I am not a philosopher - my degrees are in History, Piolitics and Business...however when I see this:

In the work of Michel Foucault, the style of government that regulates populations through biopower (the application and impact of political power on all aspects of human life).

I can accept this as a pretty apposite definition. However if I didn't have access to this definition I would think it was a pretty pump definition. moreover a quick google reveals that "biopolitics" is actually used to describe at least seven concepts, four or five of which are from the same academic domain...i.e. political philosophy.
My cynical gene asks me if this is intentional, so as to maximise the opportunity for academics to obfuscate issues and derive the maximum funding whilst generating nugatory research.

Originally Posted by Cuddles

I am not a philosopher - my degrees are in History, Piolitics and Business...however when I see this:

In the work of Michel Foucault, the style of government that regulates populations through biopower (the application and impact of political power on all aspects of human life).

I can accept this as a pretty apposite definition. However if I didn't have access to this definition I would think it was a pretty pump definition. moreover a quick google reveals that "biopolitics" is actually used to describe at least seven concepts, four or five of which are from the same academic domain...i.e. political philosophy.
My cynical gene asks me if this is intentional, so as to maximise the opportunity for academics to obfuscate issues and derive the maximum funding whilst generating nugatory research.

It also makes it hard to challenge if you can't understand what is being said. Who is going to stick their mit up and say: "I'm sorry Dr Basham I haven't understood a word you have said." We don't like to admit we are ignorant.

Originally Posted by Cuddles

I am not a philosopher - my degrees are in History, Piolitics and Business...however when I see this:

In the work of Michel Foucault, the style of government that regulates populations through biopower (the application and impact of political power on all aspects of human life).

I can accept this as a pretty apposite definition. However if I didn't have access to this definition I would think it was a pretty pump definition. moreover a quick google reveals that "biopolitics" is actually used to describe at least seven concepts, four or five of which are from the same academic domain...i.e. political philosophy.
My cynical gene asks me if this is intentional, so as to maximise the opportunity for academics to obfuscate issues and derive the maximum funding whilst generating nugatory research.

As far as I know, or at least the only time I submitted an application to the ESRC (who seem to supply lots of this academic's funding), I was told that the application form would be reviewed by people with the appropriate background to the area I was applying for funding in.

So I'm guessing in this instance too, her application forms would have been reviewed by her peers ,who have a good grounding of the subject.

Ironically, though, I'm surprised this research area is so weak... The ESRC are one of the most prestigious funding bodies in the UK - who also fund projects alongside the MOD. It would be interesting to see how she argued this research would benefit society in general, which is one of the points you have to make on the application form.

The Emperor's new research thesis?

Who would be first to ask a "respected academic" difficult questions, if as we suspect "what goes around comes around"? Or I'll cite your research if you cite mine.

Originally Posted by Cuddles

The Emperor's new research thesis?

Who would be first to ask a "respected academic" difficult questions, if as we suspect "what goes around comes around"? Or I'll cite your research if you cite mine.

This is something I have/had to get used to coming from a military culture (even more so, considering I spent eight years as a sapper) - in academia it is expected that you ask academics difficult questions. In fact, that was even a point I used in my PhD interview - that I would have the confidence to criticise my supervisor's ideas (if warrented); because that's how science works... The more you question, and criticise, the more the theory or idea progresses and develops.

Edit: not sure about the citations thing either - this Doctor seems like an early career academic, so I'm not sure she would be established enough to have any effect on citing other research.

Although looking at her previous stuff, I'm still hard-pressed to see the value of her research to society in general. most of it seems the sort of stuff a journalist could write for a left-wing newspaper, without the need for huge amounts of research funding.

Indeed AL...why let research get in the way of some good old fashioned prejudice?

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Indeed AL...why let research get in the way of some good old fashioned prejudice?

:D

Originally Posted by amazing__lobster

Originally Posted by Cuddles

I am not a philosopher - my degrees are in History, Piolitics and Business...however when I see this:

In the work of Michel Foucault, the style of government that regulates populations through biopower (the application and impact of political power on all aspects of human life).

I can accept this as a pretty apposite definition. However if I didn't have access to this definition I would think it was a pretty pump definition. moreover a quick google reveals that "biopolitics" is actually used to describe at least seven concepts, four or five of which are from the same academic domain...i.e. political philosophy.
My cynical gene asks me if this is intentional, so as to maximise the opportunity for academics to obfuscate issues and derive the maximum funding whilst generating nugatory research.

As far as I know, or at least the only time I submitted an application to the ESRC (who seem to supply lots of this academic's funding), I was told that the application form would be reviewed by people with the appropriate background to the area I was applying for funding in.

So I'm guessing in this instance too, her application forms would have been reviewed by her peers ,who have a good grounding of the subject.

Ironically, though, I'm surprised this research area is so weak... The ESRC are one of the most prestigious funding bodies in the UK - who also fund projects alongside the MOD. It would be interesting to see how she argued this research would benefit society in general, which is one of the points you have to make on the application form.

That she has peers who would would review this sort of tosh is all the proof that I need that there is huge waste in Academia.

I can't help wonder if real scientists who do real research don't get a bit peeved at 'social scientists' and their more imaginary up stuff.

Originally Posted by BuggerAll

That she has peers who would would review this sort of tosh is all the proof that I need that there is huge waste in Academia.

I can't help wonder if real scientists who do real research don't get a bit peeved at 'social scientists' and their more imaginary up stuff.

I wouldn't say peeved, but I would say their research is maybe considered more of a hobby

Originally Posted by MikeMcc

Originally Posted by BrandySoured

Originally Posted by Bubbles_Barker

What do you expect when she looks like this:

www.bristol.ac.uk/.../conwaygurch.jpg

Link didn't work but I found this (She's the one with long hair. I think):

[img][/img]

And I wouldn't. Not even with yours.

Bet some squaddie turned her down as a minger when she was at Uni. Would explain why she's got a downer on the forces. A woman scorned and all that...

Or her facebook profile picture. As least it's a bloke she's with and not a rug-muncher.