Put on your grown up pants and do a serious critique of her work. White a book review or propose an author meets critic. But that will require stepping from behind the shield of anonymity.
Carla Shedd's Book
-
I'm not going to reveal my identity any quicker than you are, EA0D. I publish regularly on issues related to race and urban schools. But even if I didn't, the fact remains that I know how to read, I know what good research is, I have read this book, and it is not good.
Coward. Why waste your time reviewing her work then? What was your goal? It can't be to improve her work or advance science because you're just whining about it in this garbage site that is notorious for racism and misogyny.
-
448B here. You can claim I'm an undergrad if you want, if you think that strengthens your argument, or if you don't actually want to defend the book, which you haven't read. I'm not, but it isn't really relevant anyway. I think you're better off sticking to the strategy of not commenting on things you haven't read.
-
Evidence that a field isn't science: appeals to authority. And needing to know who makes a claim before accepting it.
Sociology: demands that critiques come from a recognized authority.Who said anything about authority? We're talking about expertise here. Would we respect a critique of Shedd's book by our students? Probably not.
-
448B here. You can claim I'm an undergrad if you want, if you think that strengthens your argument, or if you don't actually want to defend the book, which you haven't read. I'm not, but it isn't really relevant anyway. I think you're better off sticking to the strategy of not commenting on things you haven't read.
You haven't answered my question. What is your motivation for criticizing her book? For doing so on this site? For hiding behavior nd anonymity? It's hard to take you seriously.
-
I agree, as usual, with Beakman. The "motivation" is that I'm a sociologist and this is, or ought to be, a forum where developments in sociology can be discussed. The idea that discussions of scholarly work can take place only in formal peer-reviewed outlets is distressing.
I don't know Shedd. I have no positive or negative opinion of her. But this is a book that has received a lot of acclaim. I read it. And I find it lacking. That's why I started this thread. If you think the book is great, please say so!
-
The book is great.
I agree, as usual, with Beakman. The "motivation" is that I'm a sociologist and this is, or ought to be, a forum where developments in sociology can be discussed. The idea that discussions of scholarly work can take place only in formal peer-reviewed outlets is distressing.
I don't know Shedd. I have no positive or negative opinion of her. But this is a book that has received a lot of acclaim. I read it. And I find it lacking. That's why I started this thread. If you think the book is great, please say so! -
hey folks, let's keep this constructive and focused on the scholarly work as opposed to focusing on the scholar herself or on the perceived attributes of the participants of this debate.
Why are you deleting other posters who said exactly the same thing you just did? It's stuff like this that makes everyone not respect you.
-
I agree, as usual, with Beakman. The "motivation" is that I'm a sociologist and this is, or ought to be, a forum where developments in sociology can be discussed. The idea that discussions of scholarly work can take place only in formal peer-reviewed outlets is distressing.
I don't know Shedd. I have no positive or negative opinion of her. But this is a book that has received a lot of acclaim. I read it. And I find it lacking. That's why I started this thread. If you think the book is great, please say so!Acclaim where? From who?
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.