tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post3014436660303530334..comments2024-03-28T11:48:17.788-07:00Comments on Publishing Archaeology: Activist ethnoarchaeology? Michael E. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-36369225122568796552016-09-05T15:58:29.860-07:002016-09-05T15:58:29.860-07:00Well, maybe. I am skeptical about overtly activist...Well, maybe. I am skeptical about overtly activist social science research for these reasons. But that does not mean that good empirical research cannot be done for activist goals, or within a context of active engagement. So I wouldn't want to pre-judge these authors. See my post from a few years ago on Pasteur's Quadrant:<br />http://publishingarchaeology.blogspot.com/2011/05/is-there-archaeology-in-pasteurs.html<br /><br />Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-85316401478089596922016-09-05T15:47:57.399-07:002016-09-05T15:47:57.399-07:00Even if they had been able to test their hypothesi...Even if they had been able to test their hypothesis, their activist perspective makes me wonder how objectively their test would be. Say they had 10 measures of how dirty and dangerous to public health the camps were and 7 showed that they were dangerous and dirty and the other 3 not so much. My guess is the authors would be heavily biased (consciously or not) to dismiss the 7 measurements not in support of their hypothesis as somehow flawed and retain discussion of the other 3. Or to design their test from the outset to be more likely to support their hypothesis. This is a major concern of my about activist anthropology---it constrains what is acceptable to find or publish and throws away our credibility as scientists in the process.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com