholars. Citing only tenured, established scholars means that this crap is ignored.’
Let me tell you why this paper exists. Some faux-scientists couldn’t find any reputable papers to back up their preconceived, social justice, approach to a topic. So they decided that having to cite reputable papers had to go. Using the SJW’s favorite weapon, they realized the best way to do that was to call reputable sources racist/sexist/etc-ist. No longer bound by scientific rigor, they are free to cite whatever horseshit they want.
The big picture effect of this is the destruction of scientific research.
