Irregular Reporting of Societal Issues^SM

New Theory of Social Change

Experts in the field are excited about the theoretical underpinnings found in the article and what it might mean for publication rates, conference presentations, and graduate students around the globe. "I don't think any other single publication has had such great potential to generate other publications", said Dr. Bruno Derturm of the University of California, Berkeley. Other social scientists agree, noting that this one article would have far reaching impacts on future studies of publication rates within the social sciences. Some particularly excited theorists are already considering the possibility of future conferences devoted to heated arguments based on SCANT frameworks.

According to commentators who claim to have understood the article, the main contribution to future publication rates is a new theory known as the Systems Construction of Actor Network Theories (SCANT). "SCANT accounts for the shortcomings of all previous social theories, adding quantifiable aspects, which finally places social science on a par with the real sciences", explains Dr. Carolyn Merchandise of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), adding, "In a sense, all social theorists have been seeking SCANT explanations, but this article finally lays out a clear framework that can be debated for decades".

Some critics are not quite as positive. Dr. David Essen of MIT is concerned that SCANT evidence might actually make firm conclusions about social change possible. "That is a situation too horrible to entertain", said Dr. Essen, explaining, "If we somehow manage to create a 'grand unification of society' theory, then what will drive publication rates in the future?" However, such voices are clearly in the minority.

"A focus on SCANT evidence and SCANT frameworks will create an open-ended intellectual minefield to be probed for decades to come", concludes Professor Francois Psmoughth (pronounced "smith") of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, summing up the feeling of the majority of social scientists.

Historically Weak

More Recently Weak