UPDATED WITH SECTION 3 MAY 9, 2019
Many thanks to Dr. Bogart for taking the trouble to write up the following, which he kindly gave permission to share:
I have organized my comments into three categories: (1) Administrative issues, (2) Methodological Issues, and (3) Substantive Issues.
- Administrative Issues:
There is no information on the selection of the Team or of the Advisory Board. The respective roles are left obscure. What are the responsibilities of the Advisory Board, for example?
The demographics of the Advisory Board are not reflective of the membership of the APA or of the broader philosophical community. The demographics are not representative along lines of gender, sex, areas of specialization, experience, geography, employment histories. It is unclear if there is any ideological diversity on the Board. Too many of the members of the Team and Advisory Board have known, highly controversial views on the instigating events of the project, in particular regarding the Tuvel/Hypatia controversy. The project thereby appears political slanted and ideologically tainted.
It is unclear where competence lies with respect to the methodology employed by the Team. The project here is not an intra-institutional project, but one directed at a wide range of outsiders. It may that the consultant has experience with similar efforts, but it is not apparent from the webpage.
The Team is somewhat suspect on other grounds. The inclusion of the Executive Director of the APA is troubling. The project is not sponsored by the APA, yet its Executive Director is a central player and the APA released an Press Statement about the Project, quoting the Executive Director. The Press Release nowhere says that Ferrer is acting on her own or that the APA is not involved in the project, or otherwise clarifying relationship between the APA and the project. It strikes me as inappropriate for the Executive Director to have such a role because it creates a host of conflicts and problems that cast doubt on the integrity of the Project, when the involvement is not approved by the APA governing board.
- Methodological Issues.
There is too little information about the people who actually participated in the focus groups. While the initial outreach was appropriately wide, that is of no help if those who actually showed up were not representative of journal editors in philosophy. Without such information, the reporting at least sounds, if not is, merely anecdotal. Even if there is some reason not to identify the actual participants, or the journals represented (I do not see why anonymity would be important here, but there may be reasons), other indicia of an adequately representative set should have been provided.
Recent Comments