Social justice ideologues continue their efforts to undermine science. From the Washington Post:
Academics and scholars must be mindful about using research done by only straight, white men, according to two scientists who argued that it oppresses diverse voices and bolsters the status of already privileged and established white male scholars.
Geographers Carrie Mott and Daniel Cockayne argued in a recent paper that doing so also perpetuates what they call “white heteromasculinism,” which they defined as a “system of oppression” that benefits only those who are “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.” (Cisgendered describes people whose gender identity matches their birth sex.)
In their 22-page paper, “Citation matters: mobilizing the politics of citation toward a practice of ‘conscientious engagement,'” they explained that their work was motivated by “shared feelings of discomfort, frustration, and anger” over actions of fellow scholars and publication practices.
So what to do?
Scholars should read through their work and count all the citations before submitting their work for publication, and see how many people of diverse backgrounds — women, people of color, early-career scholars, graduate students and non-academics — are cited.
These two don’t seem to understand how science works. Say, for example, you are doing research on gene X and how it is upregulated when a cell is stressed. In your published paper, you will cite people whose discoveries and whose insights have been important to your research. It doesn’t matter what their sex or race is. All that matters is that someone else’s discovery/insight enabled your discovery and insight concerning your research into gene X and its regulation. Thus, they get cited regardless of their sex, race, stage in career, etc.
Trying to implement some type of quota system for citations is something we might expect from postmodern science (and don’t forget how the March for Science people welcomed the social justice perspective into science). But it really is something that will tremendously hurt science. Instead of focusing on the discovery, we’re asked to focus on identity politics.
So just what type of discoveries do these two postmodernists make?
Mott and Cockayne both describe themselves as feminists and have done research related to feminism.
Mott also focuses her research on race and social justice, among other things. She describes herself as a “feminist political geographer,” who’s interested in “how resistance movements mobilize to fight against state-sponsored violence and marginalization.” Cockayne’s research and interest are on digital media, entrepreneurship, and gender and sexuality.