It is very informative and insightful.The book is great.
Cool. I'm glad you think so. I started this thread by offering some reasons for why I think it's bad. Why do you think it's great?
Carla Shedd's Book
-
The book is great.
Cool. I'm glad you think so. I started this thread by offering some reasons for why I think it's bad. Why do you think it's great?
It is very informative and insightful.Ok. Any reaction -- positive, negative, or neutral -- from anyone who has actually read the book?
-
After reading it I felt I had a better understanding of how minority students' views of mobility and inequality were shapeed by the opportunity structures of the places and spaces they moved in and out of. Also, good writing throughout. Very vivid. And, I appreciated the weaving of multiple methods. A prescription for research in this area. Definitely a push for future research to complicate our understanding of both neighborhood and school effects. Glad to refer it to my students for research design alone.
The book is great.
Cool. I'm glad you think so. I started this thread by offering some reasons for why I think it's bad. Why do you think it's great? What did you learn from this book? -
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.
The site needs a huge overhaul before we can pretend anything scholarly occurs here.
-
Would we respect a critique of Shedd's book by our students? Probably not.
Yes, some of us would, because some of us respect our students. What an odd statement to make. I teach my students to be critical thinkers and empower them to critique/critically engage with scholarly work.
Anyway, so far OP has provided evidence that the methods seemed lacking and insights were derivative, whereas other posters found it insightful and actually thought the methods should be taught to students. Can we get back to an actual discussion? Is the thereotocal contribution or empirical finding important? advance specific areas? Thinking about picking it up myself and using it in class and am curious about others' reactions.
-
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.yes, I would accept critique of Shedd's awful book by my students. why shouldn't I. that you wouldn't says more about you than anyone else.
-
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.
no one but ea0d is focusing on anything but the book, it is ea0d that focuses on the scholar and those critiquing her bad book. get a grip beakman.
-
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.
The site needs a huge overhaul before we can pretend anything scholarly occurs here.No it doesn't. what it needs is getting rid of trolls like you who thinks any mention of a PoC is racism. you have no interest in contributing to this site, so you should just get lost.
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.