Tessera
Folgen

Pat Savage

@patrickesavage.bsky.social

Author: Comparative Musicology (academic.oup.com/book/62353; open access) Director: @compmusiclab.bsky.social Host/PI @manyvoices.bsky.social Rutherford Discovery Fellow @U Auckland Assoc. Prof. @Keio U Music, evolution, diversity He/him Tangata tiriti

1125 Posts2714 Follower817 Folgt
Pat Savage@patrickesavage.bsky.social · 17h ago

One reason I'm so upset about Henrich's report is that anthropology is THE main example used to justify the Vanderbilt report's wild claims of "deterioration in scholarly standards" throughout the humanities (see osf.io/ta6kg). And it turns out to be almost completely unfounded. What a travesty.

The report’s conclusions are somewhat unclear, since the title is vague and it contains no abstract or executive summary of conclusions. However, the following paragraph mostly summarizes the main conclusions: “…there is serious scholarship in every field we have studied, and at their best, the humanities and the social sciences are as rigorous and as fruitful as they have ever been. Taken as a whole, however, our review of the disciplines paints a mixed picture. Every field we have studied shows some signs of the pathologies sketched above: a deterioration in scholarly standards fueled by the substitution of political criteria for properly scholarly criteria in the assessment of research and a more general repudiation of long-standing ideals of rigor and objectivity. In some fields (e.g., philosophy) the problems are largely confined to a single subfield focused on a charged topic. In others (e.g., history), while there are streams of scholarship in which standards have been politicized in problematic ways, they run alongside more dominant streams in which a wide range of views is tolerated, and appropriately scholarly standards are brought to bear. In the most extreme cases (e.g., anthropology), we see a widespread deterioration in scholarly standards grounded in a pervasive repudiation of ideals of objectivity together with a toxic intellectual climate in which reasonable dissent on politically charged topics is routinely suppressed and punished.”
Pat Savage@patrickesavage.bsky.social · 3d ago

I've now read the full key sub-report on anthropology by Joe Henrich on which the Vanderbilt report's most explosive conclusions were based (the sub-report was just published, >3 months late). As I expected, it does not provide evidence of a "deterioration in scholarly standards" in the humanities.

Dr. Katja Thieme (she/they)@katjathieme.bsky.social · 23h ago

We have new occasion for Vanderbilt-report-related commentary. Allow me to collect it into a thread.

Scott MacEachern@scottmaceachern.bsky.social · yesterday

The themes of Joseph Heinrich‘s report are old evolutionary anthro grievance stories (“Let’s hear it for Derek Freeman!!”) and conversations with a number of anonymous colleagues, all of whom conveniently agreed with him. He seems to have avoided talking to anyone who might have disagreed.

Peer Community In@peercommunityin.bsky.social · 2d ago

A PCI recommendation can be a valuable part of a publication strategy: · The recommendation and peer-reviews are citable · You participate in open science initiatives · You can publish in the journal of your choice 👉 Explore your publishing options with PCI: peercommunityin.org/submit-a-pre...

Submit a preprint to PCI - Peer Community In

Once an article has been recommended by a PCI, the authors can opt to leave it on a preprint server, to publish it in PCI Journal, to submit it to a PCI-friendly journal or to any other journal

peercommunityin.org

Pat Savage@patrickesavage.bsky.social · 2d ago

This is a good analysis of Henrich's sub-report on anthropology for the Vanderbilt report on the humanities. I particularly appreciated the point that "For all his complaining about autoethnography, his report is utterly dependent on it."

For all his complaining about autoethnography, his report is utterly dependent on it. He begins the report with a story about his arrival at UCLA in 1993, along with an autoethnographic accounting of his intellectual journey from cultural to biological anthropology. His analysis is, to quote a critic of autoethnography, one in which he “take[s] a central role…in a narrative of struggle and suffering as [he] confronts the challenges of life” (Henrich pg. 37-38). It’s just that rather than emphasizing “the experience of racism, sexism, capitalist exploitation and othering” (pg. 37-38), he instead emphasizes the experiences of ideological pressure, professional intimidation, and the marginalization of dissenters in the discipline (of which he is apparently one). He bases his understanding of the biological/cultural split in some departments almost entirely on his own experiences in two different departments at elite private schools. There really is no attempt to be systematic and rigorous in his analysis of those events in a broader, more general way than what he and his friends experienced. Throughout the report, he explicitly states his own positionality as exactly the kind of credence-lending thing he rebukes when others do it. “My immersion in these other disciplines, which includes earning tenure and promotion to full professor, gives me a unique perspective on Anthropology” (pg. 3) may as well have been phrased, “as an anthropologist myself…” This is precisely the kind of work autoethnography and reflexive positioning does, but I guess it’s only verboten when it is Others positioning themselves in relation to structures of oppression. In his case, it’s just adding context and is totally apolitical! At the top of pg. 39, Henrich quotes Susan Pickard’s critique of autoethnography: What distinguishes self-expression from scholarship? What are the limits of subjectivity as data? What about distortion, selective seeing, the dangers of solipsism? The speakers were a…
Will Robertson@anthrowill.bsky.social · 3d ago

Spent yesterday working on a detailed critique of some of the "methods" that Joseph Henrich used in his recently released report attacking sociocultural anthropology. He was the sole anthropologist involved with the Vanderbilt Report. It's long, but the more I looked the more issues I noticed.

Lynda Boothroyd@drboothroyd.bsky.social · 3d ago

This was also my take on the Vanderbilt State of Anthropology report. A mostly historical set of internecine wars, the bad handling of the Chagnon allegations, and a shift in balance across a subset of departments. Not quite what the umbrella report claimed to be epistemological rot.

Pat Savage@patrickesavage.bsky.social · 3d ago

It does provide interesting evidence from the "science wars" within anthropology, particularly a relative decrease of scientific methodologies within elite US anthropology departments and journals. I.e., elite US anthropology has become more humanistic and less scientific over time.

Figure 2. The figure plots the percentage of six content codes found in abstracts from 1980 to 2025. LLMs coded 212 abstracts for the use of quantitative evidence, one or more named methods, and inferential statistics, as well as for an advocacy stance and framing involving binary power oppositions and critical theory.
Pat Savage@patrickesavage.bsky.social · 3d ago

I've now read the full key sub-report on anthropology by Joe Henrich on which the Vanderbilt report's most explosive conclusions were based (the sub-report was just published, >3 months late). As I expected, it does not provide evidence of a "deterioration in scholarly standards" in the humanities.

Pat Savage@patrickesavage.bsky.social · 6d ago

From a quick skim of Henrich's main report and appendices, I don't think it changes my previous criticism that their main overall claims of "a deterioration in scholarly standards" are not supported by data (bsky.app/profile/patr...) But need to read properly before I can say for sure.

Pat Savage@patrickesavage.bsky.social · 6d ago

From a quick skim of Henrich's main report and appendices, I don't think it changes my previous criticism that their main overall claims of "a deterioration in scholarly standards" are not supported by data (bsky.app/profile/patr...) But need to read properly before I can say for sure.

Rebecca Sear@rebeccasear.bsky.social · 7d ago

The anthropology section of the Vanderbilt report on the state of scholarship has now been published www.vanderbilt.edu/principles/s...

Pat Savage@patrickesavage.bsky.social · 7d ago

Some personal news: My local social basketball team made a huge comeback last night after being down ~20 points at half time to win the finals in overtime! Pretty sure this was the first time in my 41 years I made the game-winning shot in a final. 👴🏀

Nspire Blazzin posing with our Wellington Basketball Association Social Division 1 Men's Championship T-shirts
Lisa Starr@lisastarr.bsky.social · last wk.

Fun story. As I was a grad student I published a 1st-author paper on co-rumination in J of Adolescence that got discussed in the NYT (side note, the reporter interviewed me but only named my advisor in the story). Our PR office wanted to build on it for more press, so they wrote up a press release…

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Sanjay Srivastava@sanjaysrivastava.com · last wk.

I’ve never heard of a university press office that doesn’t ask researchers to review and sign off on press releases. Unless I hear otherwise, this is on the scientists, not the PR office

Rebecca Sear@rebeccasear.bsky.social · last wk.

The evidence provided for that narrative is shockingly thin - nothing more than a handful of anecdotes. It really should be deeply embarrassing for any academic to associate themselves with such an argument, especially at this particular moment in history bsky.app/profile/patr...

Pat Savage@patrickesavage.bsky.social · 2w ago

Nice to see an expert weigh in on one of the subject reports. I came to similarly disappointed conclusions about the Vanderbilt reports as a whole: bsky.app/profile/patr...

Pat Savage@patrickesavage.bsky.social · 2w ago

Nice to see an expert weigh in on one of the subject reports. I came to similarly disappointed conclusions about the Vanderbilt reports as a whole: bsky.app/profile/patr...

Philip N Cohen@philipncohen.com · 2w ago

"A Reader’s Guide To The Rubin Report." John Levi Martin on @ashleytrubin.bsky.social's disciplinary report on sociology: "focused on whether she actually marshaled evidence to support her arguments, and whether she correctly represents her sources." osf.io/preprints/so... @socarxiv.bsky.social

Daniel Lakens@lakens.bsky.social · 2w ago

On the 1st of October I will give a talk on sample size justification for the PCI webinar series. I'll discuss the importance of considering a smallest effect size of interest when planning a study, and how to use sequential designs when there is uncertainty. peercommunityin.org/pci-webinar-...

PCI Webinar Series - Peer Community In

The PCI webinar series is a series of seminars on research practices, publication practices, evaluation, scientific integrity, meta-research, organised by Peer Community In

peercommunityin.org

Pat Savage@patrickesavage.bsky.social · 2w ago

The incredibly large "d=3.98" reported in the abstract seems a bit of an exaggeration/cherry picking, but still looks really cool! (Though still need to give it a proper read)

Abstract including "Results showed large cultural differences (d = 3.98 [2.50, 5.43]) that were previously obscured by flawed measurement."Paper text includes more nuance "For example, the responsibilism scale found large differences between East Asian and Western cultures, t(22) = 8.87, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 3.98, 95% CI [2.50, 5.43] (Fig. 3)."To test this possibility, we gave the English scale to participants in Hong Kong, where English is a common language of education. Differences between the USA and Hong Kong were significant, t(814) = 19.11, P < 0.001, d = 1.38...
Thomas Talhelm@thomastalhelm.bsky.social · 2w ago

🚨 It's published! 🚨 This is the big one. 100 cultures, 12,000 people, 108 researchers. Why people (and our most-used surveys) get collectivism wrong and how to fix it. www.nature.com/articles/s41... @natureportfolio.nature.com

Pat Savage@patrickesavage.bsky.social · 2w ago

A student and I have both recently lost or almost lost access to our GitHub accounts since their multi-factor authentication via SMS text to a NZ number wasn't working. Does anyone know of a solution?