Most academics, editors, and reviewers constantly make decisions about what types of scholarship to review, what to cite, and what is necessary for researchers to make their case.
Failure to review or cite appropriate scholarship or literature should be expected if the publishing venue does not engage in peer review. Why? In general, peer review (where the identity of the the researcher is not known to the reviewer) is assumed to minimize the possibility that flawed research and writing is accepted and published, and that personal biases towards the investigator affects the reviewers’ decisions. Thus, we should not be surprised if research and writing that appears in newsletters, blog posts, or newspaper/magazine articles (which are not peer reviewed), fails to include relevant research in what they publish.
On the other hand, peer reviewed academic articles, chapters, and books, frequently neglect to review or cite important scholarship. This situation, however, gives readers an incomplete picture of a domain, and may open up questions about the rigor of the scholarship that is produced, and the legitimacy of the publication source. Academic writing like this may be called sloppy and unprofessional.
Why does this occur?
To begin with, it’s important to understand that sometimes omissions are intentional, whereas other instances are unintentional. Additionally, rarely is there consensus on what the “important” or relevant literature is.
That being said, some may argue that if a scholarly field is relatively new, then there’s a possibility that the omitted research has not come to the attention of other investigators, and this may explain why references to it do not appear in academic venues. Although this may be the case with recently released work, many published works neglect to mention relatively old scholarship too. Moreover, failure of an author/researcher or team to include or cite appropriate literature may be forgiven once or twice, but if this persists, then something else is going on. If scholarship, and the people who engage in this activity, are to be taken seriously, it should include the most up to date work.
Often scholarship that is written in a language other than English is omitted. This is understandable, as few academics are willing to learn a foreign language, pay someone to translate a written piece, or manipulate files to run them through a translation program. What does this mean? Great work by relative unknowns, new scholars, and those outside of firmly established and entrenched networks (e.g., from the global South, etc.) get ignored,
Another possible reason is that the journal or book may not allow authors enough space to review almost everything that is relevant. This argument may have been true with old publication models, but the citation process is supposed to accommodate for this sort of limitation. With the right crafting a considerable amount of scholarship can be accommodated in the citation process. Plus with the advent of on-line publishing, space considerations are less of a problem.
Additionally lots of academic training can be faulted. Even in the highly ranked graduate programs, it’s not uncommon for students to have large gaps in their knowledge. Sure classes, comps, and a dissertation is supposed to mitigate this kind of outcome, but big gaps in knowledge still happens. Grad students are typically exposed to their instructors and mentors‘ specializations, and rarely to the larger contexts of the field’s scholarship.
Some scholars argue that the neglect of relevant literature is because of a lack of access to published scholarship. Although on-line portals like academia.edu and researchgate.org include lots of useful scholarship, not all articles and chapters are located there. And definitely not books. If one turns to www.google.scholar.com you will quickly find out that some of this is paywalled. This presents challenges especially for independent scholars who do not have an academic affiliation. They may not have sufficient funds to pay for this kind of materials, or have a colleague at an academic institution who can do them a favor by securing items for them. That being said, although it might require some reminders, in most cases if you e-mail to the author of the article or chapter they will gladly send you a pdf.
Sometimes the reason why material is not reviewed or cited lies in poorly informed authors, editors, and peer reviewers. Editors are supposed to be generalists. They don’t know the entire scholarship in a field and that is why they depend on reviewers. But most editors these days will confess that it’s increasingly difficult to secure adequate reviewers. Sometimes the reviewers are inappropriate. And the referees may not take their reviewing obligation seriously. Or they are bomb throwers, out to prove a point.
One reason why some scholarship is ignored are power dynamics in scholarly fields. Some academics including, editors, and reviewers believe that by neglecting or ignoring certain pieces of scholarship (or scholars) they can advance their own scholarly agenda (or those of their closest allies) or reputation. Similar to the notion of academic tribes, some writers, editors and reviewers may not want to give credit to newbies or researchers they consider to be less legitimate so that their own publication record can appear more meaningful, or draw attention away from others. Citing or reviewing scholarship is often a political act. To the author being cited means that you exist, and that you need to be contended with. This kind of omission is disingenuous.
Finally, exhaustion, frustration or just laziness on the part of authors, reviewers, and editors could explain failure to review, cite. This includes being overwhelmed by the numerous demands constantly placed on many scholars to not only produce high quality research, but to be effective instructors and provide service to numerous constituencies. It also involves a disinclination to consider or review scholarship that is physically and intellectually difficult to access. In days past this may have meant having to make a physical trip to the library. Nowadays this might involve the hassle of submitting a request to your university’s Interlibrary Loan Department, and then waiting for the book, chapter or article to be delivered, not to mention additional glitches that this process might involve. Alternatively some scholars work is difficult to understand. This may require more effort than predicted to properly comprehend.
How to minimize the omission of relevant scholarship from peer review work
Most journal and academic editors and reviewers are hardworking and thoughtful individuals. They entered the job with a lot of excitement and enthusiasm, but get burned out or overcommitted, and then take shortcuts. They occasionally give a pass to inadequate scholarship (sometimes produced by their friends and allies) and then clamp down on other work for what often appears to be inconsequential reasons. Both editors and reviewers need to redouble their efforts in their review of papers. In short, if you don’t have time to do a proper job reviewing a paper pass on it.
Another way to minimize the omission of important research is reduce the reliance on “the usual suspects” who are called upon to review, and increase the number of qualified reviewers by drawing from a variety of disciplines and diverse individuals to participate in the peer review process. Increasingly over the years it seems that an increasing number of journals are using less reviewers to make important decisions on the papers that are submitted to them.
We also need to teach people in our profession about the differences in the quality of journals, and what it means to do a thorough peer review. In particular, we need to systematically teach our students how and why some publishing venues are better than others.
Another point to add: we need to hunker down on our grad programs and ensure students have appropriate training. As a profession academics need to be reminded that the research process is a marathon, not a sprint. Academic institutions need support and best practices, and not simply encourage their students (and faculty) to attend seminars on “here’s how you google something.”
Photo: Spanky from “Little Rascals”
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2022-04-09-at-7.01.11-AM.png270395Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-04-09 13:08:372024-09-22 12:23:35Sins of omission? Why do researchers neglect to review or cite relevant scholarship, but reviewers and editors accept this material for publication?
Since the passage of 2nd amendment, and particularly since the 1968 Handgun Control Act, state and federal politicians have attempted, and in some cases succeeded in placing controls on the importation, manufacture, sale, and storage of guns, and on certain types of ammunition. But this has not really reduced gun related crimes and deaths.
Therefore, it’s realistic to assume that these gun control initiatives have been mostly tinkering around the edges or half measures. And organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety do not go far enough.
Thus the best and most direct way to reduce the use of handguns is through a repeal of the second amendment.
The right to bear arms, also known as the second amendment, was a product of a unique time and place. Recalling this history is not important here. It’s out there for anyone who wants to do a simple google search.
But things have changed. We no longer have slavery, we have subdued the indigenous population into a largely docile and marginalized group, and we are rarely burdened by wild beasts that attack us.
In no way did the framers of the constitution ever consider that the United States would be burdened as we now are by the plague of gun violence, with its accompanying needless injuries, deaths and destruction that is experienced on the streets and in the homes of this country every day. Had the framers predicted this current state of affairs, perhaps they would have thought twice about passing the 2nd amendment. But that was then and this is now.
Thus, why can’t we institute a system of gun ownership similar to other countries like Canada, Great Britain, Australia or the Nordic countries. Are the citizens of those countries no less scared of government control than us.
Most other advanced industrialized countries don’t have something similar the second amendment in their constitutions. And that’s why their approach to guns is a lot saner then what exists in the United States today.
Arguments against repealing the Second Amendment are specious
Those who are against the repeal of the 2nd amendment quickly argue that:
• It will create a black market for illegal guns. But this kind of exchange already exists. Yes, there are continuing efforts by legislators and law enforcement to control this through the passage of laws and enforcement strategies, but the unregulated market still exists.
• It’s a slippery slope. First you will start with outlawing guns then you will move on to other lethal objects like knives, rocks, poison, etc. Perhaps, but not likely.
• We can’t live in a country where the only people who have access to guns are the police and the military. That’s not completely true. Again if we use the examples of other countries that are not dictatorships or authoritarian that are not obsessed about gun ownership, we see limited cases of gun ownership. Moreover, one need look no further than the British police for examples of police that do not carry guns on a regular basis. In fact there are approximately 18 countries, and one US territory, where the police do not carry guns. Are the crime rates in those countries significantly higher than they are in the United States? No.
How can we realistically repeal the Second Amendment?
Although some gun control activists have suggested that we hold a constitutional convention where the attorney generals of all states come together to work for the repeal the 2nd amendment, at this current time in US history there is not enough states who support this. That is why there are some other solutions, currently in place that are more promising.
• Continue to hold gun and ammunition manufacturers accountable and take them to court where the legal circumstances allow.
• Hit these companies with big financial penalties
• Now that the National Rifle Association is on the ropes, it’s time to finally put them out of business.
• Massive investments need to be made in educational campaigns that outline the negative effects of gun ownership.
Conclusion
Few people and constituencies are keen on repealing the 2nd amendment, that there is widespread agreement on how to do it, nor that it is going to be easy. This is not a popularity contest. But just like activist demands for prison abolition, defunding or abolishing the police, it’s high time to reconsider the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Sure, people (and organizations) will find lots of creative ways to injure, kill and threaten others. I mean they do this already. So let’s just eliminate the principle way.
Photo credit
David Mulder
Day 231. Gun control.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/28972994732_a9770df637_o-scaled.jpg19202560Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-04-01 18:03:032024-02-04 04:53:45Forget gun control. It’s time to repeal the 2nd amendment
Graffiti and street art can be found in most big cities and urban environments, and on almost any type of surface. One of the less acknowledged and academically studied places where graffiti and street art exist are the numerous local, state, and national parks. These range from comparatively small areas that local governments set aside for the public use located in urban environments (e.g., the small pocket parks spread throughout a city like Washington, DC), to large swaths of land, with different types of flora, and fauna, topography, and sometimes including ancient priceless American-Indian carvings, etchings, pictographs, and petroglyphs that encompass several states (e.g., Yellowstone National Park).
Frequently there’s also lots of tagging inside the public restrooms (at least the men’s room), including porta potties that are located near the parking lots of these parks. Sometimes the tagging is more complicated, with cartoon like images. If there are train tracks or logging roads, running through the park, there may be tagging on the tracks or on low level rocks. Graffiti may also include letters, words, and images that are carved, chalked, chiseled. or scratched, on to trees and rocks. In terms of street art, the most frequent medium are stickers. On rare occasions will larger graffiti pieces, some with bubble letters, will be placed on rock surfaces.
Why is graffiti and street art that appears in local, state and national parks rarely studied?
In general, there is less graffiti and street art in local, state and federal parks, then the walls, doors, transportation systems, and back alleys of major metropolises. A number of reasons probably exist that explain why this occurs:
• With the exception of local parks, those inclined to engage in graffiti and street art rarely visit state and national parks, or they may not have the motivation to participate in this kind of activity in these areas.
• Implicit norms shared by taggers, writers and artists. Just like, the infrequent graffiti and street art left on houses of worship (i.e., churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples), the natural environment is often considered to be sanctified and out of bounds for writers and artists to leave their mark. Unlike private (and commercial space), it’s frequently assumed that local, state, and federal parks have been set aside as protected areas to be enjoyed by all, and thus writing graffiti or street art is perceived as taboo, among graffiti and street artist community.
Why might academics refrained from studying graffiti and street art in local, state and national parks?
A handful of reasons possibly explain why academics have not produced much scholarship on graffiti and street art in local, state and federal parks. This includes:
• It may not be perceived to be that interesting.
• There is less graffiti and street art in these locations. Thus,
• It may not be considered to be that big a social problem.
• Access to relevant data is resource-intensive. Unless we are talking about city parks, and unlike graffiti and street art that is put up in big cities, perpetrators rarely live near state and federal parks Notwithstanding traveling to these places is costly, based on my experience, the National Park Police and National Park Service Police do not readily share data about this kind of vandalism with qualified researchers.
Moving forward, there are some possible ways to consider tackling this subject.
Since getting interviews with people engaging in graffiti and street art in local, state and federal parks is extremely difficult, researchers might start by reviewing popular news media accounts of graffiti and street art in these locations.
Alternatively investigators might try to secure interviews (or even administer surveys) with rank and file National Park Police, National Park Service Rangers, service personnel, and volunteers who may pick up trash, and help to maintain or cut trails, and visitors.
Another tactic may be a visual ethnography where over a significant period of time, an inventory of graffiti and street art is taken in selected parks, to determine its breadth, frequency, and types.
These methods may enable us to get a better sense of what kinds of graffiti and street art occur in these locations, where it is located, its content, how widespread it is, who is engaging in this activity and how agents of social control are responding to it.
Although the amount of graffiti and street art that appears in local, state, and national parks pales in comparison to that which is typically present in large urban settings, its study may enable us to have a better picture about the depth and breadth of this phenomenon and the people who engage and respond to this activity.
Photo credit:
National Park Service Photos
Chalking, carving, and scratching are all types of graffiti. Depending on the damage, it may take a significant amount of work to remove.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2022-03-23-at-4.23.05-PM.png338484Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-03-24 11:37:282024-01-07 12:55:47Making sense of graffiti and street art in local, state, and national parks
Sins of omission? Why do researchers neglect to review or cite relevant scholarship, but reviewers and editors accept this material for publication?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossMost academics, editors, and reviewers constantly make decisions about what types of scholarship to review, what to cite, and what is necessary for researchers to make their case.
Failure to review or cite appropriate scholarship or literature should be expected if the publishing venue does not engage in peer review. Why? In general, peer review (where the identity of the the researcher is not known to the reviewer) is assumed to minimize the possibility that flawed research and writing is accepted and published, and that personal biases towards the investigator affects the reviewers’ decisions. Thus, we should not be surprised if research and writing that appears in newsletters, blog posts, or newspaper/magazine articles (which are not peer reviewed), fails to include relevant research in what they publish.
On the other hand, peer reviewed academic articles, chapters, and books, frequently neglect to review or cite important scholarship. This situation, however, gives readers an incomplete picture of a domain, and may open up questions about the rigor of the scholarship that is produced, and the legitimacy of the publication source. Academic writing like this may be called sloppy and unprofessional.
Why does this occur?
To begin with, it’s important to understand that sometimes omissions are intentional, whereas other instances are unintentional. Additionally, rarely is there consensus on what the “important” or relevant literature is.
That being said, some may argue that if a scholarly field is relatively new, then there’s a possibility that the omitted research has not come to the attention of other investigators, and this may explain why references to it do not appear in academic venues. Although this may be the case with recently released work, many published works neglect to mention relatively old scholarship too. Moreover, failure of an author/researcher or team to include or cite appropriate literature may be forgiven once or twice, but if this persists, then something else is going on. If scholarship, and the people who engage in this activity, are to be taken seriously, it should include the most up to date work.
Often scholarship that is written in a language other than English is omitted. This is understandable, as few academics are willing to learn a foreign language, pay someone to translate a written piece, or manipulate files to run them through a translation program. What does this mean? Great work by relative unknowns, new scholars, and those outside of firmly established and entrenched networks (e.g., from the global South, etc.) get ignored,
Another possible reason is that the journal or book may not allow authors enough space to review almost everything that is relevant. This argument may have been true with old publication models, but the citation process is supposed to accommodate for this sort of limitation. With the right crafting a considerable amount of scholarship can be accommodated in the citation process. Plus with the advent of on-line publishing, space considerations are less of a problem.
Additionally lots of academic training can be faulted. Even in the highly ranked graduate programs, it’s not uncommon for students to have large gaps in their knowledge. Sure classes, comps, and a dissertation is supposed to mitigate this kind of outcome, but big gaps in knowledge still happens. Grad students are typically exposed to their instructors and mentors‘ specializations, and rarely to the larger contexts of the field’s scholarship.
Some scholars argue that the neglect of relevant literature is because of a lack of access to published scholarship. Although on-line portals like academia.edu and researchgate.org include lots of useful scholarship, not all articles and chapters are located there. And definitely not books. If one turns to www.google.scholar.com you will quickly find out that some of this is paywalled. This presents challenges especially for independent scholars who do not have an academic affiliation. They may not have sufficient funds to pay for this kind of materials, or have a colleague at an academic institution who can do them a favor by securing items for them. That being said, although it might require some reminders, in most cases if you e-mail to the author of the article or chapter they will gladly send you a pdf.
Sometimes the reason why material is not reviewed or cited lies in poorly informed authors, editors, and peer reviewers. Editors are supposed to be generalists. They don’t know the entire scholarship in a field and that is why they depend on reviewers. But most editors these days will confess that it’s increasingly difficult to secure adequate reviewers. Sometimes the reviewers are inappropriate. And the referees may not take their reviewing obligation seriously. Or they are bomb throwers, out to prove a point.
One reason why some scholarship is ignored are power dynamics in scholarly fields. Some academics including, editors, and reviewers believe that by neglecting or ignoring certain pieces of scholarship (or scholars) they can advance their own scholarly agenda (or those of their closest allies) or reputation. Similar to the notion of academic tribes, some writers, editors and reviewers may not want to give credit to newbies or researchers they consider to be less legitimate so that their own publication record can appear more meaningful, or draw attention away from others. Citing or reviewing scholarship is often a political act. To the author being cited means that you exist, and that you need to be contended with. This kind of omission is disingenuous.
Finally, exhaustion, frustration or just laziness on the part of authors, reviewers, and editors could explain failure to review, cite. This includes being overwhelmed by the numerous demands constantly placed on many scholars to not only produce high quality research, but to be effective instructors and provide service to numerous constituencies. It also involves a disinclination to consider or review scholarship that is physically and intellectually difficult to access. In days past this may have meant having to make a physical trip to the library. Nowadays this might involve the hassle of submitting a request to your university’s Interlibrary Loan Department, and then waiting for the book, chapter or article to be delivered, not to mention additional glitches that this process might involve. Alternatively some scholars work is difficult to understand. This may require more effort than predicted to properly comprehend.
How to minimize the omission of relevant scholarship from peer review work
Most journal and academic editors and reviewers are hardworking and thoughtful individuals. They entered the job with a lot of excitement and enthusiasm, but get burned out or overcommitted, and then take shortcuts. They occasionally give a pass to inadequate scholarship (sometimes produced by their friends and allies) and then clamp down on other work for what often appears to be inconsequential reasons. Both editors and reviewers need to redouble their efforts in their review of papers. In short, if you don’t have time to do a proper job reviewing a paper pass on it.
Another way to minimize the omission of important research is reduce the reliance on “the usual suspects” who are called upon to review, and increase the number of qualified reviewers by drawing from a variety of disciplines and diverse individuals to participate in the peer review process. Increasingly over the years it seems that an increasing number of journals are using less reviewers to make important decisions on the papers that are submitted to them.
We also need to teach people in our profession about the differences in the quality of journals, and what it means to do a thorough peer review. In particular, we need to systematically teach our students how and why some publishing venues are better than others.
Another point to add: we need to hunker down on our grad programs and ensure students have appropriate training. As a profession academics need to be reminded that the research process is a marathon, not a sprint. Academic institutions need support and best practices, and not simply encourage their students (and faculty) to attend seminars on “here’s how you google something.”
Photo: Spanky from “Little Rascals”
Forget gun control. It’s time to repeal the 2nd amendment
/by Jeffrey Ian RossI can hear and see them now. Chanting and standing with their pitchforks and lanterns.
“No way,” they yell. “The 2nd Amendment, just like 1 through 27 are sacred and unchangeable.”
Let’s face it. Most gun users are sane. They believe in gun safety, gun control, etc. The scholarship bears this out.
But the simple fact is too many people in this country die at the hands of guns and this is not good for the overall health, safety, and future of the United States.
Since the passage of 2nd amendment, and particularly since the 1968 Handgun Control Act, state and federal politicians have attempted, and in some cases succeeded in placing controls on the importation, manufacture, sale, and storage of guns, and on certain types of ammunition. But this has not really reduced gun related crimes and deaths.
Therefore, it’s realistic to assume that these gun control initiatives have been mostly tinkering around the edges or half measures. And organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety do not go far enough.
Thus the best and most direct way to reduce the use of handguns is through a repeal of the second amendment.
The right to bear arms, also known as the second amendment, was a product of a unique time and place. Recalling this history is not important here. It’s out there for anyone who wants to do a simple google search.
But things have changed. We no longer have slavery, we have subdued the indigenous population into a largely docile and marginalized group, and we are rarely burdened by wild beasts that attack us.
In no way did the framers of the constitution ever consider that the United States would be burdened as we now are by the plague of gun violence, with its accompanying needless injuries, deaths and destruction that is experienced on the streets and in the homes of this country every day. Had the framers predicted this current state of affairs, perhaps they would have thought twice about passing the 2nd amendment. But that was then and this is now.
Thus, why can’t we institute a system of gun ownership similar to other countries like Canada, Great Britain, Australia or the Nordic countries. Are the citizens of those countries no less scared of government control than us.
Most other advanced industrialized countries don’t have something similar the second amendment in their constitutions. And that’s why their approach to guns is a lot saner then what exists in the United States today.
In all fairness, I’m not the first person to suggest this change, and I certainly won’t be the last. Advocating for and attempts to repeal the 2nd amendment is not unprecedented. In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger argued that the 2nd Amendment was the greatest fraud perpetrated on the American people at the time. In 2018, retired Justice John Paul Stevens argued in a widely famous op-ed to abolish the 2nd Amendment. And in both 1992 and 1993 Democratic representative Major Owens entered legislation in Congress to get it repealed. And with predictable results.
Arguments against repealing the Second Amendment are specious
Those who are against the repeal of the 2nd amendment quickly argue that:
• It will create a black market for illegal guns. But this kind of exchange already exists. Yes, there are continuing efforts by legislators and law enforcement to control this through the passage of laws and enforcement strategies, but the unregulated market still exists.
• It’s a slippery slope. First you will start with outlawing guns then you will move on to other lethal objects like knives, rocks, poison, etc. Perhaps, but not likely.
• We can’t live in a country where the only people who have access to guns are the police and the military. That’s not completely true. Again if we use the examples of other countries that are not dictatorships or authoritarian that are not obsessed about gun ownership, we see limited cases of gun ownership. Moreover, one need look no further than the British police for examples of police that do not carry guns on a regular basis. In fact there are approximately 18 countries, and one US territory, where the police do not carry guns. Are the crime rates in those countries significantly higher than they are in the United States? No.
How can we realistically repeal the Second Amendment?
Although some gun control activists have suggested that we hold a constitutional convention where the attorney generals of all states come together to work for the repeal the 2nd amendment, at this current time in US history there is not enough states who support this. That is why there are some other solutions, currently in place that are more promising.
• Continue to hold gun and ammunition manufacturers accountable and take them to court where the legal circumstances allow.
• Hit these companies with big financial penalties
• Now that the National Rifle Association is on the ropes, it’s time to finally put them out of business.
• Massive investments need to be made in educational campaigns that outline the negative effects of gun ownership.
Conclusion
Few people and constituencies are keen on repealing the 2nd amendment, that there is widespread agreement on how to do it, nor that it is going to be easy. This is not a popularity contest. But just like activist demands for prison abolition, defunding or abolishing the police, it’s high time to reconsider the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Sure, people (and organizations) will find lots of creative ways to injure, kill and threaten others. I mean they do this already. So let’s just eliminate the principle way.
Photo credit
David Mulder
Day 231. Gun control.
Making sense of graffiti and street art in local, state, and national parks
/by Jeffrey Ian RossGraffiti and street art can be found in most big cities and urban environments, and on almost any type of surface. One of the less acknowledged and academically studied places where graffiti and street art exist are the numerous local, state, and national parks. These range from comparatively small areas that local governments set aside for the public use located in urban environments (e.g., the small pocket parks spread throughout a city like Washington, DC), to large swaths of land, with different types of flora, and fauna, topography, and sometimes including ancient priceless American-Indian carvings, etchings, pictographs, and petroglyphs that encompass several states (e.g., Yellowstone National Park).
What does graffiti and street art in local, state and national parks look like?
The majority of graffiti that appears in these locations are tags, a moniker of sorts, typically done with white or black indelible marker pens on the front or back of “man-made” signs, posts, and culverts. Occasionally, numerous statues, memorials, and plaques are covered with graffiti. This kind of visual resistance appeared to increase during the Black Lives Matter protests, in the spring and summer of 2020 as a reaction to the death of George Floyd, an unarmed African-American man, at the hands of a white Milwaukee police officer.
Frequently there’s also lots of tagging inside the public restrooms (at least the men’s room), including porta potties that are located near the parking lots of these parks. Sometimes the tagging is more complicated, with cartoon like images. If there are train tracks or logging roads, running through the park, there may be tagging on the tracks or on low level rocks. Graffiti may also include letters, words, and images that are carved, chalked, chiseled. or scratched, on to trees and rocks. In terms of street art, the most frequent medium are stickers. On rare occasions will larger graffiti pieces, some with bubble letters, will be placed on rock surfaces.
Why is graffiti and street art that appears in local, state and national parks rarely studied?
In general, there is less graffiti and street art in local, state and federal parks, then the walls, doors, transportation systems, and back alleys of major metropolises. A number of reasons probably exist that explain why this occurs:
• With the exception of local parks, those inclined to engage in graffiti and street art rarely visit state and national parks, or they may not have the motivation to participate in this kind of activity in these areas.
• Implicit norms shared by taggers, writers and artists. Just like, the infrequent graffiti and street art left on houses of worship (i.e., churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples), the natural environment is often considered to be sanctified and out of bounds for writers and artists to leave their mark. Unlike private (and commercial space), it’s frequently assumed that local, state, and federal parks have been set aside as protected areas to be enjoyed by all, and thus writing graffiti or street art is perceived as taboo, among graffiti and street artist community.
Why might academics refrained from studying graffiti and street art in local, state and national parks?
A handful of reasons possibly explain why academics have not produced much scholarship on graffiti and street art in local, state and federal parks. This includes:
• It may not be perceived to be that interesting.
• There is less graffiti and street art in these locations. Thus,
• It may not be considered to be that big a social problem.
• Access to relevant data is resource-intensive. Unless we are talking about city parks, and unlike graffiti and street art that is put up in big cities, perpetrators rarely live near state and federal parks Notwithstanding traveling to these places is costly, based on my experience, the National Park Police and National Park Service Police do not readily share data about this kind of vandalism with qualified researchers.
How might researchers study this subject?
Moving forward, there are some possible ways to consider tackling this subject.
Since getting interviews with people engaging in graffiti and street art in local, state and federal parks is extremely difficult, researchers might start by reviewing popular news media accounts of graffiti and street art in these locations.
Alternatively investigators might try to secure interviews (or even administer surveys) with rank and file National Park Police, National Park Service Rangers, service personnel, and volunteers who may pick up trash, and help to maintain or cut trails, and visitors.
Another tactic may be a visual ethnography where over a significant period of time, an inventory of graffiti and street art is taken in selected parks, to determine its breadth, frequency, and types.
These methods may enable us to get a better sense of what kinds of graffiti and street art occur in these locations, where it is located, its content, how widespread it is, who is engaging in this activity and how agents of social control are responding to it.
Although the amount of graffiti and street art that appears in local, state, and national parks pales in comparison to that which is typically present in large urban settings, its study may enable us to have a better picture about the depth and breadth of this phenomenon and the people who engage and respond to this activity.
Photo credit:
National Park Service Photos
Chalking, carving, and scratching are all types of graffiti. Depending on the damage, it may take a significant amount of work to remove.