<< On Comics: The Watchmen | Front Page | Littell's Kindly Ones: 1 >>
Friday, March 13, 2009
You thought I was going to mock the title, didn’t you?
Via Savage Minds, I came across this article from the July 2008 edition of Qualitative Inquiry:
I know everyone wants to cry Sokal and loose the hounds of sense, but the title is what the title is. I’m more curious about this:
I was fortunate to be mentored by Corrine Glesne, an absolutely wonderful ethnographer (Busier et al., 1997; Glesne, 1989, 1998, 2003; Martin & Glesne, 2002).
Do my eyes deceive me, or are those citations meant to substantiate the absolute wonderfulness of Corrine Glesne? Is this a cheap scheme to up the number of times people are cited in professional indexes? If so, how is it nobody’s—wait a minute. I just had an idea.
Have I ever told you how awesome you are? I haven’t? Well then, it’s about time that I did. It is my professional opinion that you are awesome. By the authority invested in me by the University of California, I hereby declare that each and every one of you possess more awesomeness than anyone has any right to. You can quote me on that. In fact, I insist that you do. Every time you appeal to your academic ethos, I’d like to see some variation of “Lest you doubt my authority, remember that reputable scholars have attested to my awesomeness (Kaufman 2009).” Feel free to practice in the comments.
For obvious reasons, I will x-post this everywhere. The more citations I score, the more reputable I become; and the more reputable I become, the more my stamp of approval’s worth. I think we have ourselves a win-win scenario here. So what are you waiting for? Start practicing already!
Comments
Wait, shouldn’t the citation be to your full name, because you’re all pretentious n’ stuff? I wouldn’t want people to think the maker of “Porn Star” clothing had written that I was awesome. Or is that just not part of citation format?
We’ve got to keep proper form, otherwise the muckety-mucks might catch on.
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of guffaw.
Which is to say, awesome.
You know what else is awesome, though? Cricket. That’s what.
At which point do we limit references to observations that have become well accepted? That I am awesome is well attested (Kaufman, 2009; Eades, T., 1982, 1985, 1986, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2002, 2006, 2008; Eades, M., 1962, 1965, 1967, 1972, 1976, 1981, 1985, 1987, 1992, 1996, 2001, 2006) though some object to the editorial correction of M. Eades’ frequent slip in writing “awful” instead of the intended “awesome” (cf. the arguments of Eades’ first wife (Xantippe, 2004); there she also strains credulity in reading irony in M. Eades’ frequent characterizations of her son as “husky").
I wonder how many different forms of these sweeping blogospheric commendations we can collect? “Rich Puchalsky, the Slightly Toxic Substances Analyst for the Poor Man Institute for Freedom, Democracy, and a Pony, is awesome (Kaufman 2009).”
Please mock the title. Please.
Once these citations attesting to awsomeness start getting published how long do we have to wait before our students start using them? For instance I think it would be cool if every paper I graded started off with “Pohl is awsome (Kaufman et al., 2009).”