Abstract
AbstractIn this contribution I turn Mad Hazard into a source of evidence for two types of experiences familiar to those on the margins of academia. The first type of experience is that those at the top of the academic ladder and their pawns, use peer review not to improve submissions but to fence off rival interpretations of highly valued authors and ideas. The second experience illustrates how academic elites ignore uncomfortable questions about the ways in which they became elites, especially about the role of funders in doing so. In addition to recounting these two experiences, I also draw on Mad Hazard to venture a brief foray into the complex question of how an author’s persona can affect his or her work, and more specifically, how this author, Turner, conducts conceptual analysis. I conclude on a more personal note, suggesting further topics for Stephen’s next memoir.
Funder
Central European University Private University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference51 articles.
1. Alexander, Jeffrey C. 1983. The Classical Attempt at Theoretical Synthesis: Max Weber. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2. Ahmad, S. (1991). American foundations and the development of the social sciences between the wars: Comment on the debate between Martin Bulmer and Donald Fisher. Sociology, 25(3), 511–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038591025003011.
3. Arnove, R. F. (1977). The Ford Foundation and ‘competence building’ overseas: Assumptions, approaches, and outcomes. Studies in Comparative International Development, 12(3), 100–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686513.
4. Arnove, R. F. (Ed.). (1980). Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism. The foundations at Home and abroad. Indiana University Press.
5. Berman, E. H. (1983). The influence of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller foundations on American Foreign Policy: The ideology of Philanthropy. State University of New York.