Read on Twitter
Excellent thread.
Some think that I have been unduly critical of Colin Wright’s writing. Sometimes people say I’m being unfair.
If you’ve thought that you might not know how much many of his claims are ignorant of research in fields be doesn’t understand or respect. #Quillette https://twitter.com/CathrynTownsend/status/1285944310442143748
Some think that I have been unduly critical of Colin Wright’s writing. Sometimes people say I’m being unfair.
If you’ve thought that you might not know how much many of his claims are ignorant of research in fields be doesn’t understand or respect. #Quillette https://twitter.com/CathrynTownsend/status/1285944310442143748
Anytime someone uses terms like “science” or “Western science” or “Western epistemology” or “scientific method” as they exist only in the singular, be very suspicious. https://twitter.com/thephilosotroll/status/1285973394815504384?s=20
I took this photo at the last conference I travelled to, last year in November. From a presentation on teaching first-year science courses, delivered by a team consisting of a chemist, a theoretical physicist, and a biologist. (I disagree on research not being discipline-based.)
In other words, first-year science students at my university (the presenters came from my uni) are encouraged to have a more sophisticated understanding of research in natural sciences than Colin Wright seems to exhibit on Twitter and in #Quillette.
I'm glad about that.
And since we’re talking about my university, here is Colin Wright attempting to critique a recent job ad from my institution’s Faculty of Forestry. I’ve included my own screen cap with some crucial points from the ad that Colin left out.
I have a few things to say about what Colin Wright is doing in this tweet thread.
I'll start by approaching it from my own area of research, which is #writingstudies and #discourseanalysis.
Look at that second tweet in Colin's thread.
I'll start by approaching it from my own area of research, which is #writingstudies and #discourseanalysis.
Look at that second tweet in Colin's thread.
He says, "If you don't see anything wrong with this, judge how you'd react to a search for an Assistant Professor in 'Republican,' 'Hindu,' or 'Communist' Natural Sciences."
He's switching around modifiers trying to make you believe they're exactly exchangeable. They are not.
He's switching around modifiers trying to make you believe they're exactly exchangeable. They are not.
The fun thing about noun phrases and nominalization (Hello, fellow language nerds!) is that while different modifiers can take the same place, they're relation to what's being modified can be wholly different.
Compare "Hindu natural science" to "communist natural science."
Compare "Hindu natural science" to "communist natural science."
"Hindu" is tied to place, groups, history in way that's not the same as "communist" is. "Hindu" is a religious & ethnic identity, "communist" isn't. Even to the degree that they're both legit qualifiers of "natural science," they have a different history. https://twitter.com/DevynGwynne/status/1286044861699731457?s=20
I don't want to get distracted by the modifiers Colin has tossed around, trying to get you riled up by imagining a job posting for "Republican natural science" and "communist natural science" at a North American uni. (Tho the former isn't far off from Heterodox Academy's dreams.)
Let's get back to "Indigenous natural science" because, as nominalizations go, the phrase has room in it. It's the approaches toward and insights into natural science produced by Indigenous cultures. It's also the research practiced by natural scientists who are Indigenous.
Add history--something Colin isn't good at considering--and you'll find the job ad for Indigenous natural science in the context of a public uni in a colonial country with a history of genocide against Indigenous peoples and a mandate for reconciliation. https://medium.com/@KatjaT/a-pinch-of-expertise-plus-a-ton-of-speculation-a85684120160
Research doesn't shed the historical context in which it's produced.
Colin should know. His research can't shed the fact that his co-author submitted fraudulent data for articles that also have Colin's name on it. The work he did for those papers, it's not suddenly separate.
Colin should know. His research can't shed the fact that his co-author submitted fraudulent data for articles that also have Colin's name on it. The work he did for those papers, it's not suddenly separate.
Research also can't speak without speaking to a historical context.
So, if a Faculty of Forestry recognizes the need of working closely with Indigenous communities that have stewarded forests for centuries, and on whose land so many forests in BC are, they need to act on it.
So, if a Faculty of Forestry recognizes the need of working closely with Indigenous communities that have stewarded forests for centuries, and on whose land so many forests in BC are, they need to act on it.
Here, they act on it with a job ad for Indigenous natural science, calling for applicants who are Indigenous & have "the ability to apply western and Indigenous knowledge in their research and to transfer knowledge to Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and collaborators."
If Colin can't deal with that, he shows how little he knows about forestry as a natural science.
