Hi miles et al,
My response to miles somehow died yesterday and a couple of you wanted
to know what I said, so here's a synopsis:
To make a long story a
> tad shorter, your perceptions of North American academia are correct.
> Chapters in books, edited volumes, articles in guest edited fora of
> journals, and even entire books may be held in lower regard than
> peer-reviewed journals. The precise nuances of ranking vary from field
> to field, with those that claim to be sciences, like psychology and
> political science (which I think you call something else that's more
> accurate) leaning most heavily on peer reviewed journal articles.
> Another category likely to get chopped is anything that might be
> regarded as interdisciplinary, like disability studies. At my
> university, there are all kinds of incentives for interdisciplinary
> work, but I think they're just to lure us out in the open. The begin
> decisions on things like tenure and salaries are made by traditional
> disciplinary departments that regard their own orthodox journals (and
> sometimes books) most highly. At my last review, all my publications
> were basically blown off as "interdisciplinary," as I refuse even to
> consider music journals. The field of my training is just too
ableist to be my audience of choice.
>
> Thanks, miles, for your posts. I save them for future reference and
have cited
> your work on several occasions.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|