Comments | nonfluffypagans: Healthy skepticism = blasphemy? Scholarship = prudery?

parizadhe in nonfluffypagans

Healthy skepticism = blasphemy? Scholarship = prudery?

Mar 17, 2007 13:10

There have been quite a few recent discussions on dot_pagan_snark and NFP about various types of credibility: research, evidence, and source citation in particular. It’s a sore topic for me, really gets my fur up, so I want to toss it out for discussion. ( clicky clicky )

forensics, scholarship basics, pagan community, drama, equally valid, random idea: discuss

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

edwarddain March 17 2007, 18:08:23 UTC

It's the standard argument made about qualitative vs. quantitative research... Though, I have to point out that researchers are anything but civil. Lurk on a few list-servs or attend a few conferences, and it has little to do with the field of study.

The bigger issue is not the lack of citation in NeoPagan writing, it's the "circle-jerk citation" that tends to get promulgated.

catsnstuff March 17 2007, 20:49:26 UTC

What is a "circle-jerk citation"?

My first guess: citing as fast as one can, and the last one to publish has to read them all. ;) But it probably isn't this.

edwarddain March 17 2007, 21:26:19 UTC

More the idea that there is a certain "set" of "approved" citations out there that have to be included to be taken seriously (everyone has to cite Hutton, Adler, etc.) - plus the idea that people from a certain school or program or publishing house engage in a circular set of citing each another and end up promulgating each other as "experts."

catsnstuff March 18 2007, 00:21:30 UTC

*nod ( ... )

edwarddain March 19 2007, 00:00:54 UTC

It's the use, not the inclusion. Plus, the general confusion with academic rigor and community scholarship - and what constitutes "good research" in light of multi-disciplinary citation and research along the lines of primary and secondary sources.

kenazf March 19 2007, 11:16:29 UTC

The bigger issue is not the lack of citation in NeoPagan writing, it's the "circle-jerk citation" that tends to get promulgated.

I've seen a slightly different version of this: Lady Twitchbottom Sparklefart writes something incredibly stupid in her Book of Fluffy Wicca. (i.e. "The Druids regularly made offerings of pumpkins and potatoes to the Wee Folk.") Because this is printed by a Major Pagan Publisher, it is then repeated and treated as gospel -- because of course that Major Pagan Publisher wouldn't have put the book out if it weren't true...

Exactly! edwarddain March 19 2007, 13:06:17 UTC

As well as the general confusion between a Major Pagan Publisher and an Academic Press ( ... )

Re: Exactly! lupagreenwolf March 19 2007, 16:48:58 UTC

I love that essay.

Re: Exactly! edwarddain March 19 2007, 16:56:54 UTC

The last time I saw it used (about six years ago in an Intro to Sociology class) only about a third of a class of ~30 "got it."

And the Professor related that he'd fallen for it as well as a newly minted PhD the first time he'd read it.

Re: Exactly! lupagreenwolf March 19 2007, 17:08:59 UTC

I first read it in one of the People's Almanacs when I was about 10; I reread it eveyr few years just to remind myself of the things I learned from it.

Re: Exactly! edwarddain March 19 2007, 17:24:25 UTC

I think my dad gave me a copy to read at about the same age - I loved it when he explained it and never forgot it!

Back to all threads