This response discusses hoaxes and positivism in critical scholarship, suggesting shifts in authorial intention and positionality.
The commentaries on my original paper in this forum both challenge the value for critical scholarship of dwelling upon hoaxes and raise important, novel points. This response takes the commentaries as an occasion to place hoaxes within larger shifts de-emphasizing authorial intention and positionality. Commentators’ thoughts in the direction of a broader sense of ‘hoaxing’, as well as of a different sense of ‘positivism’, are discussed in the context of this larger shift.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hannah et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: