Search

The use of methodological «recipes» and the appeal to various forms of political correctness in the study of different groups are temptations to which a large number of social scientists often embrace. In this article, we attempt to develop a critical revision of the way in which some of these common places of social research operate, based on «methodological» principles as dogmas in the abstract. In the same vein, we also describe, by appealing to research examples, frequent impostures of the «right» way that abound in academic discourses, as is sometimes the case with researchers who define themselves as «militants» when they study subaltern sectors. Consequently, in this paper some tricks are developed, as defined by the sociologist Howard Becker, who question formalities, tendencies and agreements implicit in the scientific-academic work that do not precisely stimulate creativity. The application forms that circulate in the scientific system, the «methodological» subjects, the guidelines for the evaluation of academic production and the intellectual impostures, configure a diversity of situations that often promote comfortable routines linked more to rigidity than rigor. Although this text is constructed in perspective with the Argentine case, it refers to practices that are also present in the diverse scientific traditions in the social sciences. Such approaches, guided by political correctness, often result in asymmetric assessments that sacrifice creativity because they to lie down in comfortable routines that are usually celebrated in the academic environment. On the contrary, other types of academic proposals are confronted with the censorship of «normal science», which in certain contexts are accompanied by a set of moral and ideological judgments that can dissemble creativity, open discussion of ideas and exploration of problematic empirical vacuums. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]