2 added 167 characters in body
source | link

Unfortunately thisFirst off, if its only been going on for a while and nobody takes it seriously, then ignore him and he'll eventually find someone else to antagonize.

Otherwise...

Academic bullying is actually(sadly) somewhat common in certain fields with considerable popular political influence such as geopolitics, international security, international relations, race relations, climatology, certain forms of economics, etc. Much academic ink is spilt over the color of the bike shed as opposed to the location of it or whether it should even house bikes instead of boats, much less whether or not it should exist. Question anything but the (meaningless) paintjob and risk reputation assassination.

In the case where it is really just a single person who is negatively obsessed with your work you can ignore the person. Invalidating their negative responses is as easy as attacking their credibility in your current area, which appears simple in your case.

In the case where it is not just a single person, or that the detractor is a single person but their attacks resonate with a part of the society aggregated around your field... you have a different problem. In this case you can choose to stand your ground or you can work to mend the situation by changing your stance.

Changing your stance is, of course, totally dishonest, so don't do this unless the actual goal you are actually playing is the "get tenure" game and not the "increase human knowledge" game -- in which case its par for the course in many fields.

If you sincerely feel you have a well supported stance in the field that gained you the ire of this detractor who is negatively influencing the perceptions of those in your current field of study (and if you didn't you wouldn't have gone to the trouble of publishing in the first place, I assume), the only decent defense is a solid offense. This is a bit like a thesis defense, but with a large delay in ping-pong times. If your career is threatened by the problem it is worth it to decompose the argument that got you in trouble, and write an exposition on each point. Use those as point references for those in your current field who are not as well informed about the subject that originally got you into hot water. If you build a solid base of argument you can influence the naysayer, but understand this requires a disproportionate amount of work: calling something into question (especially by a subtle ad hominem attack) is much easier than defending a work that has been "cast into doubt" in the minds of those who haven't taken the time or interest to read it.

Ultimately, my point is that this is a political problem, and sadly this sort of problem has overridden what should be the fundamentals of genuine academics since the beginning of time. If you will win it by argument it will have to be an overwhelming one which consumes you in its defense, at least for a time. The alternatives are to either sacrifice your intellectual integrity or play dirty -- both of which are not helpful to humankind, which sort of goes against the whole point of being a true academic (as opposed to the tenure-chasing variety).

[I now wait for the avalanche of angry comments...]

Unfortunately this is actually somewhat common in certain fields with considerable popular political influence such as geopolitics, international security, international relations, race relations, climatology, certain forms of economics, etc. Much academic ink is spilt over the color of the bike shed as opposed to the location of it or whether it should even house bikes instead of boats, much less whether or not it should exist.

In the case where it is really just a single person who is negatively obsessed with your work you can ignore the person. Invalidating their negative responses is as easy as attacking their credibility in your current area, which appears simple in your case.

In the case where it is not just a single person, or that the detractor is a single person but their attacks resonate with a part of the society aggregated around your field... you have a different problem. In this case you can choose to stand your ground or you can work to mend the situation by changing your stance.

Changing your stance is, of course, totally dishonest, so don't do this unless the actual goal you are playing is the "get tenure" game -- in which case its par for the course in many fields.

If you sincerely feel you have a well supported stance in the field that gained you the ire of this detractor who is negatively influencing the perceptions of those in your current field of study (and if you didn't you wouldn't have gone to the trouble of publishing in the first place, I assume), the only decent defense is a solid offense. This is a bit like a thesis defense, but with a large delay in ping-pong times. If your career is threatened by the problem it is worth it to decompose the argument that got you in trouble, and write an exposition on each point. Use those as point references for those in your current field who are not as well informed about the subject that originally got you into hot water. If you build a solid base of argument you can influence the naysayer, but understand this requires a disproportionate amount of work: calling something into question (especially by a subtle ad hominem attack) is much easier than defending a work that has been "cast into doubt" in the minds of those who haven't taken the time or interest to read it.

Ultimately, my point is that this is a political problem, and sadly this sort of problem has overridden what should be the fundamentals of genuine academics since the beginning of time. If you will win it by argument it will have to be an overwhelming one which consumes you in its defense, at least for a time. The alternatives are to either sacrifice your intellectual integrity or play dirty -- both of which are not helpful to humankind, which sort of goes against the whole point of being a true academic (as opposed to the tenure-chasing variety).

[I now wait for the avalanche of angry comments...]

First off, if its only been going on for a while and nobody takes it seriously, then ignore him and he'll eventually find someone else to antagonize.

Otherwise...

Academic bullying is (sadly) somewhat common in certain fields with considerable popular political influence such as geopolitics, international security, international relations, race relations, climatology, certain forms of economics, etc. Much academic ink is spilt over the color of the bike shed as opposed to the location of it or whether it should even house bikes instead of boats, much less whether or not it should exist. Question anything but the (meaningless) paintjob and risk reputation assassination.

In the case where it is really just a single person who is negatively obsessed with your work you can ignore the person. Invalidating their negative responses is as easy as attacking their credibility in your current area, which appears simple in your case.

In the case where it is not just a single person, or that the detractor is a single person but their attacks resonate with a part of the society aggregated around your field... you have a different problem. In this case you can choose to stand your ground or you can work to mend the situation by changing your stance.

Changing your stance is, of course, totally dishonest, so don't do this unless you are actually playing the "get tenure" game and not the "increase human knowledge" game -- in which case its par for the course in many fields.

If you sincerely feel you have a well supported stance in the field that gained you the ire of this detractor who is negatively influencing the perceptions of those in your current field of study (and if you didn't you wouldn't have gone to the trouble of publishing in the first place, I assume), the only decent defense is a solid offense. This is a bit like a thesis defense, but with a large delay in ping-pong times. If your career is threatened by the problem it is worth it to decompose the argument that got you in trouble, and write an exposition on each point. Use those as point references for those in your current field who are not as well informed about the subject that originally got you into hot water. If you build a solid base of argument you can influence the naysayer, but understand this requires a disproportionate amount of work: calling something into question (especially by a subtle ad hominem attack) is much easier than defending a work that has been "cast into doubt" in the minds of those who haven't taken the time or interest to read it.

Ultimately, my point is that this is a political problem, and sadly this sort of problem has overridden what should be the fundamentals of genuine academics since the beginning of time. If you will win it by argument it will have to be an overwhelming one which consumes you in its defense, at least for a time. The alternatives are to either sacrifice your intellectual integrity or play dirty -- both of which are not helpful to humankind, which sort of goes against the whole point of being a true academic (as opposed to the tenure-chasing variety).

[I now wait for the avalanche of angry comments...]

1
source | link

Unfortunately this is actually somewhat common in certain fields with considerable popular political influence such as geopolitics, international security, international relations, race relations, climatology, certain forms of economics, etc. Much academic ink is spilt over the color of the bike shed as opposed to the location of it or whether it should even house bikes instead of boats, much less whether or not it should exist.

In the case where it is really just a single person who is negatively obsessed with your work you can ignore the person. Invalidating their negative responses is as easy as attacking their credibility in your current area, which appears simple in your case.

In the case where it is not just a single person, or that the detractor is a single person but their attacks resonate with a part of the society aggregated around your field... you have a different problem. In this case you can choose to stand your ground or you can work to mend the situation by changing your stance.

Changing your stance is, of course, totally dishonest, so don't do this unless the actual goal you are playing is the "get tenure" game -- in which case its par for the course in many fields.

If you sincerely feel you have a well supported stance in the field that gained you the ire of this detractor who is negatively influencing the perceptions of those in your current field of study (and if you didn't you wouldn't have gone to the trouble of publishing in the first place, I assume), the only decent defense is a solid offense. This is a bit like a thesis defense, but with a large delay in ping-pong times. If your career is threatened by the problem it is worth it to decompose the argument that got you in trouble, and write an exposition on each point. Use those as point references for those in your current field who are not as well informed about the subject that originally got you into hot water. If you build a solid base of argument you can influence the naysayer, but understand this requires a disproportionate amount of work: calling something into question (especially by a subtle ad hominem attack) is much easier than defending a work that has been "cast into doubt" in the minds of those who haven't taken the time or interest to read it.

Ultimately, my point is that this is a political problem, and sadly this sort of problem has overridden what should be the fundamentals of genuine academics since the beginning of time. If you will win it by argument it will have to be an overwhelming one which consumes you in its defense, at least for a time. The alternatives are to either sacrifice your intellectual integrity or play dirty -- both of which are not helpful to humankind, which sort of goes against the whole point of being a true academic (as opposed to the tenure-chasing variety).

[I now wait for the avalanche of angry comments...]