Welcome to Heterodox Academy

[Jack Hays]

A group of social scientists has come together to try to remedy the unfortunate lack of political diversity in academia. I think this is admirable and overdue. Your thoughts?

". . . There is a new group of professors, that I am pleased to be a part of: HeterodoxAcademy.org Mission. Our mission is to increase viewpoint diversity in the academy, with a special focus on the social sciences.
The problem. Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity—particularly diversity of viewpoints—for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in most of the social sciences (other than economics) as well as in the legal academy and the humanities: political diversity.
From the Welcome Statement:
Welcome to our site. We are social scientists and other scholars who want to improve our academic disciplines. We have all written about a particular problem: the loss or lack of “viewpoint diversity.” It’s what happens when everyone in a field thinks the same way on important issues that are not really settled matters of fact. We don’t want viewpoint diversity on whether the Earth is round versus flat. But do we want everyone to share the same presuppositions when it comes to the study of race, class, gender, inequality, evolution, or history? Can research that emerges from an ideologically uniform and orthodox academy be as good, useful, and reliable as research that emerges from a more heterodox academy?
Science is among humankind’s most successful institutions not because scientists are so rational and open minded but because scholarly institutions work to counteract the errors and flaws of what are, after all, normal cognitively challenged human beings. We academics are generally biased toward confirming our own theories and validating our favored beliefs. But as long as we can all count on the peer review process and a vigorous post-publication peer debate process, we can rest assured that most obvious errors and biases will get called out. Researchers who have different values, political identities, and intellectual presuppositions and who disagree with published findings will run other studies, obtain opposing results, and the field will gradually sort out the truth. . . . "



Heterodox Academy

Posted on September 15, 2015 | 103 comments
by Judith Curry
I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. I think you should be able to — anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ‘em. – President Obama
Continue reading →

 

[ecofarm]

Every grad class I ever took promoted different and new points of view. Any view presented was examined closely and analyzed by both the class and professor. Of course, there's always room for improvement and while professors strive to engage differing viewpoints, an organization devoted to such is certainly welcome by all.

To pretend otherwise or construe this organization's existence as a evidence of "brainwashing" or "maybe the racists are correct" is pathetic and I hope the OP poster is attempting neither of those things.

 

[Jack Hays]

Every grad class I ever took promoted different and new points of view. Any view presented was examined closely and analyzed by both the class and professor. Of course, there's always room for improvement and while professors strive to engage differing viewpoints, an organization devoted to such is certainly welcome by all.

To pretend otherwise or construe this organization's existence as a evidence of "brainwashing" or "maybe the racists are correct" is pathetic and I hope the OP poster is attempting neither of those things.

From the OP link:

At HeterodoxAcademy, our contributors have documented the near absence of political diversity in many fields, and we have demonstrated the damaging effects that this homogeneity has on scholarship in those fields. We are not the first to do so. Scholars have been calling attention to this problem for decades… and nothing has been done.

This time will be different. We have come together to pool resources, analyze current trends in the academy, discuss possible solutions, and advocate for policies and systemic changes that will increase viewpoint diversity in the academy and therefore improve the quality of work that the academy makes available to the public, and to policymakers.
JC reflections

I am very heartened by these developments. I am very intrigued by the group of social scientists in HeterodoxAcademy, and I am reading their relevant publications.

 

[ecofarm]

From the OP link:

At HeterodoxAcademy, our contributors have documented the near absence of political diversity in many fields, and we have demonstrated the damaging effects that this homogeneity has on scholarship in those fields. We are not the first to do so. Scholars have been calling attention to this problem for decades… and nothing has been done.

This time will be different. We have come together to pool resources, analyze current trends in the academy, discuss possible solutions, and advocate for policies and systemic changes that will increase viewpoint diversity in the academy and therefore improve the quality of work that the academy makes available to the public, and to policymakers.
JC reflections

I am very heartened by these developments. I am very intrigued by the group of social scientists in HeterodoxAcademy, and I am reading their relevant publications.

1. To what fields do they refer. It may be established fields in which the lack of diversity results from extensive knowledge and not a lack of will to see other viewpoints. Thus, an attempt to expand the possibilities in those fields may well be warranted but in no way the result of "brainwashing".

2. What would you know about grad level sociology? When was the last time you took a grad class in sociology?

I believe it's clear that you are misconstruing this organization as evidence of "brainwashing" in higher learning institutions. Your position is nothing more than "that there learnin' is the devil's work!" The only question is, what position are you apologizing for. Is it hating gays, hating blacks, hating the poor...? Please, tell us.

 

[Jack Hays]

1. To what fields do they refer. It may be established fields in which the lack of diversity results from extensive knowledge and not a lack of will to see other viewpoints. Thus, an attempt to expand the possibilities in those fields may well be warranted but in no way the result of "brainwashing".

2. What would you know about grad level sociology? When was the last time you took a grad class in sociology?

I believe it's clear that you are misconstruing this organization as evidence of "brainwashing" in higher learning institutions. Your position is nothing more than "that there learnin' is the devil's work!" The only question is, what position are you apologizing for. Is it hating gays, hating blacks, hating the poor...? Please, tell us.

My own graduate work in history involved some sociology, but that was decades ago. Here is a bit from a link within the OP.

1. Martin, C. C. (2015), How ideology has hindered sociological insight. American Sociologist. doi: 10.1007/s12108-015-9263-z [ungated]
2. Smith, C. (2015). The Sacred Project of American Sociology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3. Deflem, M. (2013). The structural transformation of sociology. Society. doi: 10.1007/s12115-013-9634-4 [ungated]
4. Yancey, G. (2015). Compromising Scholarship. Baylor U. Press.
5. Klein, D. B., & Stern, C. (2006). Sociology and classical liberalism. The Independent Review.

 

[ecofarm]

My own graduate work in history involved some sociology, but that was decades ago. Here is a bit from a link within the OP.

So you have no idea what you're talking about personally. Fine, let's presume that you've built up your position herein based on actual instances of lacking diversity that you've documented second-hand.

What field do you believe lacks diversity, and what issues specifically. Of course, you will not come up with anything, as the only position you're willing to expose is "learnin' bad".

 

[Jack Hays]

So you have no idea what you're talking about personally. Fine, let's presume that you've built up your position herein based on actual instances of lacking diversity that you've documented second-hand.

What field do you believe lacks diversity, and what issues specifically. Of course, you will not come up with anything, as the only position you're willing to expose is "learnin' bad".

I believe your prejudices are showing. I already provided you with five linked answers to your question.

 

[ecofarm]

I believe your prejudices are showing. I already provided you with five linked answers to your question.

As expected, you cannot name one field or one issue. Your sole purpose is to claim "learnin' bad". And you support this asinine position with copy/paste file dumps. What, is it your job on another website to lead the "learnin' bad" brigade?

 

[Jack Hays]

As expected, you cannot name one field or one issue. Your sole purpose is to claim "learnin' bad". And you support this asinine position with copy/paste file dumps. What, is it your job on another website to lead the "learnin' bad" brigade?

Unless you wish to address the substantive issues I'm not sure we have much to discuss. Your characterization of me and my motive is inaccurate and unfounded.

 

[ecofarm]

Unless you wish to address the substantive issues I'm not sure we have much to discuss. Your characterization of me and my motive is inaccurate and unfounded.

So, you don't have a single field or a single issue to your claim. Spare me the file dumps, I already know they don't claim what you pretend they do.

Until you can come up with at least one field, one specific issue, that is a problem, one can only presume your knowledge and intention ends at "learnin' bad".

Of course, that's apologizing for some positions you hold, but until you're forthcoming with them we can't help you.

 

[Jack Hays]

So, you don't have a single field or a single issue to your claim. Spare me the file dumps, I already know they don't claim what you pretend they do.

Until you can come up with at least one field, one specific issue, that is a problem, one can only presume your knowledge and intention ends at "learnin' bad".

Of course, that's apologizing for some positions you hold, but until you're forthcoming with them we can't help you.

From the first link in #5:

[h=2]Abstract[/h] American sociology has consistently leaned toward the political Left. This ideological skew hinders sociological insight in three ways. First, the scope of research projects is constrained: sociologists are discouraged from touching on taboo topics and ideologically unpalatable facts. Second, the data used in sociological research have been limited. Sociologists neglect data that portray conservatives positively and liberals negatively. Data are also truncated to hide facts that subvert a liberal narrative. Third, the empathic understanding of non-liberal ideologies is inhibited. Sociologists sometimes develop the erroneous belief that they understand alternative ideologies, and they fail to explore non-liberal ways of framing sociological knowledge. Some counterarguments may be raised against these theses, and I address such counterarguments.

 

[ecofarm]

From the first link in #5:

So... no subject, no field, no issue. Just amorphous boogeymen used to present an asinine position not held in the dumps you provide.

 

[Jack Hays]

So, you don't have a single field or a single issue to your claim. Spare me the file dumps, I already know they don't claim what you pretend they do.

Until you can come up with at least one field, one specific issue, that is a problem, one can only presume your knowledge and intention ends at "learnin' bad".

Of course, that's apologizing for some positions you hold, but until you're forthcoming with them we can't help you.

From the second link in #5:

Sociology appears on the surface to be a secular, scientific enterprise--its founding fathers were mostly atheists. Its basic operating premises are secular and naturalistic. Sociologists today are disproportionately not religious, compared to all Americans, and often irreligious.

The Sacred Project of American Sociology shows, counter-intuitively, that the secular enterprise that everyday sociology appears to be pursuing is actually not what is really going on at sociology's deepest level. Christian Smith conducts a self-reflexive, tables-turning, cultural and institutional sociology of the profession of American sociology itself, showing that this allegedly secular discipline ironically expresses Emile Durkheim's inescapable sacred, exemplifies its own versions of Marxist false consciousness, and generates a spirited reaction against Max Weber's melancholically observed disenchantment of the world.

American sociology does not escape the analytical net that it casts over the rest of the ordinary world. Sociology itself is a part of that very human, very social, often very sacred and spiritual world. And sociology's ironic mis-recognition of its own sacred project leads to a variety of arguably self-destructive and distorting tendencies. This book re-asserts a vision for what sociology is most important for, in contrast with its current commitments, and calls sociologists back to a more honest, fair, and healthy vision of its purpose.

 

[Dittohead not!]

A group of social scientists has come together to try to remedy the unfortunate lack of political diversity in academia. I think this is admirable and overdue. Your thoughts?

". . . There is a new group of professors, that I am pleased to be a part of: HeterodoxAcademy.org Mission. Our mission is to increase viewpoint diversity in the academy, with a special focus on the social sciences.
The problem. Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity—particularly diversity of viewpoints—for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in most of the social sciences (other than economics) as well as in the legal academy and the humanities: political diversity.
From the Welcome Statement:
Welcome to our site. We are social scientists and other scholars who want to improve our academic disciplines. We have all written about a particular problem: the loss or lack of “viewpoint diversity.” It’s what happens when everyone in a field thinks the same way on important issues that are not really settled matters of fact. We don’t want viewpoint diversity on whether the Earth is round versus flat. But do we want everyone to share the same presuppositions when it comes to the study of race, class, gender, inequality, evolution, or history? Can research that emerges from an ideologically uniform and orthodox academy be as good, useful, and reliable as research that emerges from a more heterodox academy?
Science is among humankind’s most successful institutions not because scientists are so rational and open minded but because scholarly institutions work to counteract the errors and flaws of what are, after all, normal cognitively challenged human beings. We academics are generally biased toward confirming our own theories and validating our favored beliefs. But as long as we can all count on the peer review process and a vigorous post-publication peer debate process, we can rest assured that most obvious errors and biases will get called out. Researchers who have different values, political identities, and intellectual presuppositions and who disagree with published findings will run other studies, obtain opposing results, and the field will gradually sort out the truth. . . . "



Heterodox Academy

Posted on September 15, 2015 | 103 comments
by Judith Curry
I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. I think you should be able to — anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ‘em. – President Obama
Continue reading →

Students need to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints and allowed to make up their own minds. This appears to be about the "soft" science of social psychology, which should have many different points of view.

Seems to me like a good idea.

 

[ecofarm]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's officially a dump-fest propagated by someone without a leg to stand on.

Still not one field, subject or issue. Amorphous boogeyman ftl.

 

[Jack Hays]

So, you don't have a single field or a single issue to your claim. Spare me the file dumps, I already know they don't claim what you pretend they do.

Until you can come up with at least one field, one specific issue, that is a problem, one can only presume your knowledge and intention ends at "learnin' bad".

Of course, that's apologizing for some positions you hold, but until you're forthcoming with them we can't help you.

From the third link in #5:

[h=2]Abstract[/h] The advent of public sociology over the past decade represents the end of a string of crisis moments in sociology. Since the 1950s and, especially, the 1960s, sociology was argued to be in a crisis because the discipline was thought to be conservative and contributing to sustain the status quo. As a result, the 1970s witnessed a radicalization of sociology, but the 1980s saw a general decline of sociology. Upon a resurgence during the 1990s, the crisis advocates have come back with a vengeance in the form of a renewed commitment to a heavily politicized sociology under the heading of public sociology, a perspective that is now thoroughly institutionalized and widely embraced. In sociology, the effects of the 1960s thus began to be felt in earnest some 40 years late.

 

[ecofarm]

Students need to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints and allowed to make up their own minds. This appears to be about the "soft" science of social psychology, which should have many different points of view.

Seems to me like a good idea.

Of course it is and no one in academia would object. What it is not is an indictment of brainwashing in higher learning institutions, as the OP poster would have ignorant people believe. The dumps he provides cover shortcomings present in some environments and consider ways to improve. He pretends they are proof of brainwashing.

Now, why is it so important to him to believe higher learning institutions are brainwashing centers. What issues does he believe are affected. What subject does he believe is not being explored. Well, he won't tell us no matter how many times I ask.

 

[Jack Hays]

So, you don't have a single field or a single issue to your claim. Spare me the file dumps, I already know they don't claim what you pretend they do.

Until you can come up with at least one field, one specific issue, that is a problem, one can only presume your knowledge and intention ends at "learnin' bad".

Of course, that's apologizing for some positions you hold, but until you're forthcoming with them we can't help you.

From the fourth link in #5:

Conservative and liberal commentators alike have long argued that social bias exists in American higher education. Yet those arguments have largely lacked much supporting evidence. In this first systematic attempt to substantiate social bias in higher education, George Yancey embarks on a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the social biases and attitudes of faculties in American universities—surveying professors in disciplines from political science to experimental biology and then examining the blogs of 42 sociology professors. In so doing, Yancey finds that politically—and, even more so, religiously—conservative academics are at a distinct disadvantage in our institutions of learning, threatening the free exchange of ideas to which our institutions aspire and leaving many scientific inquiries unexplored.

 

[Jack Hays]

Of course it is and no one in academia would object. What it is not is an indictment of brainwashing in higher learning institutions, as the OP poster would have ignorant people believe. The dumps he provides cover shortcomings present in some environments and consider ways to improve. He pretends they are proof of brainwashing.

Now, why is it so important to him to believe higher learning institutions are brainwashing centers. What issues does he believe are affected. What subject does he believe is not being explored. Well, he won't tell us no matter how many times I ask.

The only poster to use the word "brainwashing" is you. I have not and would not.

 

[ecofarm]

The only poster to use the word "brainwashing" is you. I have not and would not.

Let us know when you have a subject, field or issue in mind. Until then, there is no debate because everyone, including all professors, agree there's always room for improvement in general.

 

[Jack Hays]

So, you don't have a single field or a single issue to your claim. Spare me the file dumps, I already know they don't claim what you pretend they do.

Until you can come up with at least one field, one specific issue, that is a problem, one can only presume your knowledge and intention ends at "learnin' bad".

Of course, that's apologizing for some positions you hold, but until you're forthcoming with them we can't help you.

From the fifth link in #5:


The sociology profession in the United States is a large tent, displaying meth-
ods, purposes, and topics in great variety. Variety is severely truncated, how-
ever, in the matter of political ideology. It has long been observed that sociol-
ogists range from center to far left (in all varieties). There have never been more than
a few classical liberals, libertarians, and conservatives in sociology since the days of
William Graham Sumner. Today, their presence is nil, as shown by our recent survey
of American Sociological Association (ASA) members. The classical-liberal character
is virtually absent, and any few classical-liberal denizens probably keep their views at
least half hidden. We venture to say that self-reinforcing sorting mechanisms now
make the discipline unapproachable by anyone who is unabashedly classically liberal.

 

[Ockham]

Yes groupthink is normally a bad thing... I have to be honest though. When I first read the first sentence of this OP "A group of social scientists has come together...." alarms went off, sirens blared... it was quite a thing.

 

[Jack Hays]

Let us know when you have a subject, field or issue in mind. Until then, there is no debate because everyone, including all professors, agree there's always room for improvement in general.

Your commitment to know-nothingism is disappointing.

 

[ecofarm]

Your commitment to know-nothingism is disappointing.

Can't buy irony like that.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes groupthink is normally a bad thing... I have to be honest though. When I first read the first sentence of this OP "A group of social scientists has come together...." alarms went off, sirens blared... it was quite a thing.

I found it on Judith Curry's blog. That's a signal that it advocates free inquiry and open debate.