Many researchers in other disciplines can publish on sociology journals but not the other way round.
And I publish regularly in geography journals. You're way off base on this, grad student.
Is sociology the most anti-intellectual discipline today?
-
No.
Sociologists, as a whole, are pretty level-headed and reasonable. The more heterodox methods you see in top journals are actually a sign of intellectual strength in comparison to a field like economics, which has been blinkered by its methodological dogma. It allows some junk to seep in, but that's a reasonable cost for seeing papers that don't all do the same thing.
I'd estimate the complete BS percentage in sociology to be about 25%. For comparison, most of my applied research these days is done with clinical researchers in medicine, and the BS rate there is way higher than 25%. It's shameful.
I'd estimate the worthless research percentage to be about 95%. But other fields aren't much better in this respect, frankly. Most research is worthless, and it's not a sociology problem.
I would not fault anyone, however, for thinking sociology was more anti-intellectual than it was if they were A) active twitter users, or B) only looking at the ASA programs.
-
Whether it is junk or not is not the question. The question is to what extent it is anti-intellectual. Worse than “x studies” fields? Maybe…maybe not. But what makes a field anti-intellectual in my book is whether it has a pretty well defined set of sacred, allowable findings, and there is no question we’ve got that going on. My colleagues refer to published sociology research all the time to justify their stoopid views, and that means nothing to me. Of course sociology research more often than not backs up progressive, often extremist leftist doctrine. Try to publish research in a sociology journal that finds anything else. Go ahead. I dare you. Publication bias is strong in sociology—you have to ask the right questions and, more importantly, get the right, allowed answers—and that’s what makes sociology a useless, untrustworthy sham of a discipline. Even though I’m on the ship, I’d be happy to see if burn and sink to the bottom of the abyss. I’m ashamed to call myself a sociologist. Too bad. The field wasn’t always this way. Used to be merit based. Now the only real requirement for advancement is, well, demographic based. And that is how the story will end.
-
Whether it is junk or not is not the question. The question is to what extent it is anti-intellectual. Worse than �x studies� fields? Maybe�maybe not. But what makes a field anti-intellectual in my book is whether it has a pretty well defined set of sacred, allowable findings, and there is no question we�ve got that going on. My colleagues refer to published sociology research all the time to justify their stoopid views, and that means nothing to me. Of course sociology research more often than not backs up progressive, often extremist leftist doctrine. Try to publish research in a sociology journal that finds anything else. Go ahead. I dare you. Publication bias is strong in sociology�you have to ask the right questions and, more importantly, get the right, allowed answers�and that�s what makes sociology a useless, untrustworthy sham of a discipline. Even though I�m on the ship, I�d be happy to see if burn and sink to the bottom of the abyss. I�m ashamed to call myself a sociologist. Too bad. The field wasn�t always this way. Used to be merit based. Now the only real requirement for advancement is, well, demographic based. And that is how the story will end.
All the AA hires for blacks and women dumbed down the discipline