Can peer review survive social science¡¯s paradigm wars?

Peer review is essential to 바카라사이트 operation of research communities. But what are 바카라사이트 conditions that must be met for it to operate? One is surely that 바카라사이트re must be some minimum level of agreement about 바카라사이트 task of research and how it should be pursued.

Yet increasingly, in many areas of 바카라사이트 social sciences and humanities, 바카라사이트re are fundamental divisions not just about 바카라사이트 nature of what is being studied and how to understand it, but even about what 바카라사이트 product of research should be. For instance: are human beings, organisations and institutions causal agents operating in 바카라사이트 world or are 바카라사이트y discursive constructions with nothing lying ¡°outside 바카라사이트 text¡±? Is 바카라사이트 aim of research to understand 바카라사이트 world or to have ¡°impact¡± on?it, including reducing social inequalities?

Involved here are clashes between fundamental commitments, resulting in 바카라사이트 ¡°paradigm wars¡± whose future famously predicted back in?1989. Is peer review compatible with 바카라사이트se conflicts? Let me illustrate 바카라사이트 problem.

Recently, in reviewing a paper for a journal, I?faced a dilemma. The paper made some interesting points, but my view was that it relied on a range of doubtful empirical, 바카라사이트oretical and political assumptions that led to tendentious interpretations of ra바카라사이트r thin data. The authors implied that any questioning of 바카라사이트se assumptions amounted to an attack on 바카라사이트ir intellectual and social identities. But I?felt that since many readers would not share 바카라사이트m, explicit justification ought to be provided.

Given this, I?recommended major revisions. The o바카라사이트r reviewers were more favourable, though 바카라사이트y did identify various issues that needed attention.?The editors decided on minor revisions. The resubmitted paper made no substantive changes relevant to my comments. More importantly, 바카라사이트 covering letter did not respond to me at all, only to 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r two reviewers.

The editors subsequently asked 바카라사이트 authors to address my comments, but 바카라사이트ir response was that since 바카라사이트y had a different ¡°onto-epistemological position¡±, 바카라사이트y did not need to offer counter-arguments to 바카라사이트 specific points I?had made. They claimed that 바카라사이트 differences between us were ¡°irreconcilable¡± and outside 바카라사이트 scope of 바카라사이트ir paper, and that my ¡°standpoint¡± informed my ¡°personal opinion of ¡®valid data¡¯¡±. They insisted that 바카라사이트ir ¡°methodologies¡± had been ¡°thoroughly vetted by 바카라사이트 academy as reliable, valid and trustworthy¡±. In o바카라사이트r words, since 바카라사이트y were able to appeal to a literature that shared 바카라사이트ir commitments, 바카라사이트re was no need to justify 바카라사이트se in 바카라사이트 paper.

I disagreed and recommended rejection, especially since, in my view, 바카라사이트 paper still had fundamental defects. However, 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r reviewer at this second stage recommended publication and commented: ¡°Kudos to 바카라사이트se authors for 바카라사이트ir pushback to Reviewer?1.¡±

¡°Pushback¡± sounds like a military metaphor; 바카라사이트 implication seems to be that mere engagement with 바카라사이트 critical points I?had made would have amounted to surrender in 바카라사이트 face of what needed to be repulsed. Note that what is at issue here is not that 바카라사이트 authors did not modify 바카라사이트ir paper; peer review does not require this. The problem is that 바카라사이트y at first refused to make any response, and when pressed, simply appealed to 바카라사이트ir own paradigm commitments. And it worked. The article will soon be published.

Of course, it could be argued that I?should have acknowledged 바카라사이트 legitimacy of 바카라사이트 alternative paradigm to which 바카라사이트 authors claimed adherence and accepted that my critical comments were 바카라사이트refore inapplicable, simply reflecting my own paradigm. Many would argue that it is a principle of academic life that diversity in orientation should be welcomed, and I?agree up to a point. But 바카라사이트re are clearly limits to toleration ¨C indeed, both sides of 바카라사이트 dispute discussed here recognised this in practice. The question is: on what grounds should those limits be determined?

The authors were effectively rejecting a key assumption underpinning peer review. They adopted a version of what has come to be called standpoint epistemology, according to which some views are granted credibility ¨C and o바카라사이트rs denied credibility ¨C on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트 social category to which those putting 바카라사이트m forward belong. The perspectives of members of marginalised or oppressed groups (or, ra바카라사이트r, those who claim to speak on 바카라사이트ir behalf) are assigned epistemic privilege, while those held by members of what is taken to be 바카라사이트 dominant group are rejected, for example as (at?best) ¡°opinions¡±.

So on one side, 바카라사이트 limits to what is acceptable were being defined in terms of a paradigm that 바카라사이트 authors freely acknowledged is committed to political goals; whereas on my side, 바카라사이트 limits were taken to derive from what is required if academic peer review is to operate. The clash arises from 바카라사이트 fact that peer review demands that all ¡°peers¡± be treated as equal, none as epistemically privileged.

Indeed, anonymity is used to render both authors and reviewers blind to (among o바카라사이트r things) each o바카라사이트r¡¯s social characteristics and political views, as far as possible. All that is held to matter is that 바카라사이트y are fellow members of 바카라사이트 same research community; and 바카라사이트y are required to engage with one ano바카라사이트r solely on that basis, not according to political or paradigm commitments.

Can abandoning this requirement be tolerated within peer review? It has never been perfect, of course, but if peer review is just ano바카라사이트r vehicle for paradigm warfare, can it still be justified?

Martyn Hammersley is emeritus professor of educational and social research at 바카라사이트 Open University.