A tale of two reviews: examining the content and ideology of two single-blind reviews
As part of my work as an educator, I see the need to surface for discussion what might indeed be considered as acts of oppression on the part of peer reviewers when certain aspects of knowing and meaning are misrecognized, obscured, or suppressed. Drawing on observations concerning coercive and oppr...
Saved in:
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
2024
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/177915 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Nanyang Technological University |
Language: | English |
id |
sg-ntu-dr.10356-177915 |
---|---|
record_format |
dspace |
spelling |
sg-ntu-dr.10356-1779152024-06-03T04:37:34Z A tale of two reviews: examining the content and ideology of two single-blind reviews Toh, Glenn School of Humanities Language and Communication Centre Arts and Humanities Power Social relations As part of my work as an educator, I see the need to surface for discussion what might indeed be considered as acts of oppression on the part of peer reviewers when certain aspects of knowing and meaning are misrecognized, obscured, or suppressed. Drawing on observations concerning coercive and oppressive relational and educational practices found in Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed as well as scholarly works in Critical Discourse Analysis critiquing inequitable practices within academic and social domains, I argue that a more academically (and socially) accountable, conscionable and humanizing alternative is one which engenders greater openness to questions concerning: (1) who it might be that gets to determine what counts as (publishable) knowledge; and (2) how such formulations of knowledge may be tied to powerful or ideologized ways of knowing and meaning making. This article is also an appeal for greater awareness that acts which work directly or indirectly to silence earnest attempts to highlight inequitable and/or dehumanizing educational beliefs and practices are also acts which will disadvantage, marginalize, or silence people directly or indirectly involved, including parents and children who may be placed at the receiving end of such inequities and inhumanities. 2024-06-03T04:37:34Z 2024-06-03T04:37:34Z 2024 Journal Article Toh, G. (2024). A tale of two reviews: examining the content and ideology of two single-blind reviews. Policy Futures in Education, 1-22. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14782103241232527 1478-2103 https://hdl.handle.net/10356/177915 10.1177/14782103241232527 2-s2.0-85184859088 1 22 en Policy Futures in Education © 2024 The Author(s). All rights reserved. |
institution |
Nanyang Technological University |
building |
NTU Library |
continent |
Asia |
country |
Singapore Singapore |
content_provider |
NTU Library |
collection |
DR-NTU |
language |
English |
topic |
Arts and Humanities Power Social relations |
spellingShingle |
Arts and Humanities Power Social relations Toh, Glenn A tale of two reviews: examining the content and ideology of two single-blind reviews |
description |
As part of my work as an educator, I see the need to surface for discussion what might indeed be considered as acts of oppression on the part of peer reviewers when certain aspects of knowing and meaning are misrecognized, obscured, or suppressed. Drawing on observations concerning coercive and oppressive relational and educational practices found in Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed as well as scholarly works in Critical Discourse Analysis critiquing inequitable practices within academic and social domains, I argue that a more academically (and socially) accountable, conscionable and humanizing alternative is one which engenders greater openness to questions concerning: (1) who it might be that gets to determine what counts as (publishable) knowledge; and (2) how such formulations of knowledge may be tied to powerful or ideologized ways of knowing and meaning making. This article is also an appeal for greater awareness that acts which work directly or indirectly to silence earnest attempts to highlight inequitable and/or dehumanizing educational beliefs and practices are also acts which will disadvantage, marginalize, or silence people directly or indirectly involved, including parents and children who may be placed at the receiving end of such inequities and inhumanities. |
author2 |
School of Humanities |
author_facet |
School of Humanities Toh, Glenn |
format |
Article |
author |
Toh, Glenn |
author_sort |
Toh, Glenn |
title |
A tale of two reviews: examining the content and ideology of two single-blind reviews |
title_short |
A tale of two reviews: examining the content and ideology of two single-blind reviews |
title_full |
A tale of two reviews: examining the content and ideology of two single-blind reviews |
title_fullStr |
A tale of two reviews: examining the content and ideology of two single-blind reviews |
title_full_unstemmed |
A tale of two reviews: examining the content and ideology of two single-blind reviews |
title_sort |
tale of two reviews: examining the content and ideology of two single-blind reviews |
publishDate |
2024 |
url |
https://hdl.handle.net/10356/177915 |
_version_ |
1800916354435383296 |