Read on Twitter
Fight?!?!
@GoodwinMJ & I discuss social media, academia, & Brexit.
I argue that calling out dodgy data, bad stats & the misuse of evidence - "intellectual garbage disposal" - is an important public service..(1/n)
#BrexitandBeyond https://soundcloud.com/user-941630307/brexit-and-beyond-with-professor-matt-goodwin-and-jonathan-portes
@GoodwinMJ & I discuss social media, academia, & Brexit.
I argue that calling out dodgy data, bad stats & the misuse of evidence - "intellectual garbage disposal" - is an important public service..(1/n)
#BrexitandBeyond https://soundcloud.com/user-941630307/brexit-and-beyond-with-professor-matt-goodwin-and-jonathan-portes
2/n This was a constructive and polite (!) discussion. Matt & I agree both the upsides and some potential downsides of using social media to communicate and discuss research.
There were, however, some areas of disagreement..
There were, however, some areas of disagreement..
3/n Matt thinks we should try to behave on social media as in a conference/seminar. I disagree. Twitter discussions are not (mostly) discussing work in progress - it's a place for critiquing/critically examining - and sometimes, if necessary, trashing- stuff that's out there
I cited a specific example - my tweet here about @epkaufm https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/1217192044147413002?s=20
To be clear, @epkaufm here was - through incompetence/ignorance & haste, I'll charitably assume - trying, with an entirely spurious chart, to claim that race discrimination isn't a problem in the UK labour market.
@GoodwinMJ doesn't ( I think) dispute that I was correct about the chart but (I think) objects to tone.
I *don't* think responding to that sort of misuse of data, bolstered by @epkaufm's academic credentials, with rudeness (and yes I was rude!) is uncalled for.
I *don't* think responding to that sort of misuse of data, bolstered by @epkaufm's academic credentials, with rudeness (and yes I was rude!) is uncalled for.
(7/n) I think substance matters. @GoodwinMJ described my article here on Scruton as a "shoddy hit job" - I think this is the sort of thing he means when he says that he too has got the tone wrong in the past. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/17/roger-scruton-conservatism-bigotry-anti-immigrant
(8/n) Again, I disagree. I've no problem with @goodwinmj's use of the phrase "hit job".
I objected then (and now) to "shoddy", because the article was meticulously sourced/linked - Matt didn't claim otherwise. If academics - and others - get data/facts right, nothing to fear
I objected then (and now) to "shoddy", because the article was meticulously sourced/linked - Matt didn't claim otherwise. If academics - and others - get data/facts right, nothing to fear
(9/n) Matt also thinks early career researchers are put off by seeing senior academics "shouting at each other" on twitter. I genuinely don't know if this is an issue and would welcome thoughts/views? (publicly or privately).
(10/n) Finally, specifically on Brexit, Matt cited a climate of intolerance within academia towards those (like him) who wanted to "respect the vote." It's worth listening to what he says on this...
(11/n) FWIW, my view is that there's no excuse for intolerance/abuse - still less "discrimination" in terms of jobs/grants - against those who are (or are perceived as) "pro-Brexit".
(12/n) We at @UKandEU have always been open to a wide range of voices; and those of us responsible for steering the overall programme (esp @anandMenon1 @jillongovt @ProfTimBale & me) have always tried to be objective and rigorous (& I think broadly succeeded).
(13/13)
We didn't solve everything! Neither of us would claim a monopoly of wisdom, nor are there obvious "right answers".
But I thought it was a useful and constructive discussion, and thanks to @GoodwinMJ for engaging. [ENDS..for now]
We didn't solve everything! Neither of us would claim a monopoly of wisdom, nor are there obvious "right answers".
But I thought it was a useful and constructive discussion, and thanks to @GoodwinMJ for engaging. [ENDS..for now]
