You've got that one reversed there chief. What has PNC published in the last decade?
Even more than PNC, Freese�s entire identity as a scholar increasingly seem to revolve around petty, not-even-published critiques of qualitative work. Not very impressive, in my humble opinion.
Someone spending an entire evening subtweeting out mundane mistakes that seem really tangential to whatever the entirely unstated argument of the book is also comes off as really dickish and ultimately without much purpose beyond public flogging.
Nope. As noted upthread, they're not tangential. He's not picking out typos. It's a string of embarrassing factual errors that make you doubt the author's attention to detail, mixed with several howlers that make you doubt her grasp of central features of the field she's supposedly explaining. And if I were in his position I'd be pissed as well because the pitch of the book is that people like Freese (who's interviewed in the book) are acting as technocratic enablers of some sort of biodeterminative and possibly eugenic social science.
Though I'm sure the "genetic methodological validity" thing is just a typo for "generic" (it's talking about PLoS One). So that one seems petty to me.
I read this thread before JF's and thought the stuff about missing people's affiliations would be super petty, but in context it isn't, because it seems like Bliss's actual argument is about all these social scientists ending up in med schools, when they didn't.
I couldn't really care less about Freese vs. Bliss, but it is sort of mind-blowing to read this thread and realize that, somehow, SJMR managed to see all of the JF fanbois age out/move into adulthood and be replaced by JF haters and yet it STILL continues, unperturbed, circling down the bowl. Kind of amazing, really.
Ugh. I’d hate to see Bliss get crucified for this and people dismiss the book, whereas with the Goffman controversy a few years ago, despite all its flaws people said “oh but it’s such a good story”/“makes such a good point”
As a sociology discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Goffman approaches 1.
Freese is definitely doing this because it's personal.
https://twitter.com/jeremyfreese/status/953452117175410688
But it is also good practice to let the people you interviewed read the work first. That she didn't do that is very bad form.
https://twitter.com/jeremyfreese/status/953693539187154944
It's not a binary, folks.
That in an evening someone can find 20+ mundane factual errors in a scholarly book makes the author look incredibly sloppy and untrustworthy as a scholar.
AND
Someone spending an entire evening subtweeting out mundane mistakes that seem really tangential to whatever the entirely unstated argument of the book is also comes off as really dickish and ultimately without much purpose beyond public flogging.
Both of those things can be true.
It's clearly shoddy scholarship on her part, but the irony gets thick when Freese is even worse at the things he's raking her over the coals for:
https://twitter.com/jeremyfreese/status/953675251577077760
Her saying "better off leading the way" is an imperfect but fine implication to draw from her highlighted quote, but him saying this highlighted passage is evidence of Bliss framing social genomicists as "megalomaniacs" is just f***ing laughable.
Maybe she does that somewhere, but Freese is high AF on his own supply.
And if I were in his position I'd be pissed as well because the pitch of the book is that people like Freese (who's interviewed in the book) are acting as technocratic enablers of some sort of biodeterminative and possibly eugenic social science.
That's valid, but it's also valid to say that he comes off as a petty dickwad because after reading a full day of his tweetstorming I still have to learn what his actual beef is from you.
That social genomicists are technocratic enablers may or may not be a valid research finding (assuming that's an accurate summary of the argument), but the answer to if that finding is valid or not WILL NOT be found in excoriating an author for 24 hours straight over getting departmental affiliations wrong and having some really lazy, sloppy, embarrassing typos.
This is a very public, remarkably shallow, sustained critique of what appears to be very sloppy scholarship. Nobody comes off looking good.
Freese is definitely doing this because it's personal.
https://twitter.com/jeremyfreese/status/953452117175410688
But it is also good practice to let the people you interviewed read the work first. That she didn't do that is very bad form.
https://twitter.com/jeremyfreese/status/953693539187154944
It's not a binary, folks.
That in an evening someone can find 20+ mundane factual errors in a scholarly book makes the author look incredibly sloppy and untrustworthy as a scholar.
AND
Someone spending an entire evening subtweeting out mundane mistakes that seem really tangential to whatever the entirely unstated argument of the book is also comes off as really dickish and ultimately without much purpose beyond public flogging.
Both of those things can be true.
So you're a qualitative scholar who lets all your participants read your work before it's published? It might be a good practice but it's definitely not a standard practice
You need to at least offer. You don't have to listen what they have to say, and mostly it's for the participants and not you, but sometimes you get a pretty important detail of something that was transcribed wrong.
Freese is definitely doing this because it's personal.
https://twitter.com/jeremyfreese/status/953452117175410688
But it is also good practice to let the people you interviewed read the work first. That she didn't do that is very bad form.
https://twitter.com/jeremyfreese/status/953693539187154944
It's not a binary, folks.
That in an evening someone can find 20+ mundane factual errors in a scholarly book makes the author look incredibly sloppy and untrustworthy as a scholar.
AND
Someone spending an entire evening subtweeting out mundane mistakes that seem really tangential to whatever the entirely unstated argument of the book is also comes off as really dickish and ultimately without much purpose beyond public flogging.
Both of those things can be true.
So you're a qualitative scholar who lets all your participants read your work before it's published? It might be a good practice but it's definitely not a standard practice
What about if your participants speak a different language than what was written? Or are you talking about going over the transcripts to make sure they are translated correctly?
Studying elite academics is one thing, because you can contact them at any time. Studying transient populations, or others, may not be as easy to connect back with if you're not doing sustained ethnography (a la Duneier's Sidewalk)
Freese is definitely doing this because it's personal.
https://twitter.com/jeremyfreese/status/953452117175410688
When some idiot invokes a Nazi comparison just because you're doing biosoc, he's got a perfect right to be pissed.
If that’s true why is he spending all this time attacking Bliss and not the person who made an allusion to a book about the general population during WWII Germany?
What about if your participants speak a different language than what was written? Or are you talking about going over the transcripts to make sure they are translated correctly?
Studying elite academics is one thing, because you can contact them at any time. Studying transient populations, or others, may not be as easy to connect back with if you're not doing sustained ethnography (a la Duneier's Sidewalk)
Duneier did read his manuscript aloud to the men in Sidewalk...
What about if your participants speak a different language than what was written? Or are you talking about going over the transcripts to make sure they are translated correctly?
Studying elite academics is one thing, because you can contact them at any time. Studying transient populations, or others, may not be as easy to connect back with if you're not doing sustained ethnography (a la Duneier's Sidewalk)
Duneier did read his manuscript aloud to the men in Sidewalk...
OP on different network. That was my point. He did, in part because he did sustained ethnography and was in constant contact with his participants. Others do not do sustained ethnography