The sting from a sting operation and the Trojan horse of ideology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

impact quality of academic work and the quality of the review process. And there are manyexamples of bad research getting past reviewers.However, there is a difference here that needsattention. The expectation of honesty andintegrity is a part of the review process. If I ammaking an empirical claim, the data I use toground that claim, if faked, can be used as aTrojan horse to get it past quality control. Andtechnical aspects of statistical analyses inquantitative research can bamboozle timepoorreviewers and errors can go unnoticed.But in order for my claim to be warrantedbased on my data, the line of reasoning thatlinks the two should be sufficiently logical andcoherent. Poor data and poor argumentationare two different things. Dishonesty can hidepoor (or fake) data, and compelling data can sometimes disguise poor reasoning. But dishonestycannot disguise reasoning directly as the reasoning should be laid bare in the article. Dishonesty isnot the Trojan horse that is exposed in SokalSquared. Everyone agrees dishonesty hurts the qualityand reputation of academic work (Note: dishonesty is different from deception – i.e. goals matter).Ideology as a Trojan horseToulmin’s model of argumentation. Reproduced from Wikipedia.The Trojan horse here is the ideological bias of the journals (and the grievance studies disciplinesthey represent). These were not obscure journals; they were in some cases, the leading journal forthat academic area. The purposely broken reasoning of the PBL articles was disguised with the‘correct’ ideology. It is belief bias in action (see also motivated reasoning and confirmation bias). Thesting highlights the need for greater institutionalized disconfirmation and viewpoint diversity. So ifthere is a prevalent mechanism that will disguise (or cloud) shoddy reasoning, while this does notprevent well-reasoned arguments being made, it certainly limits the ability of scholars in these areasto tell good from bad.The point of the audit was not to suggest all of the articles from these disciplines are garbage but tohighlight the detrimental impact ideological blinders have on identifying poor methodology andargumentation. And in these disciplines ideology is pervasive to the point of being an orthodoxy. Thedifference is dishonesty and data fakery (a Trojan horse in and beyond the social sciences) is notorthodox behavior. It is not promoted, it is actively exposed. Exposure of that Trojan horse is notmet with whataboutery. To expand the problems identified in SokalSquared to all peer-review isfalse equivalence.The audit suggests the lack of a ‘logic’ barometer in grievance studies (to differentiate A and C in thegraphic below), but this does not mean reasonable scholarship has not been done (A and B).However, while good scholarship is sensitive to a difference across rows, good propaganda issensitive to a difference across columns.
ReasoningGoodBadCorrectACIdeologyIncorrectBDGraphic representing the correctorientation of scholarship focused ondistinguishing value of an argument basedon reasoning (rows) vs a corruption ofscholarship focused on distinguishingvalue of an argument based on ideology(columns)To best steel man these disciplines, skeptical academics should scrutinize the best examples ofscholarship nominated by experts in these fields (A). Defenders of these disciplines could also postexamples of counter-ideology narratives that have been published and engaged with (B). Theoriginal rejections of PBL nonsense papers that were not disguised with ideology (D) seemed to becorrectly rejected. While the original rejections presented ideologically-neutral nonsense and not‘incorrect ideology’, the rejections would suggest that it was the correct ideology that provided thedisguise and that a paper draped with incorrect ideology would also be rejected. So not including‘right-wing papers’, as a control, is not a major limitation to SokalSquared. Referee bias inmanuscript review is not a new finding. Ideological bias likely affects disciplines beyond the scope ofSokalSquared. Critics of the audit can diffuse responsibility that way if they like. I was one of the firstinternational members of the Heterodox Academy because I feel the evidence and arguments arecompelling, so I recognize the general problem with ideological bias in academia – are these criticsadmitting as much now? But where is the greatest pushback against ideological diversity and opendialogue coming from?Criticism of the work as mean spiritedOpen dialogue and academic freedom are important components for good scholarship. Civility isalso a net contributor to any academic dialogue. Some feel this audit was mean in its deceptivenature, and mean in its focus on and framing of the basket of disciplines labelled grievance studies.It is not about the disciplines. You do not need to feel aggrieved if you are a scholar in thesedisciplines. It is a critique of methodology. Finding fault in methods with the aim of improvementgives those reliant on those methods the opportunity to counter the criticism or to take it on boardand adapt. It is not mean but a vital stress test for any academic discipline. It is far meaner toquestion motives and insinuate ill intent. ‘You are doing bad research and here is why’ (i.e. criticizingbehavior) is not as mean as ‘You are a bad person for asking this question’ (i.e. criticizingcharacter/intent). Some have chosen to respond to SokalSquared by employing the latter tactic.ConclusionFinally, to disabuse any readers of the belief that I want to aid the Right in attacking academia, I am avocal defender of public education and the HE sector, I am left wing, I am an academic, a socialscientist. I recognise the ideological and methodological problems in my own discipline (psychology),and I try to engage in conversations to improve the empirical and humanistic elements of ourresearch and practice. I see psychology straddling science and the Humanities, and I want it to staythere. I value good scholarship. I believe good research and scholarship has been, is being and canbe conducted on questions of identity and culture. Like PBL, I ‘think studying topics like gender, raceand sexuality is worthwhile and getting it right is extremely important'. A postmodernist lens can beuseful. We need to be more concerned about whether ‘applied’ postmodernism, as an approach ondeconstructing narratives, gets it right, or just spins the right narrative.Crucially, more interdisciplinary conversations are needed.
Page 1 and 2: The sting from a sting operation (a
Page 3: exempt SokalSquared from the need f

The sting from a sting operation and the Trojan horse of ideology

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?