I’ll probably be labeled a misogynist pig for even bringing this paper to the attention of our readers, but there are just some things that just deserve to be called “crazy”. When I first saw this, I thought it might be a parody, or an old April Fools joke. Sadly, no. The abstract from this publication Progress in Human Geography reads:
Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research
Abstract
Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.
Source: http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/08/0309132515623368.abstract
h/t to Richard Saumarez
Like me, you are probably wondering what a “feminist glaciology framework” is
Through a review and synthesis of a multi-disciplinary and wide-ranging literature on human-ice relations, this paper proposes a feminist glaciology framework to analyze human-glacier dynamics, glacier narratives and discourse, and claims to credibility and authority of glaciological knowledge through the lens of feminist studies. As a point of departure, we use ‘glaciology’ in an encompassing sense that exceeds the immediate scientific meanings of the label, much as feminist critiques of geography, for example, have expanded what it is that ‘geography’ might mean vis-a`-vis geographic knowledge (Domosh, 1991; Rose, 1993). As such, feminist glaciology has four aspects: (1) knowledge producers, to decipher how gender affects the individuals producing glacierrelated knowledges; (2) gendered science and knowledge, to address how glacier science, perceptions, and claims to credibility are gendered; (3) systems of scientific domination, to analyze how power, domination, colonialism, and control – undergirded by and coincident with masculinist ideologies – have shaped glacier-related sciences and knowledges over time; and (4) alternative representations, to illustrate diverse methods and ways – beyond the natural sciences and including what we refer to as ‘folk glaciologies’ – to portray glaciers and integrate counter-narratives into broader conceptions of the cryosphere. These four components of feminist glaciology not only help to critically uncover the under-examined history of glaciological knowledge and glacier-related sciences prominent in today’s climate change discussions. The framework also has important implications for understanding vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience – all central themes in global environmental change research and decision-making that have lacked such robust analysis of epistemologies and knowledge production (Conway et al., 2014; Castree et al., 2014).
Oh.
The funding source didn’t surprise me:
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work is based upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation under grant #1253779.
So, the gist of this paper can be summed up in this statement:
Most existing glaciological research – and hence discourse and discussions about cryospheric change – stems from information produced by men, about men, with manly characteristics, and within masculinist discourses. These characteristics apply to scientific disciplines beyond glaciology; there is an explicit need to uncover the role of women in the history of science and technology, while also exposing processes for excluding women from science and technology.
Those darn manly men with their masculinist discourses! But, I digress.
It would seem to me that given a choice of going to a remote and bitterly cold place, where you have to live in harsh minimalist conditions, with little human contact for months, just doesn’t appeal to many women, hence creating this perceived “bias” or lack of “feminine glaciology”. After all, millions of husbands and wives battle over the home thermostat setting daily. However, if somebody wants to break through the “ice ceiling” of glaciology, I nominate my Internet stalker Miriam O’Brien, aka “Sou”/Hotwhopper who could be a groundbreaking icebreaking leader by going to live on a glacier for a year so she can study it. I might actually pay to see that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Climate craziness of the year. So far.
WOMENS’ LIB ABSTRACT MAD LIB. You will need:
[BRANCH] branch of science or human endeavor
[FIERY-BRANCH] social sciences pursuit, preferably controversial in this context
[PROP1,PROP2] any objects familiar to practitioners of [BRANCH]
This paper thus proposes a feminist [BRANCH] framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of [PROP1]. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-[FIERY-BRANCH] systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-[PROP2] interactions.
Example for Carpentry/Anthropological/a nail/hammer
This paper thus proposes a feminist carpentry framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of a nail. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-anthropological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-hammer interactions.
del thx
corr. WOMENS’ LIB ABSTRACT MAD LIB. You will need:
[BRANCH] branch of science or human endeavor
[FIERY-BRANCH] social sciences pursuit, preferably controversial in this context
[PROP1,PROP2] any objects familiar to practitioners of [BRANCH]
This paper thus proposes a feminist [BRANCH] framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of [PROP1]. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist [BRANCH] framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-[FIERY-BRANCH] systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-[PROP2] interactions.
Example for Carpentry/Anthropological/a nail/hammer
This paper thus proposes a feminist carpentry framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of a nail. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist carpentry framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-anthropological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-hammer interactions.
Thanks for all the hilarity Anthony (and fellow-commenters).
This subject reminded me of a report I read just the other day about a professor, Peter Drier, on his experience submitting a bogus paper to a humanities conference and getting it accepted:
“Six years ago I submitted a paper for a panel, “On the Absence of Absences” that was to be part of an academic conference later that year—in August 2010. Then, and now, I had no idea what the phrase “absence of absences” meant. The description provided by the panel organizers, printed below, did not help. The summary, or abstract of the proposed paper—was pure gibberish, as you can see below. I tried, as best I could within the limits of my own vocabulary, to write something that had many big words but which made no sense whatsoever. I not only wanted to see if I could fool the panel organizers and get my paper accepted, I also wanted to pull the curtain on the absurd pretentions of some segments of academic life. To my astonishment, the two panel organizers—both American sociologists—accepted my proposal and invited me to join them at the annual international conference of the Society for Social Studies of Science to be held that year in Tokyo.”
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/02/27/academia-is-losing-its-mind/
It reads like a computer-generated hoax paper.
There is no need to go into such masculinist power games any more. Computer modelling developed into a perfectly legitimate way to study ice dynamics or anything else for that matter, can be done in nice cozy places and it is much easier to adjust results to a desired outcome. What’s not to like?
I was convinced that this was a hoax when I first read it. Nefore I sent it to AWatts, I did discover that the senior author exists and the paper is celebrated on the University of Oregon.
https://around.uoregon.edu/content/glaciers-melt-more-voices-research-are-needed
Wait a second….Richard….you may have solved the AGW problem! When did feminists start burning bras in public? Wasn’t that roughly when global temps started increasing? Has anyone ever run the statistical correlation between increasing feminism and increasing warming? It has to be a nearly perfect correlation! 🙂
Monty Python has become reality.
We live in the Post-satirical Age, where caricature has become true likeness and ridicule is impossible.
The Big Bang Theory – Interesting girls in science
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rITtvpKbJW8
Anthony, you need to create The Gabby Johnson Award for papers like this
Wow, do we ever need an ice age! Now please.
What blows my mind is that this gets published, with virtually nobody blinking an eye… but a paper about the mechanics of the human hand gets retracted because they used the word “creator” and the internet had a melt down. I guess I’ve gotten so used to far-left bologne in scholarship that I’ve just started filtering it out to focus on whatever substance remains. I would have done the same for the hand paper. The contrast here between mainstream reactions to the two is striking.
“Thou shalt have no other Cause before mine.” seems to be the new gold standard used by those with power to determine what can and cannot be said in public.
Anthony….Consider passing this on to The Journal of Irreproducible Results. It’s not as funny (or accurate) as the article on Impure Mathematics, but it may get a fair hearing from the publishers anyway.
Hmm, I see a new career opportunity here. Sexing Glaciers. Publicly funded for gender studies students of course.
But my gosh…it’s so hard to pick them up to look underneath….But seriously, does their gender really matter? If we know what sex they are….we’ll just treat them differently instead of equally….so maybe we shouldn’t pigeonhole them into one category or another!
Yes, but in the case of a male and female glacier getting divorced, which one is more likely to get custody of the ‘calves’? There’s a whole nascent growth industry out there.
It’s laugh out loud funny. Bet you can expect a ‘glacial’ response to this post from the feminist brigade.
Thank goodness these glaciers are feminists…
…….. imagine if one actually had an organism !
(I totally understand if you delete this post) 😉
I would never speak to a lady that way, my girlfriend would kill me.
Sirs, while making merry about feminism you have not given any consideration to the accusation of Glaciology being Post Colonial. What was or is colonial about studying Swiss Glaciers?
Forget income tax, carbon tax and goods and services taxes. All we need is a word tax. A fixed tax on all printed and spoken words. For example adjectives would attract a higher rate than nouns and conjunctions the lower rate. Words deemed unnecessary would be the highest taxed. Certain words could attract an extremely high tax rate, for example ‘climate’ and ‘change. Just a thought, now I had better start saving.
Here’s a comment from the Reason website at http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/07/this-university-of-oregon-study-on-femin#comment where there are more amusing remarks.
That is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time.
Hopefully, this is one of those fake articles full of impressive sounding, yet meaningless, jargon that get published because they are full of impressive sounding jargon.
I am a married college professor, mother of sons and grandsons. I teach real research and I have followed global warming and then climate change for 20 years, I have travelled to Antarctica and am planning a trip through the Northwest passage with my husband. There is no sign of gender difference in how we see glaciers or climate change. We have both met Anthony Watts twice and would gladly fund any research he did to show what’s up with climate because unlike this embarrassing goddess biased article above, Anthony is helping us get the facts on climate. To our goddess author, Please: “Just the facts Mam” . Please remember: Feelings are not facts.
[snip -over the top -mod]
I’m still convinced it is a joke. I think we’re being punked. The abstract is a carefully constructed set of buzzwords and gobbledygook.