That's what it may sound like but there is no way to be sure. Someone I know at Glasgow university says that they are asked after every lecture "if LBGT and BAME issues were sensitively addressed".
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That's what it may sound like but there is no way to be sure. Someone I know at Glasgow university says that they are asked after every lecture "if LBGT and BAME issues were sensitively addressed".I think someone might be yanking someone else's chain. This to me sounds like an attempt at humour at the expense of people who take feminism and climate change, as separate debating points, far too seriously.
For funny. Well OK. Laugh for sure. But like someone already said there is sense to what the guy says. There is or was a macho bias in glaciology and a tendency to overlook the understanding that the indigenous people have of Glaciers. They would hear and feel the vibrations that lab. Glaciologists had to plant detectors for. And had ways to predict sudden thaws and consequent floods. This is now super important because of global warming The man Carey is a genuine mind and I'm glad he got funding."Glaciers, Gender, and Science—A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental climate change."
This recently published, utterly incomprehensible paper was co-authored by a team of historians at the University of Oregon, and funded via a grant from the National Science Foundation. I hope all you American taxpayers feel like they got their money's worth with this project. From the abstract:
Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.
No it's not April 1st and unfortunately not a joke. Yea he actually wrote: "just and equitable human-ice interactions." In fact the University of Oregon, put out a glowing press release touting its existence.
"What I'm trying to do in my research is provide more of a human story about how shrinking glaciers, warming temperatures, changing precipitation, how that plays out for different people," said lead author Mark Carey, an associate dean of Oregon's history department, in a interview accompanying the press release.
Maybe it's just me but just try to follow along with this paragraph:
Feminist and postcolonial theories enrich and complement each other by showing how gender and colonialism are co-constituted, as well as how both women and indigenous peoples have been marginalized historically (Schnabel, 2014). Feminist glaciology builds from feminist postcolonial science studies, analyzing not only gender dynamics and situated knowledges, but also alternative knowledges and folk glaciologies that are generally marginalized through colonialism, imperialism, inequality, unequal power relations, patriarchy, and the domination of Western science (Harding, 2009).
Remember, this is a paper about how to feminize a giant hunk of ice.
I'm very pro Science and understand that everything studied does not necessarily have an immediate apparent practical value but seriously there should be some limits applied to publicly funded science. This is a prime example where working class people are being forced to fund research on the postcolonial gender theory of melting ice caps.
One last proviso - PLEASE don't turn this into a political Liberal vs. Conservative debate. This is for F U N N Y !!!
Hm, given the general tone of the quoted passages, it is hard to believe that this was written with serious intent, to be honest.
Well. I don't want a row or anything but the previous "hoax" papers were pretty well covered at the time. Faux scholarly article sets off criticism of gender studies and open-access publishingIts deadly serious - these people are absolutely nuts.
Some academics who are NOT yet actually clinically insane have shown this stuff up for the drivvel it is by writing
fake insane papers on similar lines and then getting the published in major social-studies journals... then
pointing out to the editors that the papers (often peer reviewed !) - was fake nonsense.
Google "Fake Dog park paper" - some great YouTube interviews with the people who wrote it to show these
journals up as the morons they are. The dog-park paper is absolutely hillarious, was accepted for publication too !!!
E.g.
Another set of fake papers takes aim at social science's nether regions
Here's link to the brief Economist article which seems to bypass the pay-wall because it is in a foreign language but certainly on my machine auto translates.Its deadly serious - these people are absolutely nuts.
Some academics who are NOT yet actually clinically insane have shown this stuff up for the drivvel it is by writing
fake insane papers on similar lines and then getting the published in major social-studies journals... then
pointing out to the editors that the papers (often peer reviewed !) - was fake nonsense.
Google "Fake Dog park paper" - some great YouTube interviews with the people who wrote it to show these
journals up as the morons they are. The dog-park paper is absolutely hillarious, was accepted for publication too !!!
E.g.
Another set of fake papers takes aim at social science's nether regions
Oh it was serious. If you understand the way things are then even if it was a joke it is merely a guide of the way things are.
Yeah, it was called the Grievance Studies affair. It was remarkable what they were able to pass off but, they never got a chance to conclude their project: They were exposed by an investigative journalist after the dog park paper started getting laughs on social media. That said they submitted 20 articles, of which 7 were approved, and an estimate was made that another 4 would have gotten through.Its deadly serious - these people are absolutely nuts.
Some academics who are NOT yet actually clinically insane have shown this stuff up for the drivvel it is by writing fake insane papers on similar lines and then getting the published in major social-studies journals... then pointing out to the editors that the papers (often peer reviewed !) - was fake nonsense.
Yeah, it was called the Grievance Studies affair. It was remarkable what they were able to pass off but, they never got a chance to conclude their project: They were exposed by an investigative journalist after the dog park paper started getting laughs on social media. That said they submitted 20 articles, of which 7 were approved, and an estimate was made that another 4 would have gotten through.
Mike Nayna has a page on YouTube, and he actually interviewed the players involved (James A. Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, Helen Pluckrose), as well as two academics (Bret Weinstein, and Heather Heying) who were ultimately forced to leave their positions at Evergreen College (huge riots broke out -- it was fucking insane!).
You can find it in either the playlist or the upload section.
I agree with those that think this is a joke/hoax. I think it is another case of Alan Sokal. In 1996, Sokal wrote an article claiming gravity was a social construct and not an immutable force of nature. He included all the cultural studies jargon and postmodern concepts to support his conclusions. He wanted to see if a nonsense piece could be published if it "sounded" good and appealed to the editors' ideologies and biases. Hence, it was published. Although I think it probably was a "Sokal Test," given the state of academia today, I would not be surprised if he actually believes it.
I agree with those that think this is a joke/hoax. I think it is another case of Alan Sokal. In 1996, Sokal wrote an article claiming gravity was a social construct and not an immutable force of nature. He included all the cultural studies jargon and postmodern concepts to support his conclusions. He wanted to see if a nonsense piece could be published if it "sounded" good and appealed to the editors' ideologies and biases. Hence, it was published. Although I think it probably was a "Sokal Test," given the state of academia today, I would not be surprised if he actually believes it.
I propose a version of the Turing test. When 50% of the general public cant tell the difference between an academics output and a spoof the academic is removed from the university and put on the comic circuit.