> >
> > The committee: "But as a scholar, one must "look" not only to confirm
>one's
> > hopes, but also to face the possibility that the evidence may disconfirm
> > them. And even if one finds more evidence for the truth of one's beliefs
> > than evidence against them, all of the evidence must be acknowledged and
>
>Wow! Can you imagine what would happen to the authors of intro to micro and
>macroeconomics texts if they were judged by this standard. That would be
>something. Not to mention all those upper level econometrics classes on
>shaping data and fitting curves. Let the Truth be Told Even if the Heavens
>May Fall. If only. What self serving indulgent nonesense
>
>Churchill maybe a shitty scholar but as the song says "in this he is not
>alone." That he is playing for the wrong team is the only moral to this
>story that I can see.
I don't know what you're talking about, but the intro texts in sociology aren't considered "scholarship". They are overviews of scholarship that are sometimes a "salad bar" approach where every theoretical choice is treated, supposedly, equally. Or, they are more or less obvious attempts to argue a preference for one approach or another. Maxine Baca Zinn's textbook for Sociology of the Family is one example of a book that argues for a Marxist analysis. Randall Collins Soc of Fam textbook is one that argues for a "conflict theory" approach.
From close readings of the family textbooks -- a close reading I was kind of forced to do my first years as I was thrown into teaching family with no background on it -- they _point to_ and provide summaries of the research that is supposed to adhere to the standards they outline. From what I've read of it, that scholarly work is quite capable.
Maybe, if you are so disappointed in your field, you should do work in another field that doesn't disappoint you. I've never understood why people stay in the university system when they loathe it.
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org