For the last couple of classes we have been discussing the peer-review
process, and for the most part I agree that the benefits of the peer-review
process far outweigh the negatives, but having read a lot of Marx, Althusser
and Gramsci in my under grad, has permanently (for now, at least) made me
question the role of ideology in any process.
In “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”, Althusser states,
"The ultimate condition of production is therefore the reproduction of the
conditions of production. This may be 'simple' (reproducing exactly the previous
conditions of production) or 'on an extended scale' (expanding them)"(100).
I keep fighting with how the quote above applies to the peer-review
process. Especially after the Sokal
Affair, it is important that academic journals have a rigorous review process,
but something has to be said for reviewer bias, and more importantly, for the
condition of production involved in getting one’s work published.
Let’s start at the beginning: In our undergraduate days, we were taught how
to distinguish between secondary sources that were “legitimate” and ones that some
guy wrote. We are also taught to write
essays that use existing frameworks or theoretical lenses. In this class we
learned how the peer-review process works and the benefit of this process,
while constantly writing posts for blogs, writing about the peer review process
and writing about research methodology.
Couldn’t one argue that Althusser’s Repressive State Apparatuses (RSA)
is represented in the peer-review process by the journal editors and the
various academic departments within universities who are constantly pushing
their faculty members to produce (generate knowledge). It goes far beyond the peer-review process as
in order to be considered a successful member of the faculty (ideology alert!),
the faculty member must publish books, essays and journal articles. The conditions of production must be
perpetuated in order to sustain hegemony, hence the peer-review process.
Does
this make sense? It makes way more sense
in my head that it does typed.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Althusser, L. (1970), "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" in Lenin and Philosophy and other Essays (1971).
Yes! This totally makes sense. It's also sort of a "which came first the chicken or the egg" type situation. Do we need peer-review committees to publish articles or do we publish articles because we need peer-review committees? For example, if we don't employ these committees to review papers we can end up with more "illegitimate" Sokal situations. However, if we only employ peer-review committees to "legitimize" academics then issues of quantity over quality might arise. Thanks Amanda - this is definitely food for thought!
ReplyDeleteI like the chicken or the egg analogy! Thank you, Jacqueline and Mary, for responding with your insightful comments.
ReplyDeleteIt absolutely makes sense, and is very interesting indeed! I think the quantity over quality can come back to the capitalist nature of our society. Journals want to publish the most recent research to sell copies, and maintain subscriptions. Sometimes the business side of things can be very problematic.
ReplyDelete