IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/eurrev/v31y2023i5p547-555_10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resistance to Critiques in the Academic Literature: An Example from Physics Education Research

Author

Listed:
  • Reichhardt, Charles
  • Small, Alex
  • Nisoli, Cristiano
  • Reichhardt, Cynthia

Abstract

Research framed around issues of diversity and representation in STEM is often controversial. The question of what constitutes a valid critique of such research, or the appropriate manner of airing such a critique, thus has a heavy ideological and political subtext. Here, we outline an attempt to comment on a paper recently published in the research journal Physical Review – Physics Education Research (PRPER). The article in question claimed to find evidence of ‘whiteness’ in introductory physics from analysis of a six-minute video. We argue that even if one accepts the rather tenuous proposition that ‘whiteness’ is sufficiently well defined to observe, the study lacks the proper controls, checks and methodology to allow for confirmation or disconfirmation of the authors’ interpretation of the data. The authors of the whiteness study, however, make the stunning claim that their study cannot be judged by standards common in science. We summarize our written critique and its fate, along with a brief description of its genesis as a response to an article in which senior officers of the American Physical Society (which publishes PRPER) explained that the appropriate venue for addressing issues with the paper at hand is via normal editorial processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Reichhardt, Charles & Small, Alex & Nisoli, Cristiano & Reichhardt, Cynthia, 2023. "Resistance to Critiques in the Academic Literature: An Example from Physics Education Research," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(5), pages 547-555, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:eurrev:v:31:y:2023:i:5:p:547-555_10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1062798723000352/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:eurrev:v:31:y:2023:i:5:p:547-555_10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/erw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.