Drawing on social theories when making assumptions of the past
Critical analysis of written historical sources
Using art as a window upon cultural beliefs - past and present
Using the present to understand the past
The Methods that Convict Creations Uses to Study Australian History and Culture
This is not an academic website in the sense that it relies upon multiple source types (such as sociology, psychology, written history, art and present day culture) to analyse history and culture. Most academic cultural researchers rely on singular sources of their discipline in order to form their opinions. Unfortunately, the later can lead to a form of ignorant specialisation. As argued by Gregory Melleuish, an associate professor of history and politics at the University of Wollongong:
"How can we be producing historians who are so ignorant and lacking in general culture? Isn't it like producing medical practitioners who know only about the big toe or the spleen? Do we not have a right to expect that our historians will have a broad knowledge and understanding of the history of human beings?"
In addition to being multi discipline, the site is not academic as it is guided by an ethic of inquiry rather than an ethic of advocacy. The later shapes academic thought as it conducive to the kind of intellectual factionalism that improves the h-index (ranking of academics) In short, an h-index is improved via a citation in an academic journal and, in the humanities, academics cite other academics who think the same way as them. In addition, advocacy may appeal to decisions makers in funding bodies, like the Australian Research Council, who want believe that that their funds are contributing to the betterment of Australian society.
Unfortunately, while advocacy can made the world a better place, it can also breed ignorance and abuse, which can make Australia an inferior society. As argued by in 2008, Paul Kelly, editor of the Australian:
" I think that one of the problems with the public intellectual class in this country as I see it is that they have been too hostile or suspicious of the policies which have underpinned our successes over the course of the last 25 to 30 years and they have been quite unhelpful in helping us address our policy failures...I think that the task of intellectuals is to clarify, is to inform, is to enlighten, is to guide public debate in an effective and intelligent way and I think far too often what we get is a polemic. A polemic which is designed to create anger and indignation, a polemic which doesn't enlighten or clarify at all."
Although this site considers the abuse and conflict as a characteristic of Australian society, much like an umpire in a football game, it stands apart from it. Generally speaking speaking, those who acuse the site of bias are those that have the attitude that you are with us or against us.
The problem of advocacy
Criticisms of the site