This from Powerline shows the utterly absurdity of what seems to be passing for real academic study:
The A/Un/grammatical Child/hood/s and Writing
Nature/Culture Edusemiotic Entangling With Affective Outside Encounters and Sustainability Events to Come
Anne B. Reinertsen, Queen Maud University College,Trondheim, Norway
Abstract
This is about creating new ontologisations of sustainable child/hood/s and/as exceeding forms of contracts between generations through experimenting with bodily affects and sensing movements. Experimenting as writing that is and doing
with texts to foster patterns of becomings, thus affirming the positive structure of difference: Writing as opening the self up to possible encounters with affective outsides, collapsing divides in me and simultaneously possibilizing child/hood/s as (a) matrix of becoming. This is about turning early childhood and care institutions and schools into postdiagnosis localities or places of transition, their main task becoming that of not passing on traditions but to prepare for future contingent events. Teaching children to act in disagreement that is and drivers of processes and change through creating better—as in minor—languages for being and doing differently together.
Serious? No, it is not serious at all. Frankly, I have no idea of how to diagram ANY of these sentences from this academic journal; it is obvious that Ms. Reinertsen (nor the editors) didn’t try either.
Seriously – Norwegian taxpayers pay for this dribble?
