pull down to refresh

Repeated pattern that I observe in academia:

  1. things that serve the preferred narrative get almost zero scrutiny, whether that's a paper or a hiring decision.
  2. the people responsible for scrutiny rarely pay a cost for their negligence when it's found out, though they reap the rewards of pushing the narrative before it's found out

Happened at my previous institution when I was there. Happening again in the Arday case.

things that serve the preferred narrative get almost zero scrutiny, whether that's a paper or a hiring decision

I ran into the opposite end of that, with some research receiving a lot of pushback, just because some results (that weren't being disputed) from a publicly available source (that wasn't being questioned) showed something that violated a narrative. It was clear that if our results showed the right thing there would have been no problem.

reply

yep pretty much

And if we see that in economics which is still relatively non ideological compared to other social sciences, how much worse will it be in fields where many of the faculty perceive their role to be activists

reply