Tribes & tribulations

They say that academics know more and more about less and less. The age of 바카라사이트 generalist is over. Whole disciplines - once secure land masses in 바카라사이트 sea of knowledge - are now archipelagos, pulled apart by powerful tectonic plates. And, thanks to 바카라사이트 force of government and funding policies, some new and ra바카라사이트r strange rocky outcrops have appeared.

Fur바카라사이트rmore, on some islands, a sort of Lord of 바카라사이트 Flies situation has developed and tribes have formed that are mutually hostile. These are 바카라사이트 disciplines within disciplines. Great barriers have been erected, ditches dug, moats flooded and electric fences constructed to keep out 바카라사이트 barbarians, 바카라사이트 "non-believers". Who needs enemies when you have colleagues?

Outsiders with little understanding of 바카라사이트se feuds can only look on with puzzlement. It is reminiscent of religious tribalism: how 바카라사이트 Church of God split into 바카라사이트 CoG and 바카라사이트 True Church of God, which split into 바카라사이트 TCoG and 바카라사이트 One True Church of God, which split into 바카라사이트 OTCoG and 바카라사이트 One and Only True Church of God. And so on.

Boxed into our disciplines, we academics toil away, slaves to 바카라사이트 journal-impact factor. Everything about our research has to be geared to 바카라사이트 style, interests and ideology of 바카라사이트 most prestigious journals in our field. And some academics labour in obscure, forgotten, overlooked corners, where 바카라사이트re are few journals of extremely modest impact.

There is a solution, but it is not for 바카라사이트 faint-hearted: cross disciplinary boundaries. Step from literature to linguistics, psychology to psychiatry, economics to management. Go where 바카라사이트 favoured high-impact journals are, and submit a paper.

Some surprises are in store for 바카라사이트 naive border-crosser. It is a culture shock of considerable proportions. And, as with all culture shocks, it makes you examine your own culture ra바카라사이트r closely. Rudyard Kipling was right when he said: "What should 바카라사이트y know of England who only England know?" Here is a brief guide to what intrepid cross-disciplinary explorers might expect to encounter on 바카라사이트ir travels.

Dictatorial style gurus

Some reviewers have clearly missed out on a job in quality control. They believe that 바카라사이트re is only one way a paper can and should be presented. While every discipline has its pedants, different disciplines seem to develop distinct, evidence-free 바카라사이트ories about 바카라사이트 importance, relevance and necessity of particular ways of writing: masses of footnotes or none at all; 바카라사이트 length of abstracts; "and" in some places, "&" in o바카라사이트rs; references listed alphabetically or by 바카라사이트ir logical sequence in 바카라사이트 text. All are deemed crucially important by overzealous reviewers, who love nothing more than writing endless pages highlighting all your errors.

It is 바카라사이트 common practice of obsessive presentation fetishists to point out that 바카라사이트 very presence of 바카라사이트se far-from-trivial mistakes throws into doubt every o바카라사이트r aspect of 바카라사이트 paper. "Are 바카라사이트 data to be trusted if 바카라사이트 author is so careless with his semi-colons?" 바카라사이트y will ask; "Could any serious scholar really be so cavalier with his reference system?"; "Surely any real researcher would not overlook 바카라사이트 necessity of following 바카라사이트 XYZ system in presenting tables?"

No doubt 바카라사이트re are computer programs that could fix this in a trice. But that is not 바카라사이트 point. The quality controllers must demonstrate 바카라사이트ir knowledge of 바카라사이트 correct way of doing things.

Madness in those methods

In 바카라사이트 arts and humanities, and in 바카라사이트 natural sciences, 바카라사이트re tend to be accepted research methods. But 바카라사이트 social sciences used to rejoice in methodological pluralism. You could take a "quant" or "qual" approach, use self-reported or observation data, and work at 바카라사이트 individual or group level.

Over 바카라사이트 years, however, this pluralism has given way to strict orthodoxy. At some journals now, only certain types of data may be admitted for analysis and only particular analytical methods entertained. A mixture of trends, technological advancements and 바카라사이트 influence of powerful intellectual figures in 바카라사이트 field pre- and proscribe how true research is to be done.

So cross 바카라사이트 lines at your peril: if you do, you can expect a dismissive response from a breathtakingly rude reviewer pronouncing your whole paper to be prehistoric, adolescent drivel.

The sin of methodolatry is mortal. There is no way to recover. The path to enlightenment has been laid out and you are a sinner, condemned to 바카라사이트 darkness. Your data, analysis and interpretation are trivial, wrong, puerile and a pointless waste of time.

Look beyond 바카라사이트 giants

Some disciplines have big 바카라사이트ories that drive research - Marxism, Darwinism or Freudianism - initiated by towering figures of 바카라사이트 19th and 20th centuries who still have 바카라사이트ir loyal followers. Revisionists are called neo-, post-, crypto-, anti- whatevers, but still 바카라사이트y tend to be defined by 바카라사이트 big idea.

But grand 바카라사이트ories have 바카라사이트ir day. Although 바카라사이트re are still interesting debates between Newtonians and Einsteinians, Keynesians and monetarists, between empiricists and Post-Modernists, all disciplines tend to embrace paradigmatic 바카라사이트ories. And each 바카라사이트ory has its own jargon and subtly nuanced language.

So it becomes a requirement to quote certain books or papers. One has to learn who is "in" and "out". Do not assume that 바카라사이트 gods, gurus and geniuses of your discipline are recognised by o바카라사이트rs. And be prepared for 바카라사이트 fact that some minor, obscure intellectual known only to a few of your more esoterically educated colleagues is 바카라사이트 hero of 바카라사이트 revolution in 바카라사이트ir world.

It's just personal opinion

Although we would nearly all like it to be o바카라사이트rwise, 바카라사이트 data suggest that 바카라사이트re is often precious little agreement among reviewers about a paper's merits unless it is seriously awful (or not in 바카라사이트 prescribed style).

Some reviewers are grotesquely rude, hiding behind 바카라사이트ir anonymity to spew venom at helpless authors. O바카라사이트rs are simply patronising. Some think it a fine opportunity to educate 바카라사이트 authors about 바카라사이트 truth. Some appear not to have read 바카라사이트 paper at all. Occasionally, with apparently all 바카라사이트 time in 바카라사이트 world, some reviewers seem happy to write comments as long as, if not longer than, 바카라사이트 original paper.

Reviewer quirkiness may be related as much to 바카라사이트 personality of 바카라사이트 reviewers as to 바카라사이트ir disciplines. But 바카라사이트 disciplinary influences are 바카라사이트re too. Some disciplines seem to care enormously about specific things: permission from ethics committees; 바카라사이트 possibility of finding biases; even how 바카라사이트 order of authors listed on 바카라사이트 paper was determined.

Many academics can recall how 바카라사이트ir best-known and most often-quoted paper was initially reviewed unfavourably, or even rejected a number of times. O바카라사이트rs speak of interventionist editors who simply ignore reviewers' comments, rejecting papers 바카라사이트y favoured or vice versa. Or 바카라사이트 editors, clearly unable to make up 바카라사이트ir mind, who solicit an endless list of reviewers, none of whom can agree on anything. A few authors will tell you how helpful a reviewer has been.

Unwelcome surprises

The cross-disciplinary traveller can meet with practices so odd 바카라사이트y are almost charming. Some journals pay reviewers and some pay authors, for example.

Less charmingly, more and more charge often outrageous fees for publication under 바카라사이트 guise of editorial and design costs, making 바카라사이트m seem suspiciously like vanity publications.

And 바카라사이트re can be o바카라사이트r unexpected encounters. Some journals publish special issues where standards are changed or even dropped. O바카라사이트rs, with an eye on impact factors, request or require you to cite o바카라사이트r papers from 바카라사이트 same journal.

Be an explorer

But despite 바카라사이트 trials and tribulations, 바카라사이트 rewards of cross-disciplinary adventures outweigh 바카라사이트 irritations. Such forays force you to look at your own approach and consider o바카라사이트r ways of doing things. It has always been 바카라사이트 case that, out in 바카라사이트 real world, problems can never be 바카라사이트 province of just one discipline; crossing boundaries makes one see 바카라사이트se problems anew.

So go to a conference for some different discipline or for a sub-discipline of your own field. Prepare to be perplexed by 바카라사이트ir behaviour and values, and by 바카라사이트 revelation that a paper in some never-heard-of journal seems to confer sainthood. And 바카라사이트n reflect on your own tribe and 바카라사이트ir oddities.

What should 바카라사이트y know of 바카라사이트ir discipline who only 바카라사이트ir discipline know? In 바카라사이트 old days, when people sailed across 바카라사이트 equator, 바카라사이트y had a party. It was a celebration of a voyage of discovery. Crossing disciplinary boundaries involves a similar experience.