Rosan wrote :
>The idea of the 'Blind' refereeing seems to me is a product of the
>'objective' scientific thinking/philosophy that is used to deny all the
>personal/instituitional values, interests, feelings, emotions etc
>involved during the refereeing process. And I think the so-called
>'blind' refereeing practice is among many other 'traditional' practices
>of organizing conferences that shoud not be taken for granted and need
>to be rethought.
And Lubomir replied :
>These phenomena are well known by historians and philosophers of science.
>In that domain there is literature that shows how such disputes are
>resolved. Usually the intelligent solution is making an alternative
>community (school) of thought. All communities/schools of thought function
>in the public scholarly arena. Scholars choose which one to support and
>which one to criticize.
Let's not confuse too much the economy of knowledge with the production
of knowledge.
Conferences, journals, papers, and faculty positions are -because of the
economy of power and more and more, the economy of ressources- bound to
social scrutinization. Thus the balance between conformism (I pick up
those who ressemble me), and some degree of disorder (being selected
because there are no other participants, for instance).
I think that those who wish to look for alternatives should, at some
point, investigate their chances to either rephrase their discourses so
that they fit in the dominant rethorics, or, if they are convinced that
they have, indeed, a radically different approach, think of how to invent
the economy that will allow them to sustain it.
I believe also that, thanks to Internet, it is much easier (cheaper) then
before to instill debate, gather groups, look for constructive feedback.
I personally have different paradigms through which I try to understand
design thinking and practice then those that are dominant (so I know that
my papers will have few chances), and as I don't belong to any
institution at the moment, I can't really attend any conference.
Nevertheless, a list such as this one allows me to debate, increase my
knowledge, reconsider or reinforce my hypotheses, and if I am unhappy,
I'll start another list.
Regards,
Jean
|