Hard News: Debating Clydesdale
136 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
It's a pity so many people will not listen to a challenge.
Simon, you just don't seem to be listening. In a fair context, I'll certainly defend your right to say whatever you like. However that brings you no automatic right to be taken seriously unless you meet certain standards of discourse. Your last lengthy post is certainly an improvement.
As Shep and others have said, any academic should be held to higher standards including peer review and not touting unfinished work to the media. Clydesdale's inflammatory content has attracted attention as he intended, but it's his sloppy thinking and dodgy process that most comments here seem to be focused on.
Informed debate about immigration would be welcome. That's a challenge I'm sure others here are more than happy to take on.
-
DeepRed - I kind a think he deserves that kind of support.
Again there is no academic rigour to it, but rather it is showing itself for what it is.
With friends like that, ....
-
What I really can't understand is that it was peer reviewed, found 'wanting' and he still put it out there?
If anyone can answer that I'ld be greatly appreciated.
DeepRed - Do you keep an eye on those websites?
I've not kept up with the various NZ outfits but fear their rise as times get harder. -
DeepRed - Do you keep an eye on those websites?
I've not kept up with the various NZ outfits but fear their rise as times get harder.Not on a regular basis, nor would I want to. It's largely a case of "we read the dirty stuff, so you don't have to."
I remember when a furore erupted over John Rhys-Davies' remarks on Muslims in Europe a few years back. Sir John's remarks weren't the real controversy, but rather the British National Party's very public endorsement of him. Sir John was reportedly quite distressed at that endorsement, even though he stood by his statements.
-
Apparently Sweden has banned smacking like us, and has the world's worst rate of child-abuse .... Similarly, even though China and other countries have gone back to nationalised testing for schools, after finding that letting each school run their own show was failing miserably, we are going ahead with a curriculum that lets schools teach whatever they want, and test whatever they want, however they want. We are a nation of imbeciles. ....It's like how the Austrailians conducted a study that proved ...
Oh really Simon. You trot out a bunch of half-remembered talking points above, then you solemnly pronounce thus:
In the words of Bad Religion: "We are all ignorant fools."
As long as everyone continues to think whatever their group tells them to, we have no hope of rediscovering our intellects.All very grand, I'm sure. But you might be better off checking your own "facts" beforehand.
-
WH,
Informed debate about immigration would be welcome. That's a challenge I'm sure others here are more than happy to take on.
Unfortunately Clydesdale's paper is not a worthwhile starting point for such a discussion. While Kim Hill's tone and overtly hostile questioning no doubt flustered Clydesdale, she showed that he does not appear to have fully developed his ideas. While I am not sure I would call the responses of Hansen or Callister full peer review, they contain some important criticisms:
It is revealing of the paper’s true intentions that the seven positive aspects of immigration are dealt with in a little more than a page. The rest of the paper is concerned with the negative aspects. Related to this, I found the paper’s title to be confusing. I appreciate the reference to “Growing pains”, but I do not think “The valuation and cost of human capital” is illuminating. Perhaps a better title might be something along the lines of: “The costs of immigration to New Zealand.” (Hansen, p2)
Overall, I found the paper interesting. Clearly, parts of it are provocative, and it has stirred up lots of debate (see footnote 1). To me, though, the paper reads like an early draft, as it is full of typos and stylistic errors. Perhaps the author will fix these and also maybe consider strengthening some of the paper’s content, including the parts commented on below. (Hansen, p1)
Clydesdale's decision to emphasise the costs of immigration (and the associated population increase) rather than methods of improving migrant outcomes is suggestive of an agenda that people were always going to respond to in strong terms. The fact that, on average, Pacific peoples are relatively disadvantaged and have lower average levels of education (and perhaps some other types of human capital) is not really at issue. But if you want to start a national discussion on something as sensitive as immigration, its incumbent on you to write something that's really good. Clydesdale's paper is not really good.
But, in particular, the [Clydesale discussion paper] does not refer to the important recent work de Raad, J-P. and Walton, M. (2007) Pacific People in the New Zealand Economy: Understanding linkages
and trends. NZIER Report, November 2007. link is hereThe NZEIR report received media attention last year and is easily accessible via the internet. The report included a careful analysis of the current place of Pacific people in New Zealand followed by some modelling to see if there was convergence in both incomes and wealth for Pacific people, a modelling exercise Dr Clydesdale did not do.
The NZIER report shares some concerns that Dr Clydesdale has in that low skills hold back Pacific people. But the authors of the NZEIR report tried to understand the barriers and, more importantly, explored ways of improving outcomes. (Callister, p3)
I agree with the basic proposition that immigration policy should be set with a view towards maximising the benefits and minimising the costs (both social and economic) of net migration. I imagine that we would first target people who have skills policy makers believe New Zealand needs, as we appear to in broad terms. We would then ensure that the people who move to New Zealand have every chance to succeed.
Labour market economists and other migration policy specialists should be writing about how we might optimise our immigration policy. However, I am not certain that the media is likely to provide a worthwhile forum for the mainstream continuation of that discussion. First, the entire topic risks alienating people who accepted our government's invitation to settle in New Zealand, as well as their New Zealand citizen descendants. Second, New Zealand has problems with prejudice that poorly contextualised headlines and soundbites risk reinforcing. Third, its not clear that the statistics and detailed analysis the topic demands can be properly canvassed except by way of a well-researched feature length piece. Certainly the responses of Woodham and Kightley ('I have not read the report, but...') don't really help to advance the debate.
Clydesdale might conceivably have written something good enough to reshape the national discussion, but he did not. It is unfortunate that he has made himself such an easy target.
-
Unfortunately Clydesdale's paper is not a worthwhile starting point for such a discussion.
I kind of agree - but then I read your comprehensive, lucid post. Brilliant inadvertent counter-example, methinks.
-
Well, in the 'ideal world', serious academic papers are submitted to a lengthy process of peer-review before they are considered worthy of publication. If they manage to survive that, then and only then are they considered for publication - they are generally considered to be prima facie 'good science' - no-one has been able to knock them over (yet).
And even that might not help a scholar as hapless as Clydesdale. I've just finished reading his (peer-reviewed) article on the Beatles: 'Creativity and Competition: The Beatles', Creativity Research Journal 18, no. 2 (2006): 129-39. There are three basic errors in the abstract alone. The rest of it is chock-full of typos, predication errors, and jaw-droppingly naive and simplistic analysis.
His thesis seems to be that competition has been unfairly criticized by 'feminists' and '19th century [sic] Marxists' (129). To silence these nay-sayers, he argues, all we need to do is observe how competition and external economic rewards can combine to produce 'world-class art', namely The Beatles. Clydesdale's stunning tour de force culminates in this lucid and elegantly expressed conclusion:
The Beatles were both intrinsically motivated by their love of music and extrinsically motivated. External rewards such as getting on the A side, getting high in charts, fame, and surpassing their heroes were clear incentives for them, although some of them may have been more influenced by any particular reward than others [huh?]. The structure of the reward system may play a large part in the cooperation–competition dichotomy. Although they competed, the incentive structure was one in which most rewards were shared....
It is also significant that the nature of the extrinsic motivation shaped the nature of the creative output during the White Album period, with George Martin linking their high-quantity/low-quality to the desire to complete their record contract. Clearly, extrinsic rewards can shape either the innovative or prolific nature of creativity. In the case of The Beatles, competition-based incentives, such as outperforming the competition, enhanced innovation. Competition continuously raised the benchmark of what is required to be the best or most successful. When combined with the team dynamics, competition resulted in world class innovation and creativity. (138)
The grace with which Clydesdale expresses himself! The originality of his thoughts and observations! And let's not even mention the startlingly innovative way he has with the English definite article!
I can't wait to read his piece on European explorers. Columbus and Henry the Navigator were entrepreneurs, dammit. Entrepreneurs! There's some rigorous and hard-hitting historical analysis right there! My suspicions that Commerce faculties in this country have trouble attracting quality staff have not exactly been allayed.
-
Which reminds me of some classic reframing - in 1492 native Americans discovered Columbus lost at sea...
-
From the DomPost: Rio forum drops Islander paper
-
"Instead, Dr Clydesdale will present a report on teaching students to manage work relationships."
I'm shocked he's presenting at all, but I suppose the Airfare and hotel were already paid for & it is Brazil after all.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.