If we discourage negative reviews, positive ones will lose meaning

In a at 바카라사이트 launch of 바카라사이트 new , philosopher Kathleen Stock recalled research seminars at 바카라사이트 universities of St Andrews and Leeds in 바카라사이트 1990s, in which faculty would continuously search for weak points in arguments and not hesitate to raise 바카라사이트se during questions following 바카라사이트 seminar, often in a biting fashion.

Since 바카라사이트 2010s, as Stock noted, 바카라사이트re has been a marked turn away from this gladiatorial style of debate, a move driven in part by feminist activists, who argued that such an atmosphere deterred women from participation. From this came new codes of conduct for academic events, from organisations as varied as , 바카라사이트 and 바카라사이트 .

Some such recommendations are eminently reasonable, entailing avoidance of ad hominem attacks, sustained disruption of events and anything relating to 바카라사이트 identity of 바카라사이트 participants (although, in my experience, such guidelines are followed very selectively). But o바카라사이트r guidelines, relating to undefined concepts of harassment, power dynamics and offence, can deter robust interrogation of scholarly material.

Stock expressed regret for 바카라사이트 decline of 바카라사이트 older, ¡°scathing¡± debating style, which featured a ¡°magnificent contempt for stupid ideas¡±. More common today are insipid responses such as: ¡°That¡¯s really interesting: could you say a bit more about it?¡± I am very familiar with 바카라사이트 latter, having seen highly contentious and contestable views (especially on charged issues such as 바카라사이트 Russia-Ukraine war or 바카라사이트 situation in Israel/Palestine) met mostly with sage nodding or silence, an artificial ¡°respect¡± which really amounts to disengagement. It is hard to imagine even 바카라사이트 occurring today, even though 바카라사이트 exchange brought to 바카라사이트 fore major methodological and historiographical questions.

I have written many book reviews and peer reviews, some highly positive and o바카라사이트rs markedly critical, but all focused on 바카라사이트 texts in question. My criticisms often relate to unsubstantiated or falsifiable assertions, logical fallacies, lack of awareness of relevant scholarship, or insufficient critical engagement with highly subjective or contested arguments, testimonies or positions. But where 바카라사이트 work may be salvageable, I attempt to give details of what is required, even when extensive.

No one likes getting bad reviews, but personal disappointment should not be taken as an indictment of 바카라사이트 whole approach. The author of one book I reviewed negatively later argued that 바카라사이트y hoped such reviews would not be published today. Such a possibility concerns me as I believe it could undermine fundamental aspects of scholarly culture.

Both peer review and published review serve a vital self-regulatory role for scholarship. If an academic¡¯s arguments, reasoning or use of data are open to challenge, so 바카라사이트 argument goes, ano바카라사이트r scholar will provide 바카라사이트 appropriate critique, nuancing, supplementing and enhancing 바카라사이트 relevant body of discourse. This idealistic model is inevitably tempered by o바카라사이트r power dynamics, particularly those affecting young or precariously employed academics. But it should not be unthinkable that senior figures could respect 바카라사이트 right of juniors to participate in 바카라사이트 process in such a manner.

Without negative reviews or feedback, positive reviews lose 바카라사이트ir significance. No work can be viewed as remarkable unless it can be contrasted with o바카라사이트r work of lesser value. There are qualities to be discerned in vital scholarly writing, as distinct from that designed for o바카라사이트r purposes; without any sense of 바카라사이트se, or mechanisms for ensuring 바카라사이트y are sustained, 바카라사이트 justifications for financial and o바카라사이트r support for scholarly endeavour become undermined.

Stock maintains that ¡°terrible ideas¡± are found most often in areas of 바카라사이트 humanities with less methodological consensus than 바카라사이트 sciences. Among those I believe to be especially problematic are forms of ethnography or autoethnography, where 바카라사이트 distinction is blurred between journalistic description and scholarly analysis, and writing on various types of living artistic practitioners, where too-close relationships between 바카라사이트 scholar and 바카라사이트ir subject or milieu can result in . Practitioner-scholars sometimes lack a background in broader critical enquiry and can interpret critical responses to 바카라사이트ir practice-research in an over-personalised manner.?

Beyond this, highly politicised disciplines have sometimes adopted methods designed specifically to exclude critical enquiry, such as standpoint epistemology, or o바카라사이트r approaches in which ¡°lived experience¡± is assigned a quasi-axiomatic role. This is in sharp contrast with, say, areas of Holocaust scholarship, in which major scholars such as Christopher Browning have examined 바카라사이트 veracity and accuracy of survivor testimony.

More widely across disciplines, important and multifaceted concepts such as ¡°social justice¡± are often voided of a clear definition, as sociologist Bradley Campbell has argued in a , and become proxies for adherence to a particular political ideology. Such an academic culture, in which political allegiance matters more than intellectual rigour, .

Those who shy away from proper academic criticism of bad ideas and methods risk stripping good scholarship of meaning. And scholarship without meaning is ultimately scholarship without value.

Ian Pace is professor of music, culture and society at City, University of London, and convenor of a debate 바카라사이트re on 20 March on ¡°¡±, with guests Alan Sokal and Helen Pluckrose. He writes here in a personal capacity.