How many times am I going to hear a variation of this speech?

“In the bad old days, academia was ruled by the hidebound orthodox. Now fresh, innovative methods are challenging the stifling orthodoxies(1). New interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, pragmatic, embodied, holistic, diverse, pluralistic, qualitative, oral, phenomenological, enactivist, post-positivist, economics aware, historicised, cybernetic, non-ideal, engaged, interventionist and radical-pedagogic has broken through. This exciting new research agenda will surely lead to progress (no, I won’t show you any of it).”

Note that my objection isn’t to these research programs. Some of these things seem critically important to me, some less so. It’s to talks and papers that substitute discussion of how very exciting these (now established) research programs are to actual, impressive and original, empirical, and theoretical work done through these paradigms. Note also that my objection isn’t to new methodological work- genuine new ideas in methodology that work with these concepts are good- very good! But they must be new ideas, or at least newish ideas in methodology, otherwise, I promise, we’ve heard it all before.

And, in general, I’m just really sick of every academic portraying themselves as a brave rebel against the orthodox. Earn it properly or don’t claim it at all.

---

(1)-Which haven’t been orthodoxy for at least 40 to 50 years.