Very interesting and timely! I have one barb, though. I have to request the poll without the usual "data available upon request." Are you filtering requests? If not then why the form?
This is an important measure of faculty opinions -- and very revealing. I am pleased to see that the majority view the methodological diversity in a positive light -- but I am appalled to see that a large fraction of faculty sees immutable characteristics of researchers--such as race, sexual orientation, and disability--as being relevant to the quality of research. Who in the sane state of mind would say: "I believe that having more disabled practitioners in the field of quantum computing leads to more breakthroughs in research"? Overall, these results do not paint a flattering picture of the academe.
Spot on Anna. I'm glad more than one of us saw through this BS. Note that the most important marker of diversity of thought--political--ias favored by only little more than half of the faculty. Fail.
"Who in a sane state of mind would say: 'I believe that having more disbaled practitioners in the filed of quantum ciomputing leads to more breakthroughs in research?'" To answer your question: no one with a sane mind would think that, but most of the current faculty do.
Of course the current faculty see "immutable charactertistics of researchers" as preeminenely important--thinking that was their ticket to a place in today's academia. They wouldn't have gotten a job if they did not think that. That's why the current crop of faculty must go if real change is going to occur.
Defund, dismantle, and re-invent higher education--Now. Not a joke.
This has nothing to do with saving the Academy from itself. All the polls show that the left completely dominates most universities. They may give lip service to ideological diversity, but at most that means one non-progressive faculty member per department. They will not allow equal representation of ideological viewpoints. It's time to defund most universities and rebuild them from the ground up.
Sorry, the data clearly shows that with the exception of methodological diversity, the tradiitonal markers of identity politics--class (socioeconomic), race, gender and disability-- arethe key "diversity" dimensions favored by the faculty. With religious and politcal diversity--by far the most important ones-- at the bottom, with just over half in favor of. And "methodological diversity" is esssentially a meaningless concept unless we know that it means more than just the Marxists vs the Post-Structuralists vs the Feminists, or some such methodological distinctions withiout a difference,, which is likely what most faculty think of when they use the term.
Who do you think you are fooling with this baloney?
Very interesting and timely! I have one barb, though. I have to request the poll without the usual "data available upon request." Are you filtering requests? If not then why the form?
This is an important measure of faculty opinions -- and very revealing. I am pleased to see that the majority view the methodological diversity in a positive light -- but I am appalled to see that a large fraction of faculty sees immutable characteristics of researchers--such as race, sexual orientation, and disability--as being relevant to the quality of research. Who in the sane state of mind would say: "I believe that having more disabled practitioners in the field of quantum computing leads to more breakthroughs in research"? Overall, these results do not paint a flattering picture of the academe.
Spot on Anna. I'm glad more than one of us saw through this BS. Note that the most important marker of diversity of thought--political--ias favored by only little more than half of the faculty. Fail.
"Who in a sane state of mind would say: 'I believe that having more disbaled practitioners in the filed of quantum ciomputing leads to more breakthroughs in research?'" To answer your question: no one with a sane mind would think that, but most of the current faculty do.
Of course the current faculty see "immutable charactertistics of researchers" as preeminenely important--thinking that was their ticket to a place in today's academia. They wouldn't have gotten a job if they did not think that. That's why the current crop of faculty must go if real change is going to occur.
Defund, dismantle, and re-invent higher education--Now. Not a joke.
This has nothing to do with saving the Academy from itself. All the polls show that the left completely dominates most universities. They may give lip service to ideological diversity, but at most that means one non-progressive faculty member per department. They will not allow equal representation of ideological viewpoints. It's time to defund most universities and rebuild them from the ground up.
Sorry, the data clearly shows that with the exception of methodological diversity, the tradiitonal markers of identity politics--class (socioeconomic), race, gender and disability-- arethe key "diversity" dimensions favored by the faculty. With religious and politcal diversity--by far the most important ones-- at the bottom, with just over half in favor of. And "methodological diversity" is esssentially a meaningless concept unless we know that it means more than just the Marxists vs the Post-Structuralists vs the Feminists, or some such methodological distinctions withiout a difference,, which is likely what most faculty think of when they use the term.
Who do you think you are fooling with this baloney?
More neo-orthodoxy from the "Heterodox" Academy.