Why Were Findings on Fascism in Engineering and Computer Science Academia Rejected by Journals?

The intersection of fascism and the hard sciences, such as engineering and computer science, might seem an unusual area of study for many academic scholars. Nevertheless, a research study posing questions about the influence of fascist ideologies on technical disciplines encountered significant resistance from academic journals. This article explores the reasons behind the rejection of such studies and examines the challenges involved in articulating a compelling narrative in this unique interdisciplinary field.

Appropriateness of Fascism in Engineering Studies

Fascism and communism are indeed political systems with centralized, hierarchical power structures. In contrast, engineering primarily deals with the practical, tangible aspects of creating useful technologies and structures. A focused examination of fascism could be more relevant within the realm of management studies, where its authoritarian structure intersecting with organizational hierarchy is more directly applicable. However, the technical nature of engineering and computer science does not inherently disqualify it from exploring sociological and psychological insights. The key is to find a meaningful framework to integrate these broader concepts with technical details.

Theoretical Framework and Methodology

The challenge lies in developing a robust theoretical framework that can effectively bridge the gap between sociological and technical elements. For instance, a systematic examination of how fascist ideologies might affect engineering practices would require a multidisciplinary approach. This might involve creating a “systematic” clock where “fascism” alters the way one builds a bridge or even codes a software system. By translating abstract concepts into equations or symbols, the impact of ideological structures can be more precisely quantified.

The inclusion of such a framework could offer valuable insights, particularly in understanding the role of allegiance and contextual framing in technical decision-making. For example, if a fascist state controlled engineers, their adherence to the state’s ideology could be quantified through various metrics, such as increased compliance with mandates or decreased innovation. This transformation of qualitative observations into quantitative data would enhance the rigor of the research and make it more likely to be accepted in academic circles.

Publishing Considerations and Engagement

For researchers interested in publishing such studies, several key steps can increase the chances of acceptance. First, they should carefully consider the target audience and the expectations of academic journals across various disciplines. Editors often seek studies that are well-articulated, relevant, and add value to the existing body of knowledge. Researchers must demonstrate how their findings contribute to a broader understanding of how ideological frameworks impact technical disciplines.

In practical terms, this might mean undergoing a thorough revision process to refine the research question, methodology, and argument. Additionally, engaging with the target journals proactively can help gauge interest and address potential concerns. Many journals offer resources such as writer’s markets and directories that list publishers and periodicals. Researchers can use these resources to find a home for their work, suggesting specific sections or themes that might be well-received.

Broader Implications

Despite the rejection, the findings on fascism in engineering and computer science academia offer valuable insights into the complex interplay between ideology and practice. These insights can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how socio-political factors influence technical development and innovation. In a broader sense, this research can help scholars, policymakers, and industry leaders understand the potential risks and benefits of fascist ideologies in shaping technical outcomes.

The rejection of these findings is not necessarily a reflection of their merit but rather a challenge in aligning interdisciplinary concepts with established academic standards. By developing a solid theoretical framework and effectively communicating the significance and relevance of the research, future studies in this domain can find a more receptive audience in academic journals.