Thinking with Klosterman's Razor: Diffracting "Reviewer 2" and research wrongness

Amber Ward, Rebecca C. Christ, Candace R. Kuby, Sarah B. Shear

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Four authors from art education, early childhood literacy education, and social studies education explore what counts as social science research with help from the blinded peer review process. The authors invite readers to think with wrongness when vetting data from a composite character named Reviewer 2, using artful methods of expression. The purpose of this article is not to complain about the experiences with Reviewer 2, but rather to explore the interface between academic publishing and knowledge production, specifically how our knowing and being as scholars is intimately entangled with academic publishing. We interact with author and essayist Chuck Klosterman's question "But What If We're Wrong?" in relation to dominant research assumptions and practices. Klosterman's book calls readers to ponder issues of ontology and epistemology not only in the present time, but also in an unknown future. Each author will share data from personal Reviewer 2 experiences and then diffract that data with/in Klosterman's Razor, or the idea that the most convincing assumptions also have the potential for wrongness. Data include paraphrased excerpts from qualitative inquiry studies published as a book, manuscripts, and conference proposal reviews. The article "closes" by addressing the new and unexpected "openings" resulting from the entanglement of collaboration and with Klosterman's book and Reviewer 2's reviews.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)28-50
Number of pages23
JournalKnowledge Cultures
Volume6
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

art education
knowledge production
social studies
peer review
epistemology
ontology
education
experience
social science
literacy
childhood
Reviewers
Wrongness
present
Academic Publishing
Reader
time
Social Sciences
Art Education
Manuscripts

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cultural Studies
  • Education
  • History
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Philosophy
  • Library and Information Sciences
  • Literature and Literary Theory
  • Law

Cite this

Ward, Amber ; Christ, Rebecca C. ; Kuby, Candace R. ; Shear, Sarah B. / Thinking with Klosterman's Razor : Diffracting "Reviewer 2" and research wrongness. In: Knowledge Cultures. 2018 ; Vol. 6, No. 2. pp. 28-50.
@article{aca7feeb93b042fda1f7792cf6cb762a,
title = "Thinking with Klosterman's Razor: Diffracting {"}Reviewer 2{"} and research wrongness",
abstract = "Four authors from art education, early childhood literacy education, and social studies education explore what counts as social science research with help from the blinded peer review process. The authors invite readers to think with wrongness when vetting data from a composite character named Reviewer 2, using artful methods of expression. The purpose of this article is not to complain about the experiences with Reviewer 2, but rather to explore the interface between academic publishing and knowledge production, specifically how our knowing and being as scholars is intimately entangled with academic publishing. We interact with author and essayist Chuck Klosterman's question {"}But What If We're Wrong?{"} in relation to dominant research assumptions and practices. Klosterman's book calls readers to ponder issues of ontology and epistemology not only in the present time, but also in an unknown future. Each author will share data from personal Reviewer 2 experiences and then diffract that data with/in Klosterman's Razor, or the idea that the most convincing assumptions also have the potential for wrongness. Data include paraphrased excerpts from qualitative inquiry studies published as a book, manuscripts, and conference proposal reviews. The article {"}closes{"} by addressing the new and unexpected {"}openings{"} resulting from the entanglement of collaboration and with Klosterman's book and Reviewer 2's reviews.",
author = "Amber Ward and Christ, {Rebecca C.} and Kuby, {Candace R.} and Shear, {Sarah B.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.22381/KC6220183",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "28--50",
journal = "Knowledge Cultures",
issn = "2327-5731",
publisher = "Addleton Academic Publishers",
number = "2",

}

Thinking with Klosterman's Razor : Diffracting "Reviewer 2" and research wrongness. / Ward, Amber; Christ, Rebecca C.; Kuby, Candace R.; Shear, Sarah B.

In: Knowledge Cultures, Vol. 6, No. 2, 01.01.2018, p. 28-50.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Thinking with Klosterman's Razor

T2 - Diffracting "Reviewer 2" and research wrongness

AU - Ward, Amber

AU - Christ, Rebecca C.

AU - Kuby, Candace R.

AU - Shear, Sarah B.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Four authors from art education, early childhood literacy education, and social studies education explore what counts as social science research with help from the blinded peer review process. The authors invite readers to think with wrongness when vetting data from a composite character named Reviewer 2, using artful methods of expression. The purpose of this article is not to complain about the experiences with Reviewer 2, but rather to explore the interface between academic publishing and knowledge production, specifically how our knowing and being as scholars is intimately entangled with academic publishing. We interact with author and essayist Chuck Klosterman's question "But What If We're Wrong?" in relation to dominant research assumptions and practices. Klosterman's book calls readers to ponder issues of ontology and epistemology not only in the present time, but also in an unknown future. Each author will share data from personal Reviewer 2 experiences and then diffract that data with/in Klosterman's Razor, or the idea that the most convincing assumptions also have the potential for wrongness. Data include paraphrased excerpts from qualitative inquiry studies published as a book, manuscripts, and conference proposal reviews. The article "closes" by addressing the new and unexpected "openings" resulting from the entanglement of collaboration and with Klosterman's book and Reviewer 2's reviews.

AB - Four authors from art education, early childhood literacy education, and social studies education explore what counts as social science research with help from the blinded peer review process. The authors invite readers to think with wrongness when vetting data from a composite character named Reviewer 2, using artful methods of expression. The purpose of this article is not to complain about the experiences with Reviewer 2, but rather to explore the interface between academic publishing and knowledge production, specifically how our knowing and being as scholars is intimately entangled with academic publishing. We interact with author and essayist Chuck Klosterman's question "But What If We're Wrong?" in relation to dominant research assumptions and practices. Klosterman's book calls readers to ponder issues of ontology and epistemology not only in the present time, but also in an unknown future. Each author will share data from personal Reviewer 2 experiences and then diffract that data with/in Klosterman's Razor, or the idea that the most convincing assumptions also have the potential for wrongness. Data include paraphrased excerpts from qualitative inquiry studies published as a book, manuscripts, and conference proposal reviews. The article "closes" by addressing the new and unexpected "openings" resulting from the entanglement of collaboration and with Klosterman's book and Reviewer 2's reviews.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85051103050&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85051103050&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.22381/KC6220183

DO - 10.22381/KC6220183

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85051103050

VL - 6

SP - 28

EP - 50

JO - Knowledge Cultures

JF - Knowledge Cultures

SN - 2327-5731

IS - 2

ER -