Slashdot Mirror
Reason Excoriates Paper On "Glaciers, Gender, and Science" (reason.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Reason.com's Robby Soave criticizes an article published in the journal Progress in Human Geography, for being "utterly incomprehensible," and "the least essential paper ever written." Entitled Glaciers, Gender, and Science--A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental climate change, the article is authored by researchers at the University of Oregon and funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation. Despite being filled with "buzzwords -- colonialism, marginalization, masculinist discourses, etc. -- with such frequency that the entire thing comes off like a joke," the article is accompanied by an enthusiastic press release from the University of Oregon, stating that "glacier research has been intertwined with gender relations, masculine cultures of exploration, geopolitics, and individual and institutional power. That, in turn, led to glacier-related academic and governmental jobs being predominantly filled by men. ... Melting glaciers are today considered a national security risk for numerous countries,' [one of the researchers] said. 'Power and colonialism have shaped the science.' That message is detailed extensively in the paper."
Your tax dollars at work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
But women care deeply about getting their fair share of those research dollars and ensuring a woman's point of view is expressed on scientific phenomena.
If it requires sacrificing some white men's positions, so be it. After all, it is 2016.
What makes you think it's not news? And why does it matter that the story comes from Reason?
Reason is a partisan think-tank without much thinking, pandering to an under-educated but politically militant audience. The paper is news-worthy, the leading response article not so much - it's the paper form of some kids watching 2girls1cup for the first time.
The "geologist" who wrote that could one day be a diversity hire on a project that might actually be important.
And she probably really believes that she's doing real science.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
As opposed to say the New York Times, CNN, or MSNBC. ?
Or is Reason bad because they laugh at you ?
It is utter rubbish. Please do read the conclusion: "a broader consideration of ‘cryoscapes’, the human, and the insights and potentials of alternative ice narratives and folk glaciologies.". "Global environmental change research must pluralize its ontologies, epistemologies, and sensibilities". Seriously, this is what passes for science these days?
This thing truly reads like a poor April fools article, and I am sad to say that this is the case for a lot of other papers coming out of gender study departments. "Many humanities and social science disciplines and sub-disciplines have given significant attention to these issues, but there remain boundaries between these analyses and those considered central to the environmental change question." That part is true, and for good reasons. For examples of these reaons, read the conclusion of this ridiculous paper. If you want to be included in any serious discussion about these matters, you'll have be able to bring something worthwhile to the table. This ain't it.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
bridging sociology and climatology
I'm willing - hesitant but willing - to concede that while this might be a well-intended attempt to bridge sociology and climatology, the colossal insecurity and complete inability to think critically revealed by this insanity guarantees that an attempt is all it's going to be.
I think you're right. However, the paper could have gotten to the point quicker, and done more to actually further that argument. Whereas instead, it seems to be written by somebody with a feminist axe to grind, and almost seems to intentionally bait the anti-sjw crowd. Most of the paper seems to follow the argument of "Women's contribution to science tends to be overlooked" => "Glaciology is science" => "Therefore we ought to focus on women's contributions to glaciology". This may be true, but it comes across as a lot of fist shaking, and not a lot of getting to the point about what specific advancements in that field in particular have been overlooked due to male-dominated science. It reads more like an undergrad term paper written for a women's study class than something belonging in a serious academic journal.
There's nothing particularly extreme about the paper, other than it's sheer length, and perhaps the vitriol following in its wake. Yes, its peppered with obtuse buzzwords and hidden language that speaks to a community of interest, but so are Slashdot commentaries.
The author makes very valid arguments, such as "Manliness in the field thus makes the science (and scientist) more credible." The whole premise is that people find some some science more credible than other science based on sexist judgments. Disagree with the conclusions (whatever they are, I only skimmed the paper), but don't get pissed because it reaches conclusions you dislike. Even failures are worthy as long as they're rigorous.
Personally, I applaud the author of this paper, just like I'd applaud a mechanic who spends $100,000 on equipment to fix push lawn motors. How can you not appreciate somebody investing so much time in something so trivial (where trivial != unimportant). It's over-the-top. True Scotsmen nerds should appreciate such passion. You can hem & haw about the NSF grant, but it was probably just a few grand, and as I said, if you peel away the layers of the onions there's some substance there. It's not clear to me that it's money misspent.
The response this stuff instigates in the anti-feminist crowd, however... priceless.
The introduction of the paper brings up the idea that "ice is just ice" and then dismisses it. If I am understanding the paper correctly (and how can I be certain of that!) the idea is that people care about glaciers, therefore there is a sociological component to them:
(italics in original)
The paper goes on to say that most research on glaciers was produced by males, which of course is a problem.
No, I didn't punch that up to make it funny, the original really says "men, with manly characteristics".
Again, this is the original text. "penetrate" and "exploitation" are both from the paper.
So the paper argues that all existing knowledge of glaciers is tainted by the maleness of the research, and also by the "colonialism" of the research. In short, not even the study of glaciers can be a pure study of the natural world; glacier scientists must be feminist postcolonial social-justice warriors.
The conclusion of the paper states:
I'm not convinced. The paper is very long on speculation and very short on evidence. If the maleness and colonialism of glacier studies have given us a blind spot in our understanding of what glaciers are, then give at least one example.
Even in the paper, female mountaineers and female scientists are mentioned. If the study of glaciers somehow rejected these women and their contributions, the paper doesn't give any examples.
Also I reject the paper's idea that the word "glaciology" should be expanded to include sociological and feminist context. It seems like a transparent attempt to latch fuzzy SJW ideas onto a natural science. Ice really is just ice; people can study ice without studying how society reacts to ice.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
My only disappointment with the paper was that it read more as a survey than something offering new conclusions or new methodologies.
The claim that 'ice is just ice' is both tautological and missing the point. Glaciers obviously play a role in societies that cannot be captured purely by a description of their iciness. It shouldn't be surprising that analyses of the impact of (for example) climate change on glacier retreat that take into account only a certain subset of their role in a social, human context will give a distorted picture. Such selective views can indeed lead to policies that exacerbate existing power differentials.
Words such as discourse, colonialism and marginalization, the use of which is mocked without further argument by Soave, do have specialised meanings in critical studies and sociology. One might mount arguments about the relevance or quality of scholarship, but to criticise without any appreciation of the academic context is lazy and contributes nothing but noise to the discussion.
If I want to understand how ice melts, I will use the language and methods of physics. If I want to understand what it means to a community when the ice melts, then I will want to use a different set of tools.
Yes.
Why? Because it's direct, to the point, and accurate.
Anyone in Academia that breaks Orwell's Five Rules should be tossed from a very high altitude airplane
1) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
"Or is Reason bad because they laugh at you ?"
You got it. Reason Foundation is a libertarian, but not Randian, think tank with some refreshingly iconoclastic views about the major political factions.
Most people believe that men and women should be treated equally, and have equal opportunities. Feminism goes wrong when it turns in to myopic whining about unequal outcomes. Unfortunately this is what much modern feminism has turned in to. It is not about equality at all.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The whole premise is that people find some science more credible than other science based on sexist judgments.
Agree, your defense of this paper is pretty conclusive evidence that some people can't tell the difference between a political argument and a scientific one.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The paper is newsworthy in the same way as creationism in science class is newsworthy.
The only significant (and cruel) state sponsored gender discrimination remaining in the western world is against fathers in family courts where the default custody arrangements are dad gets the kids 4days/mth, mum gets the kids the other 26 and dad is forced to foot the bill for her privileged position in the eyes of the law. When will modern feminists stop openly supporting sexual discrimination against dads in divorce court, if gender equality is actually anything more than a slogan why are they actively lobbying AGAINST equal custody rights for both sexes?
If I'm wrong then it should be easy to point to a feminist organisation that has come out in support of 50/50 shared parenting, and yes every feminist organisation in the US has been politely invited to show their support by various fathers rights groups. To date not one of those organisations have accepted that invitation and many have actually responded by voicing their support for the status quo.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"I am normally pretty supportive of feminist agendas as treating everyone equally is a strangely compelling idea, but I feel that this is such an easy target that I cannot ignore it."
The inability to see the internal contradiction within that sentence is a very common trait among those who are "pretty supportive of feminist agendas."
Because Reason.com has a pathological need to a) make up new controversy about climate change, and b) denounce anything vaguely social sciencey based almost entirely on their inability to understand the terms social scientists use. Seriously, I have never met a Reason.,com user who actually knows what "Privilege" is, and yet they automatically assume they can all parse a sentence about "white male privilege" because they're all the same wrong. When you point out to them that they are, in fact, mostly wrong instead of trying to figure out what the sentence would mean given the new definition, they will claim that the fact they're all the same wrong means that they are actually right, and the person who knows what actual Social Scientists mean when they use the term is an idiot.
This entire article is actually an extended tour of "I don't know what that word means, but people I don't like use it, therefore I am going to rip it shreds without bothering to understand it." Seriously, just read the damn thing. If I denounced a Physics paper on the basis that "Quantum" was inherently ridiculous I'd be an idiot, and the Reason.com guy is similarly an idiot for denouncing a paper based entirely on his inability to understand simple social science terms.
In this case the point of the paper is that historically guys have dominated glacier research, which is fine if you're just talking about how glaciers behave. But if you're talking about what the people around them should do in response to climate change it is potentially problematic because half the people around the glacier are not guys, and much of what those not-guy people do does not get much shrift in a guy-dominated research environment.
For example, there's no utility company in the mountains of Nepal, what're they doing for heat? Probably burning shit. Possibly literally shit (the Sioux used Buffalo droppings), possibly plant life. Either could be affected by climate change, but how? I can imagine a zoologist getting a paper on how the changed environment would hurt the local livestock breeding practices, but who would even do the shit-burning paper?
I read the actual journal article. What the authors seem to be talking about is the low credence that scientists in the past have given to indigenous knowledge about glaciers, which is a valid complaint and one that has been leveled at various branches of natural resources sciences of late. Why recognizing that knowledge counts as 'feminist' I cannot say. There are also observations that women have been excluded from glaciology in the past, and that had women been more involved, we may have done more and different research on, for example, the relationships between indigenous people and glaciers. I think those points are okay, as far as they go.
It's not a 'science' article in the quantitative sense. It's a survey of the state of the domain. It is clearly identified as such in the text. And it was published in a journal where such an article is appropriate.
People are making much of the $400,000 price tag. That money is distributed over the course of 5 years. I don't know what UO's institutional overhead rate is, but it is a reasonable guess that the Carey (the lead author) gets access to around $50,000 per year of this money. He has some budget worked out for that money that likely includes funding some number of hours of his own time, some hours for a graduate student, and then things like computer equipment and travel and so on. This particular paper is not the sole product of that money. In fact, it's not even listed as one of the intended outputs of the project. It is likely something that struck his interest as he was researching, and he chose to write it and see if anyone would publish it.
I do think the writing is florid. Sadly, that is the academic style right now. I believe that he could have made his point with half the word count. I also think that focusing on feminism rather than broader ideas of inclusiveness is likely to cause complaint, and, indeed, that is what we see here on Slashdot and in the reason.com write-up.
I don't think it's a bad article for what it says. I think how it says it could be improved. And I think the press coverage does a disservice with straw-man arguments. They're click-baiting people into raging about positions that the paper doesn't take.
1. Glaciers, Gender, and Science--A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental climate change is published, after a review process that is itself currently under review.
2. The paper generates a backlash among those who are fed up with social issues (such as feminism) intruding into the sciences; also those who strive for pure social discourse on gender issues unsoiled by what they see as a gateway to a name-calling tabloid fixation on some group. It generates a frontlash among those who think it sounds cool, and 'like' it on Facebook. No one else bats an eyelash.
3. It is suggested that it is in fact complete gibberish. Everyone is embarrassed as they gaze back in horror at the tomes of intricately crafted backlash they have written about it. They respond with indignation towards the process that permitted it to be published.
4. It is suggested that the paper seems like gibberish to the un-initiate but is actually a philosophical 'Chautauqua' of stream-of-consciousness ideas, a process that was described in Robert M. Pirsig's 1974 work Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Those who accepted that it was gibberish are embarrassed anew (after looking up Pirsig) but now, in horror, they realize their vengeance on the publisher merely exposed their ignorance of an accepted art form.
5. It is suggested that the paper is merely before its time. Someone suggests that it is a seminal work Everyone who is ready to let the whole affair go away, and others who (merely) cannot find anything else like it, just agree.
6. A new wave of readers encounters the paper after seeing this broadly stated but vague praise, and when they research back to the initial reactions they become suspicious, as it looks like an attempt to deliberately suppress the paper. The claim this, and in order to refute any such allegations, the publisher cleverly avoids controversy by simply 'calling for additional papers' on the topic. They expect that this will reveal them as unbiased and it pays off... and everyone thinks this is finally the end.
7. Unexpectedly --- other papers are submitted. Some that are obviously mere re-arrangements of words in the first paper, some are on completely different topics but written in the same dreamy style. The publisher has indemnified itself from a position of judgement so they all make it. Oddly enough a group has formed that studies and discusses each in turn, a liberal arts college offers a 'workshop' on the collective works.
8. But now everyone who ever held a firm opinion of the original paper, in light of all this, is starting to doubt their own mind.
9. It is suggested that certain kinds of scented candles assist in the appreciation and understanding of these works. A stream-of-consciousness rationale for this is given, and since the style of the suggestion is so similar to that of the original paper, it is taken as a natural extension of the process. Soon chants and other (comfortably traditional therefore non-threatening) rituals are meshed as well. Rolling Stone presents it as a 'movement'.
AVG Antivirus identifies the original paper as an Ancient Sumerian Nam-Shub Virus . But it is too late.
Millions of people are now gathering around the world in groups to sit nude in large circles, chanting each syllable of the works and improvising new ones while making elaborate hand gestures.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>