Lex Academic, the modifying agency based by philosophers Louise Chapman and Constantine Sandis, contains “sensitivity studying” among the many number of providers it gives.
What’s “sensitivity studying”?
Right here’s an excerpt from how the folks at Lex Tutorial describe it:
The dialog on range (or lack thereof) in publishing has highlighted the pressing want for nuanced and inclusive dialogue when representing marginalized people, communities, and their experiences…
[W]e work with skilled readers who will tackle materials with sensitivity, care, and scholarly rigour to attract consideration to problematic, offensive, reductive, or misrepresentative content material. This ensures that analysis is truthful and accountable, steering the writer away from infelicitous speech and unconscious bias that may end up in peddling and perpetuating dangerous stereotypes, tropes, or clichés. This ensures constructive and engaged uptake of your work and concepts, thereby rising the probabilities of a fruitful world dialog round it.
I feel it is a nice thought. Authors who wish to make sure that they’re participating with their matters in accountable means and should not miscommunicating with their audiences can convey consultants into the modifying course of to assist them obtain these goals.
Readers might recall that when The Journal of Controversial Ideas was first floated, I proposed a substitute for its coverage of permitting pseudonymous authorship. Such pseudonymity was to be supplied by the journal, I famous, out of a “concern that some concepts don’t make it into scholarly journals due to their mere unpopularity, offensiveness, or political incorrectness, quite than any lack of mental advantage” and to guard authors who may in any other case be discouraged from writing about such concepts “by the prospect of outraging others who’ve affect over their profession prospects.”
I put forward an alternative: “make the publication of scholarly articles on controversial concepts much less outraging.” How? By bringing these “others” into the publication course of. I outlined one attainable means of bringing “stakeholders” into reviewing, revising, and publishing. This was a means of defending authors with out the prices (to accountability, credit score, and mental historical past) of pseudonymity. (The thought turned out to not be very fashionable with the commenters on that post and a follow-up post that addressed some criticisms of it.)
Sensitivity studying providers might accomplish the identical factor, giving authors extra confidence as they tread into controversial waters and danger offending others, and receipts (actually!) that they’ve no less than taken steps to offend responsibly.
