Read on Twitter
Late to the party as spending less time on twitter atm, but the attacks against @AsimCP and the many authors of this book are representative of a wider assault on academic debate in elements of CVE, whilst also reinforcing norms against Muslims that are not applied to majorities. https://twitter.com/AsimCP/status/1244725981417484294
To publish anything in academia takes months/years of dedication, alongside a (painful) review process where the work is assessed and reassessed by peers. The bar for this is even higher for University Press publications, who have access to the leading lights of disciplines.
Such publications are often therefore critically 'peer-reviewed' by at least three leading academics, as well as specialised editors for the UP.
Speak to any academic - they'll tell you the pain it is to publish anything!
Speak to any academic - they'll tell you the pain it is to publish anything!
Typical for assaults from non-academic think-tanks is the belittling of this process, who are quick to throw around accusations of 'crankademic' at work they don't like.
Several such NGOs, on the other hand, do not undergo any or adequate peer review, ethics or impact reports.
Several such NGOs, on the other hand, do not undergo any or adequate peer review, ethics or impact reports.
And often such work reflects that. Quilliam was described here by @DrEllaC as conducting 'bad science', producing work that 'can’t be replicated or verified... riddled with dramatic over-claims of the kind rarely encountered in credible research'. https://policinginsight.com/features/analysis/when-bad-evidence-is-worse-than-no-evidence-quilliams-grooming-gangs-report-and-its-legacy/
Were the @CommissionCE or @QuilliamOrg to sensibly engage with the work here, they might see the irony in attacking a publication whose premise explores how whole Muslim communities have often been expected by media and politicians to 'condemn' every act of terrorism.
Muslim communities have long been held to a higher standard, with many who engage in politically sensitive topics touted as ‘extremist’ despite expressing perfectly legal religious or political opinions (cf. Githens-Mazer, for instance).
Some who attack this publication are the same ones who decry a decline in 'free speech' or claim that university campus' are sanitising debate.
So maybe those attacking should read academic publications rather than smear authors, because it really just proves @AsimCP's point.
So maybe those attacking should read academic publications rather than smear authors, because it really just proves @AsimCP's point.
You can order this, btw, using the following link to @ManchesterUP, and you get 50% off with the following code: resistracism https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526151469/
