[Duruss]

Spoiler!

Originally Posted by New Era

A comment on "grievance studies" and the subsequent "scandal" surrounding them.

Originally Posted by New Era

Has anyone actually looked into this? Is it really a problem or more games being played by disgruntled academics? I get that there are academics with an agenda, are these people just more of them? This is part and parcel of any industry or large bureaucracy. I'm kind of sitting back and wondering what the extent of this really is about, and what it really points to? Is this really a massive problem in "academia" or is this more of an isolated problem that is being blown out of proportion? To provide some perspective, there are over 11,500 recognized and catalogued journals covering 230+ disciplines. Is this an attack at certain journals or subjects of the individual's likings, or is this a real problem?


For example, the canine article was submitted to the monthly "feminist geography" journal Gender, Place Culture. This is a journal published by Taylor and Francis and has a limited audience. It has an impact factor (the number of citations it will receive in a year) of 1.18 (top journals being in the 4.0 range). That means it is a pretty small journal. Obviously it is going to have influence over its readership, but is it indicative of a greater problem in "academia" as a whole? An interesting note is that the Managing Editor of this publication is Dr. Pamela Moss from University of Victoria!



To continue down this rabbit hole, Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism, was accepted by the peer-reviewed women and social work journal Affilia. Published by Sage, and edited by Stéphanie Wahab (Portland State University), Yoosun Park (Smith College), and Rupaleem Bhuyan (University of Toronto) this journal has an impact factor of .833.



Additionally, the Journal of Poetry Therapy, published by Taylor and Francis has a very small reach as well. Going through their online journal the largest number of reads of any of the articles from their publications going back to 2015 has a high read number of 701 views and a high or 4 citations for any article.



These are obviously very targeted campaigns that are addressing subject matter near and dear to the hearts of those punking the journals, and when I say that I mean they hold them in high contempt. Activism has its good points, but it also has its bad. The fact that these academics are very targeted in their actions seems to suggest they have a personal axe to grind. I get that, and frankly I agree with their contempt for the subject matter in question, but I also think they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because a micro journal does not follow appropriate rigor in reviewing their content does not mean all are guilty.

It frankly seem's to be dog whistle tactics; red meat for people who worship the likes or Peterson. An Alt right motivation for this is to use this is to be able to "paint with a wide brush" and continue to attack and outrage culture academia. So same old same old.