By: Kyle James | 10-03-2018 | News
Photo credit: @choo_ek | Twitter

Group Proves Academia Is Biased Toward Publishing Papers Pushing Far-Left Agendas

||| @choo_ek | Twitter |||

Some top-tier trolls wanted to see if they could get some extremely far-left papers published on topics including "feminist geography" and why dogs humping each other is evidence of rape culture. They were submitted to scientific journals in academia as satire but the far-left ideologues didn't pick up on the clues. In fact, they praised for their work and their research was given accolades and held up as leading research.

Perhaps the greatest troll of 2018 was pulled off by collaborators James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose. Together, the band of concerned academics set out to understand and properly criticize the bias that exists in academia today, especially in relation to gender studies and other social justice related far-left topics. The group even talks with James Damore, Helen Pluckrose, and others who have come forward to expose the culture they once were apart of.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kVk9a5Jcd1k" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Related coverage: <a href="https://thegoldwater.com/news/17346-Jordan-Peterson-s-Followers-Accused-Of-Misogynistic-Abuse">Jordan Peterson's Followers Accused Of 'Misogynistic Abuse'</a>

The group's summary of the project says, "We engaged in a one-year immersive exploration to attempt to understand certain academic fields as "outsiders within" and test their scholarship at its highest levels. To speak broadly, these include gender studies and other cultural studies fields within the humanities and reaching into sociology, psychology,

and, perhaps most worryingly, education."

The report continues, "The specific problem we targeted has various names in various quarters and is difficult to pin down.

Careful academics would refer to it as “critical constructivism” and/or “blank slatism” and its scholars as

“radical constructivists.” (In this sense, it is the descendants of postmodernist and poststructuralist thought

from the mid 20th century.) Pundits have termed it "academic leftism" or "cultural studies" and identify it with the term "political correctness."

The trio continue in their project's summary, "We prefer to call it “grievance studies” because many of these fields refer to themselves as "[something] studies" and because they operate primarily by focusing upon and inflaming the grievances of certain identity groups. We think it represents a significant and influential subset of the scholarship coming out of

cultural studies within the humanities, sociology, anthropology, and other social sciences and that is gaining increasing power over our universities, institutions, media, and culture."

Related coverage: <a href="https://thegoldwater.com/news/33826-Vox-Drastically-Inflates-Statistic-In-Race-baiting-Fake-News-Piece">Vox Drastically Inflates Statistic In Race-baiting Fake News Piece</a>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nSQYHsHJx6A" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

To cut to the chase, the group describes the methods they used saying, "We wrote academic papers targeting (mostly) highly ranked, peer-reviewed journals in fields we are concerned might be corrupted by scholarship biased by "grievance studies." These papers were submitted to the best journals we could find, given constraints of the journals’ aims and scopes, and then we used the feedback we received about them from editors and peer reviewers to improve them and our future

papers."

"Our primary data for the project, apart from the papers themselves and the outcomes they achieved, are the many extensive comments made by professionals working in the field (journal editors and peer reviewers) on our intentionally broken papers. We wanted to gather these data for two reasons. First, they represented our primary means of gaining expertise and thus learning how to write better papers. Second, they constitute an unvarnished look into the professional workings of the academic culture we were studying."

The report continues, "Each paper was submitted to higher-ranked journals first and then down a line of suitable alternatives until one of the following occurred: it was accepted; it was deemed too unlikely to succeed for reasons we came to understand to continue with it, or we ran out of time."

Related coverage: <a href="https://thegoldwater.com/news/37556-Report-Hits-Out-At-YouTube-Calling-It-A-Breeding-Ground-For-Rightwing-Radicalism">Report Hits Out At YouTube Calling It A Breeding Ground For Rightwing Radicalism</a>

"Because there are serious problems with the assumptions underlying grievance studies and how scholarship in these fields proceeds, it is incredibly difficult to conclude that the work based in grievance studies can be trusted. This means we are skeptical of the conclusions and recommendations appearing in their scholarship and all subsequent work referencing it. Particularly, there is very little reason to consider work in this field as capable of generating knowledge about the world, the people living in it, and the societies they form," the report concludes.

"We conclude the problem we have identified in grievance studies, which has taken over large sectors of the humanities and social sciences, is real and significant. That problem is that a political bias which intentionally blends activism into scholarship (sometimes described as “academic leftism”) has become dominant and entrenched in varying degrees within those fields it has successfully corrupted. Moreover, it aims to spread its assumptions and methods into other fields, including the hard sciences. This, in turn, delegitimizes this scholarship and casts serious doubt upon its conclusions and results. These results and

methods are therefore in need of reconsideration."

The long and short of it is that three guys were able to create fake research on topics favored by the far-left such as gender-related studies that further the liberal left's agenda, and those papers were not only peer-reviewed and published but some of them were even praised. This highlights a major problem with bias in academia and if you are looking for a fair shot in any industry run by the liberal left, good luck with that! You can find the group's full <a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19tBy_fVlYIHTxxjuVMFxh4pqLHM_en18">Project Summary here.</a>

<i>On Twitter:</i>

<a href="https://twitter.com/MAGASyndicate">@MAGASyndicate</a>

Tips? Info? Send me a message!

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news-comes-to-academia-1538520950

Twitter: #Bias #Liberal #Media #Academia #FarLeftLeaning #Study #Results #Rigged

Share this article
Thoughts on the above story? Comment below!
0 comment/s
What do you think about this article?
Name
Comment *
Image

Recent News

Popular Stories