On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 09:25:24 -0400, Mariab <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I've read other 'attacks' accounts of this nature, just never so
>obvious against one specific writer, Lester's continuos citation of
>L.Davis sounds rather personal.
No.
Lester cites or quotes L.Davis pp. 1, 8, 9, 28, 29, 154, 172, 174, 200, 260
and 275. But these are pages in 'The Disability Studies Reader' edited by
L.Davis, with many contributors. At the end of the main essay, Lester
admits the restriction of mostly citing only four books, in the belief that
these are typical disability studies baloney. Lester also notes
specifically that reference is made only to the first editor or
contributor, (e.g. L. Davis, even where the actual writer is someone else).
This is poor scholarly practice - and perhaps evidence that Lester does not
consider Disability Studies worth taking serious - but the essay clearly
states that this has been done. (It is also stated that the essay has
changed format - possibly, in the original format, there may have been a
restriction on the number of authors cited).
It is untenable to suggest 'personal' motivation, and being 'obviously
against one specific writer', when that is quite clearly not the case, and
where a specific explanation has been offered.
Lester's paper does seem hasty and poorly expressed. It underestimates the
range of what might be counted as 'disability studies', and is dismissive
without adequate examination. Nevertheless, the rapid impression Lester has
gathered of this field is not entirely inaccurate. There is a great deal of
disability studies writing that is fairly irritating if one is looking for
evidence and reasoned argument. Much of this sort of writing can, however,
be understood better as cries of misery and anger. As such, it would be
unreasonable to expect the dispassionate argument of a mathematical proof.
Whether it is appropriate for British taxpayers (many of whom have had no
opportunity to engage in academic study) to fund the reproduction of cries
of misery and anger on an academic website, under the guise of 'research',
is a moot point -- though probably one on which Lester would have a
negative view.
One could try the question the other way round -- If disability research
were to take place in a protected enclave, into which no cries of misery or
anger could penetrate, would this be a benefit? It seems to me that there
would be very little benefit, and very likely some serious disadvantage to
the realism of the research.
Psychlit, ASSIA, Index Med and Ingenta Whatever, which index and abstract a
lot of disability research, could perhaps use a few more cries -- while
this site (which was once about disability research, and is now mostly
cries) could do with rather less. But that's life - the thing is never in
balance.
m99m
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|