This paper begins with a case-study and then makes a broader argument about how the proper exercise of the intellectual virtues is undermined by failures of character and institutional incentives. Our topic is the rise and spread of trigger warnings as a pedagogical tool. In part I, we define them and explain how they spread. In part II, we review the justifications for trigger warnings. In part III, we review the empirical evidence and show how it undermines these justifications. In part IV, we make a broader argument that draws on Aristotle and MacIntyre. Given that there never was any good evidence that trigger warnings work, why are they so ubiquitous? We argue that their adoption and use is best explained by a lack of prudence which is explained by two other failures. On the one hand, the unwillingness to speak out is due to a failure of character. Pedagogues are not unable to read the evidence, they are unwilling to speak out when doing is costly and requires courage. On the other hand, educational institutions do not favour virtue because professional success is often at odds with the excellence that is internal to teaching.
➤ Version 1 (2024-08-02) |
Renaud-Philippe Garner and Nazaneen Jamil (2024). All signal, no virtue: how ineffective and harmful pedagogical practices spread. Researchers.One. https://researchers.one/articles/24.08.00001v1
Sally SatelDecember 1st, 2024 at 06:58 pm
Paper title - All signal, no virtue: how ineffective and harmful pedagogical practices spread
Reviewer – Sally Satel MD
Strengths – Well-written, good review of the literature on trigger warnings. Also, novelty: not to my knowledge have any scholars approached the issue through the lens of deep philosophy.
Weaknesses –
1. Jargony in spots, for the non-philosopher. For example, the authors did not define important terms, such as teleological (I am familiar with its meaning in the context of evolution but was not exactly sure what it signified here), and Cartesian and Pyrrhonian standards.
2. Does not add much to the behavioral science of trigger warnings, though it
expands impressively on the motivation of advocates of the use of such warnings from the standpoint of moral philosophy (featuring argumentation based on Aristotle and MacIntyre) – ultimately landing on the conclusion that
academics use trigger warnings to enhance their social justice bona fides.
3. The paper does not apply an empirical approach to the question how the use of trigger warnings spread within academic settings.
4. The conclusion -- that the use of trigger warnings spread because of pressure to signal virtue – does not seem particularly original.
Opportunities for improvement – It should be easy for the authors to define terms, but I am not sure what they can do otherwise. This paper was clearly intended to explicate the theoretical basis for the spread of trigger warnings, but JOIBS is a data-based journal, so I am not sure this paper has a place in it. As the authors write on p 4, “Their spread appears to be the result of activism and imitation. There is no evidence that their present ubiquity is the result of pedagogues becoming collectively aware of the findings of any research programme.” By the end of the paper, we come back to that same basic point.
Recommendation – probably reject on the primary basis that the paper is not sufficiently empirical.
© 2018–2025 Researchers.One