tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post8088946060935435019..comments2024-03-18T05:08:29.201-07:00Comments on Publishing Archaeology: Why can't people cite me correctly?Michael E. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-58850475821000639462014-01-14T20:11:47.574-07:002014-01-14T20:11:47.574-07:00I'm flattered to be considered in a similar po...I'm flattered to be considered in a similar position to famous philosophers. But about the closest I get to philosophy, famous or otherwise, is in disguise as one of the other Michael Smiths, who wrote the book, "Ontology and Alterity in Merleau-Ponty." But the basic point you mention, from Descartes, that one should check original sources is a good one. But we all have too much to do, and we all cut corners in this direction. When I want to know what Marx said about something, I am more likely to pick up a book of recent Marxist scholarship than I am to go digging around in the Gundrisse itself. Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-8022068532209306742014-01-14T09:58:55.518-07:002014-01-14T09:58:55.518-07:00This reminds me of one of the pitfalls of scientif...This reminds me of one of the pitfalls of scientific research discussed by Rene Descartes. He said that one tendency was for people to make famous philosophers into straw men or just completely bastardize the nuance of their original arguments. That led him to wonder how the philosophers became famous in the first place. Descartes' point was that we should go back to the original texts instead of relying on what others say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-77711786268381878062014-01-05T18:05:16.710-07:002014-01-05T18:05:16.710-07:00I am so glad to you wrote about this here so that ...I am so glad to you wrote about this here so that at least your specific instances are in the open and eligible for further discussion. I hope the authors in question show up to discuss the matter.<br /><br />I am sure it feels weird to be treated this way. Among the few upsides is that being willfully plagiarized would probably feel worse. Jason Jacksonhttp://jasonbairdjackson.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-29422773416994962092014-01-04T14:31:18.393-07:002014-01-04T14:31:18.393-07:00That would be fun. Actually something like that ha...That would be fun. Actually something like that happened once. At an event in Mexico (a "presentación de libro" for my book Aztec City-State Capitals), discussant Tom Charlton stated that some of my analyses were very postmodern. My students almost fell out of their chairs. Later, I neglected to press Tom on his remarks.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-42708064293931860112014-01-04T14:28:16.553-07:002014-01-04T14:28:16.553-07:00Btw, it could be worse, what about "Michael S...Btw, it could be worse, what about "Michael Smith, a well-known supporter of postmodern social theorists like Giddens and Bourdieu" as a misrepresentation?Marcusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-1332433449758633932014-01-04T13:51:06.393-07:002014-01-04T13:51:06.393-07:00Haha, you may be on to something there.
My tende...Haha, you may be on to something there. <br /><br />My tendency would be the other way around: to gather as much previous research in support and make nuanced statements on earlier researchers (tracking down their writings and citing them with page numbers). Maybe that's actually a very bad strategy in psychological terms!Marcusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-31261391860381364672014-01-04T09:44:18.101-07:002014-01-04T09:44:18.101-07:00@Marcus - You may be right about simply changing a...@Marcus - You may be right about simply changing a nuanced position to a more absolute one. <br /><br />Here is a positive, egotistical spin on the matter. Scholars often like to promote their own findings by showing how they are superior to prior findings. The higher the status of the prior scholar you can top, the better for your argument. If I say my model is better than something proposed by a student in a regional conference paper, that isn't saying much. But if I can claim I have a better model than Colin Renfrew, then people will take note.<br /><br />So, here is my egotistical interpretation. These three scholars want to promote their own findings, so they picked the top scholar they could think of to represent the bad old view that they are overturning. So I should be flattered that they think so highly of me! How's that?Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-15726535030950758052014-01-04T04:54:36.543-07:002014-01-04T04:54:36.543-07:00Seems to me that in each case you had a nuanced po...Seems to me that in each case you had a nuanced position that got 'abducted' to an absolutist one. Function to functionalist, less commercial to noncommercial, and a willingness to consider Aztec documents to their structuring your research design. <br /><br />I think this is very common in archaeological writing, though. Maybe it has to do with the enormous amount of texts that have to be read by scholars with some ambition. Another factor might be that more established professors need to have a professional opinion about everything (as if that is humanly possible). So, if one cannot NOT cite a paper, but given lack of time can only skim-read it (focusing on keywords), some errors can follow, regardless of the quality of the researcher. <br /><br />Not saying that this is what happened in these three cases, but the general frequency of such mistakes seems to me to point to something like this. Publish or perish is probably to blame.Marcusnoreply@blogger.com