The peer review process is held up as the bulwark of science. In my discipline Communication Studies for instance, the scientific process is enacted through the performance of double blindness. A double blind peer review means that the assigned reviewers aren't able to tell the identity of the author(s), and the author(s) aren't able to tell the identity of the reviewer(s). The double blind process of peer review is projected as integral to holding up good science, with the strategies for masking the identity of both the authors and reviewers seen as necessary to the production of knowledge. As a discipline, we have accepted uncritically the sanctity of this process, assuming that it works to hold up scientific knowledge. What this uncritical upholding of the review process leaves unchallenged is the underlying ideology that shapes the construction of knowledge within established structures. The ideology is constituted within the ambits of capitalist power and control, with ...
This blog offers Mohan Dutta's reflections on the theoretical framework of the culture-centered approach, examining the interplays among Structure, Culture, and Agency in shaping marginalisation and the ways in which communities at the margins challenge structures. Writings on the blog are continually being revised to reflect the organic analysis of structure and agency.