June 15, 2005


Too many authors ...

HAVING five authors listed was bad enough.

Flicking through the pages and seeing that the section on 'discourse analysis' began with the words: 'Literally, the analysis of discourse' did nothing to provide reassurance.

Eh? Duh? Well, what else would it be?

Similarly seeing the word 'cyberspace' described - in a book published in 2005 - as a 'futuristic term' confirmed that this was a book whose purpose was to be written rather than read.

The concept of 'management wank' has been around for a while'; this looks like pseudo-academic and publishing wank at their most self-indulgent.

Pressure may be on academics to justify their continued employment by producing and publishing dubious research, but if individuals let their names appear on such badly (or probably un-)edited tosh then they certainly do not deserve acclaim. They probably don't deserve to have their contracts renewed either.

Those who have put their name to this book really should have known better.

Academic publishing has, for at least a decade now, been plagued by this worthless pressure to publish. Consequently, publishers have enjoyed taking advantage of material that has been funded by taxpayers, producing 'off the shelf' CV fodder where one academic 'edits' chapters produced by eight or ten others.

'Key Concepts' is UK-centric and ill-informed. It also includes enough to keep Pseuds Corner in Private Eye over-nourished for many decades to come.

The tragedy is compounded because the idea of alphabetically explaining such terms and concepts is fundamentally good.

It may look good on academic CVs and bookshelves and for evenings when the local comedy club is closed.

In the meantime, Messrs Border, Blackwell and Waterstone would be well advised to move it from the media section to shelves marked 'humour'.