Practical research is less cited because papers building on it tend to violate the narratives and thus not get accepted.
My own experience is with a paper I wrote looking at intergovernmental funding to local health departments through the federal bioterrorism preparedness program, using data from over 1700 local departments. I found that the federal funds had NO impact on local preparedness planning activities - but having dedicated local leadership DID result in such activity. In short, local leadership, not funding, determines what gets done. The top public health journals - edited by individuals who had been vocal that the problems with the public health system are the result of resource shortages - returned the paper without sending it for review. I sent it to a very respectable general health policy journal and saw it reviewed, accepted, and in print within six weeks.
Things are worse than Kuhn described. Now, you not only have to fit within the scientific paradigm to be published, but within the prevailing political narrative.
The authors' search criteria strike me as dubious. Zimring's book has already been cited by dozens of journal articles as can easily be seen by going to Google scholar, so it seems pretty careless or disingenuous to act as though this book isn't getting any serious attention. BLM is a social movement so it shouldn't be surprising that articles using that phrase would tend to focus on that aspect of it.
A paper on "public health" as well as on "differential mortality" could be relevant to saving "black lives", even if BLM kicked off in reaction to (small as a share of total deaths) shootings by police. I haven't actually read these papers though, so can't say how plausible it is that they could save lives.
George Floyd very clearly self-overdosed. He wasn't murdered by a policeman.
Don't repeat leftist tropes if you are unhappy about all the damage they do.
Practical research is less cited because papers building on it tend to violate the narratives and thus not get accepted.
My own experience is with a paper I wrote looking at intergovernmental funding to local health departments through the federal bioterrorism preparedness program, using data from over 1700 local departments. I found that the federal funds had NO impact on local preparedness planning activities - but having dedicated local leadership DID result in such activity. In short, local leadership, not funding, determines what gets done. The top public health journals - edited by individuals who had been vocal that the problems with the public health system are the result of resource shortages - returned the paper without sending it for review. I sent it to a very respectable general health policy journal and saw it reviewed, accepted, and in print within six weeks.
Things are worse than Kuhn described. Now, you not only have to fit within the scientific paradigm to be published, but within the prevailing political narrative.
How they gone fundraise if they actually....saved black or any other lives?
The authors' search criteria strike me as dubious. Zimring's book has already been cited by dozens of journal articles as can easily be seen by going to Google scholar, so it seems pretty careless or disingenuous to act as though this book isn't getting any serious attention. BLM is a social movement so it shouldn't be surprising that articles using that phrase would tend to focus on that aspect of it.
In other words, academia and science are crap and worthless and should be shunned. Got it.
A paper on "public health" as well as on "differential mortality" could be relevant to saving "black lives", even if BLM kicked off in reaction to (small as a share of total deaths) shootings by police. I haven't actually read these papers though, so can't say how plausible it is that they could save lives.