Hoist by his own petard: A rejoinder to Contandriopoulos

A year ago, we read with disappointment and dismay Damien Contandriopoulos's article entitled, ‘About academic bullshit in nursing’, published Nursing Inquiry (Contandriopoulos, 2019). At the time, wondered whether was a spoof or, at least, baleful provocation. Since then, have deliberated as to how or respond. Our dilemma this: by responding, perversely succumb self-referential arguments afford author citation, albeit for rather disagreeable piece of writing. Alternatively, it seemed unsatisfactory commentary that ilk go unchallenged, not. We decided treat genuine provide this rejoinder which couched author's own terms, 'bullshit', hope will cast nursing scholarship more positive light so nurse academics might continue imagine things move beyond given. response is informed Schopenhauer's 38 Stratagems (Schopenhauer, 2004). Schopenhauer identified range ‘tricks, ruses, chicanery’ 2015) commonly used win an argument on dubious grounds. Because are too numerous complex fully articulate here, issues article, focus only most salient these. also take opportunity foreground broader scientism problem speaking others (Alcoff, 1991) health. In following sections, briefly expose methods make about apparent presence 'bullshit' academia. then address central question Contandriopoulos has fact provided evidence literature work be labelled ‘bullshit’. conclude arguing attempting build case academia, demonstrates himself susceptible production bullshit. ‘Bullshit’ referred hereafter ‘BS’. (2019) argues includes vulnerable developing overrepresentation BS; is, his described language no connection reality practical conceptual value. He three samples works from he claims meet criteria. useless scholarship, impedes understanding world, disempowers those who use exposed wastes time resources. provides neither nor support claim examples were taken BS there exists body research could fall into category. uncover series ruses uses, perhaps inadvertently, try convince readers correctness opinions. The first trick deployed incite outrage recruit cause using odious category second involves failing openly declare positionality relation arguments, importantly, bearing these made nursing, reflexive practice one expect protégé Bourdieu observed. (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Instead, consistently uses god-trick (Haraway, 1988) means situating within ‘all-seeing’, objective, neutral implicitly normative. ‘expert speaker’ dismiss any fails align ontological epistemological assumptions (whatever are) ‘subjectivist conceptualizations’ (a new appears invented text attributed explained), postmodern BS. adopting stance, seeks delegitimate positionalities ‘objects’ speaks, purports and, particularly aligned epistemologies. third promulgation scientism, ‘one road all’ approach inherent appeals ‘scientific authority’ shoring up distinctions makes between ‘normal language’ (Bourdieu, 1991; Krzyżanowski, 2020). For example, states ‘… scientific scholarly endeavour’ ‘is exact opposite what science should be’. Scientism, not confused itself, denotes proclivity towards limiting certain areas knowledge accepted valid promoting proper approaches obtaining generating (Hayek, 1944; Hietanen et al., Here, attempts reignite old debate ‘science’ research, which, course, depends questions being asked. This largely been resolved favour metaparadigmatic approaches. instance, Tarlier (2005) argued profession, always embraced diversity, multiple ways knowing, praxis she noted, holistic. (p. 133, 2005) concluded ‘Interdisciplinary respect may valuable over long-term than interdisciplinary consensus’. Finally, Zuiderent-Jerak al. (2009) pointed out domination paradigm narrow definitions ‘usefulness’ health can stultifying, even prohibitive, creativity innovation. Thus, idea branch benchmark practices appropriate untenable. ruse placing position arbiter ‘the truth’, allows him state that, ‘I believe … widely accepted’ my opinion, discipline needs good shake-out’. recourse subjective (e.g. I believe, feel, etc.) favourable positionality: founding opinions, beliefs feelings, facts reasoning, shrewdly dodge contestation criticism because such propositions cannot challenged specifically, proven disproven, shown true false. goes making distinction sophisticated ideas requires both expertise self-confidence’. His subsequent identification terms shows thinks possesses but suggest latter trait, self-confidence, outweighed former. where dodges providing clear definition BS, describing its ‘characteristics’ broadest terms. ‘…contrarily other forms language, obvious connections empirical reality’. Which does refer to? And whose reality? Some would useful. Further, ‘BS carefully crafted evade specific precise meaning while effective ongoing social games’ It ironic very statement reference ‘social games’; game’? say. Perhaps another construct Contandriopoulos? fact, part quote (evading meanings) blueprint article. Consequently, unable deliver clarity demands others. chicanery manifests itself mischievous Sokal (1996) ‘sophist style’ (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020) illustrate some sort inductive leap, imply publish unfortunate juxtapositioning quotations given lead incorrectly like (1996), researchers created deliberately misrepresent deceive. There two points here. Sokal's produced mindfully sole purpose deception view exposing perceived absurdities postmodernism publishing world. point never actually proves simply says expected him. Rather, having examined regard them faith they drawn. dissected drawn conclusion fits description Congruent Frankfurt’s (1998) facts. seek establish assertions true. merely repeatedly asserts academia proffered it. Significantly, evidence, misrepresents generally. doing scholarly. Frankfurt (1998, p. 120) ‘Scholarship’ defined succinctly ‘serious, detailed study’ Scholarship implies degree rigour. little serious, rigorous. tarnished superficial treatment topic, poorly presented counter contradictions, repetition references sources Shermer, 2017). Ultimately, left paradox. tells us many seminal accessible non-expert required distinguish non-BS work. Here ‘scholastic gaze’ 1984) identify ‘postmodern subjectivist major locate ‘outside’ areas. So doesn't still deems able judge worthiness description. Petrocelli (2020) observed likely occur when person speaks their domain knowledge. Results study showed analytic reflective thinking, ‘lazy’ intuitive critical detection authors preceding commentary, various tricks, shore expert scholar conceal ignorance topic scholarship. demonstrated building paradoxically, equally especially outlined four circumstances facilitate occurrence First, people feel pressured speak know about. Second, less increases. Third, ‘to BS’ undetected finally, held account. impossible extent if any, above apply Contandriopoulos. Regardless, outcomes seem reasonable accusations lodged cited suspended due absence proof sufficient disappointingly, clumsy attempt discredits whom himself.