this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
16 points (100.0% liked)
Chat
8294 readers
34 users here now
Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
this week's book is Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
23 job applications out to door. Nothing yet. That's a drop in the bucket compared to everyone else in the world. My old university gave me a courtesy appointment just to help me maintain my academic creds. Publish or perish, as they say.
Had a paper sent back to me. Reviewer told me that I'm "ill informed" and "overstated" the problems of the executive branch. That the US govt is working well. I had to dig deep into my academic shade throwing library to retort and felt great about my response. I think I captured the dumpster fire meme in academic prose.
Very focused on landing a job this week and fueled by coffee.
Would love to read your response! Good luck with the job hunt.
Sure-
Response: I appreciate the reviewer's concern about maintaining scholarly rigor in moments of political disruption. I have moderated claims throughout and grounded assertions in available sources and peer-reviewed scholarship. However, I respectfully maintain that the evidence available to any informed observer, including official government documents, Supreme Court rulings, mass resignations, weaponization of the administrative state, and documented administrative actions targeting career public servants, supports the analysis presented. Indeed, the revised manuscript does not call for abandoning administrative theory wholesale, but rather for extending and adapting theoretical frameworks to account for such new realities the theories were not formulated to explain. Critical scholarship must continue to acknowledge evidence as it emerges in-the-real. Accordingly, I have clarified the sections where the original wording could be read as overly prescriptive. I hope these revisions address the concerns raised. I am grateful for the opportunity to strengthen the manuscript and remain open to further suggestions.
Well played.