1

I just published a satirical article, entitled A modest proposal for restoration ecology, in a serious journal, namely, Restoration Ecology, and it has a serious argument. The intent was to use satire as a transparent tool to show the limitations of current methods, and to potentially launch more radical ideas that would be capable of more beneficial outcomes. However, I'm anticipating serious pushback and criticism for the proposal, which is transparently unreasonable.

There are a lot of problems with satire: it's frequently misunderstood, authorial intent looms inappropriately large, and perhaps it wouldn't be taken seriously. After the scandals around the Sokol paper, and the more recent expose in the humanities, when is satire appropriate/helpful and when is it not?

Thanks for any thoughts about the contextual or content factors that would lead to satire being more of less productive in a sincere discussion.

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

closed as off-topic by Federico Poloni, user3209815, Scott Seidman, Bryan Krause, Wolfgang Bangerth May 7 at 17:11

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "The answer to this question strongly depends on individual factors such as a certain person’s preferences, a given institution’s regulations, the exact contents of your work or your personal values. Thus only someone familiar can answer this question and it cannot be generalised to apply to others. (See this discussion for more info.)" – Federico Poloni, user3209815, Scott Seidman
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    Unfortunately, "do you have any opinion about" questions are too subjective for the Stack Exchange Q&A format. – Federico Poloni May 7 at 12:55
  • Agreed—I tried to phrase the q around factors. What components in a satire would lead it to be less effective for academic investigation? E.g., rancor, ad hominem, or shock without purpose seem likely candidates. If the linked article didn't have the section about ethical communication and policy attitudes, it might be in that camp. – Cameron Brick May 7 at 12:58