NP no facts only interpretations

[Paul Mackin]

Is is sound to say as the article does that the social constructionism
stance has a special relationship to the current rush-to-publication trend
in scholarship? Is social construction materially responsible for the fact
that academic papers and books all  too often now tend to read like
something found on the average crackpot web site? I myself find this trend
deplorable but wouldn't the situation likely have been the same even without
the discovery of social construction. Even if  the objective school  had
continued to reign supreme (and it was still  necessary to thorough digest
some famous earlier text before summoning up the nerve to comment upon it)
would not the publish or perish need still be there? Would not being in a
hurry and anxious to save time still be the modern imperative? I really
think so.

Sloppy publication has deeper sources in the modern economy than any
particular mode of academic scholarship. It's much easier and cheaper now to
dash off books, any kind of book. It's almost as easy as dashing off a post
to the p-list or starting a website. And with megabookstores all over the
landscape the demand is there regardless of quality.  Suckers like me will
pick up a copy of just about anything.  I just brought home  James Bamford's
Body of Secrets. It's hard to tell if there's anything worthwhile in it
because it must have gone straight for Bamford's wordprocessor to the
printing press. No editor's eye ever passed over it.  It's totally
disorganized with no overview or section of conclusions whatsoever. The so
called notes and index are a joke. It's only investigative reporting I know
but something more should be required.

Please note that I'm not saying there is not much that is excellent in the
scholarly and other areas out today. But would not even Bauerlein say as
much?

                P.