"Do Gothic Lolitas Just Wanna Have Fun? An Examination of the Goth-Loli Style Tribes in Hong Kong and Tokyo" by Anne Peirson-Smith
Sorry. Last page anyway.
>This research project was made possible by a Hong Kong SAR Government Funded Research Grant (GRF) 9041411-660, Cosplay and the Dressing up Box: An Investigation into the Cosplay Phenomenon in Hong Kong, 2008-2011
You don't know how the marvelous world of grants work, right?
USE THE GRANT MONEY OR LOSE IT, YOUR CHOICE
Funny this is showing up, I'm writing about lolita for a seminar class right now, but I'm looking at the use of symbols in the fashion (like JetJ using older known paintings), as the class is focused on art and consumer culture.
I-I hope I don't shame the board.
TL;DR, but in essays and thesis (unless you are dealing with very specific stuff) you are supposed to define your terms early on. Something as basic as "gothic lolita" should have been explained in the introduction.
Also, shit like "cosplayers generally consider [...]" is wrong. It doesn't have a source - does that mean that the researcher asked cosplayers for their opinion? How many? Or is she just assuming so?
She also mentioned she did interviews, so those ideally should have been included in an annex.
The author seems kinda confused though. She claims lolita is a gothic substyle AND a cosplay one?
Anyway, 5/10, a seagull with either a sociology or fashion degree could probably do better.
A lot of scholars use their hobbies as inspiration for research, the idea is making it sound professional. I had a friend who wanted to do a thesis about boy's love, but she framed it like "despictions of homosexuality in modern japan" or some shit and it was a decent read.
I've read so many of these over the years that I've gotten numb. Articles are always popping up in places they don't belong, but have tangentially related jumping off points (meaning, lolita to goth culture, lolita to cosplay, lolita to anime bullshit, etc.). They're always, invariably, terrible.
One that I read was written in 2013 or something and still was citing that you couldn't buy Bodyline from abroad, and that Japanese brands were "mysterious and distant", so western lolitas sew their own. Five minutes on Google would have told the author otherwise.
The shitty thing is that good articles exist, but get no attention. Basically. They're boring. The reason shitty articles get pushed and posted without peer review is because the inaccuracies are more exciting than reality. And, let's face it, not enough people have made a career of studying lolita fashion for peer-review to be 100% accurate anyway.
Almost everyone I've found has references to the following:
>living dolls phenomenon
>references to the novel Lolita and sexual proclivities
>lolita's "roots" in fetish clothing because of shared club culture via lives
>cross-dressing as the norm
>tone of "look at these mysterious foreign weirdos!" referring to Japanese lolitas
>tone of "look at these age-playing mentally ill weirdos!" referring to western lolitas
And so on and so forth, usually peppered with outdated Kera snaps and references to La Sardina's blog.
She was ahead of the curve when it came to social media and self-promotion. She was godawful and a cunt, but she appealed to the weaboo crowd before anyone else thought to do it. Most of her "featured lolitas" were horrible convention itas. BUT. And this is the big thing, she didn't judge them the way meanie pants elitist lolitas did, so they were more eager to follow her tacky ass than learn about what the fashion was really like.
At least we can be grateful that her foray into creating a "lolita" fashion label failed miserably.
And, let's face it, not enough people have made a career of studying lolita fashion for peer-review to be 100% accurate anyway
Yeah, but shit like not pulling claims out of your ass (vs citing properly or quoting a study) can be reviewed by anyone with half a brain and would go miles to improve the quality of stuff like this.
Sure, but my point is that these people often use out-dated sources, and are checked over by people even less familiar with the fashion than themselves.
I've not seen a single one that I would call "rigorously reviewed", but those which have gotten into journals and so forth have to pass some sort of standards. The problem is that they're passing the standards of people who don't know the fashion, and therefore don't know the big red flags for what is outdated, exaggerated, or rumour.
Lolita also doesn't have an academic canon, so virtually all sources cited are going to include more anecdotal items like blogs, etc. rather than something that has, itself, been reviewed. And the reviewed items that came before are often inaccurate, so it's the blind leading the blind.
It'd be great to see actual research published with proper procedure, and get promoted, though.
If i hadnt already confirmed what im doing for my psychology dissertation i would be so tempted to write a rebuttal article for this. Im sure i could make it psychology related enough for it to count...
Just a few things from a quick scan of the first pages:
-first sentence is just incorrect, and not cited.
-in fact, there are barely any citations throughout.
-the writing is pretty bad, definitely seems like one of those papers where people use words/ideas they dont really understand to seem more professional.
>-on a slightly more pernickety note (but i feel still relevant if you want to consider yourself professional/an author) is that the sentence structure and punctuation is not great. They also mix the referencing/citation style.
-Dont reference things that definitely need referencing, such as the appadurai reference. Doing this is professional journals would discredit you, and is practically counted as plagiarism
- some stuff is just unprofessional ('young nerdy otaku'). Also maid cafes are victorian inspired perhaps, definitely not usually actually victorian style
-implies they did their own research instead of a meta-analysis, but doesnt include the survey used or the responses, which should be included in appendices
-appears to have collected qualitative rather than quantitative data. This is valid, however cannot be considered at all 'conclusive' as it is basically just the opinions of a few people, and you cant test for statistical significance.
Holy shit just read the last page, i cant believe the author is an assistant professor of fashion (which she evidently is shit at) and communication (which she is also shit at). Her research into sub-cultural and youth fashion is clearly terrible if this shit is what she comes up with. .....and she has a grant for another project about gothic lolitas, shiiit.
Is City University of Hong Kong a shit uni or something?
I think if you're good at what you do and can remain objective about what you're writing, using your hobbies to inform and direct your work can make it a lot more interesting and well researched, as you probably already have a wealth of knowledge (but make sure you still cite/reference points you make!)
Like >>8826956 said, if you can make it professional rather than just sounding like you're doing some kind of childish presentation about your hobby or something, it can be valid
Well, the response to my somewhat aggressively-worded email was surprisingly pleasant...
Bullshit. A very long time ago is a few years then? Her most recent citation is 2011. By that point there was enough info to know a lot more about lolita than she has chosen to use. It isnt like she went and looked at that english tokyopop issue, she lazily just referenced an article about them writing about it.
Slight Grammar Nazi speaking, but this rustles my jimmies.
actually no. it would be effect. effect is the noun and affect is the verb. the effect in this case is what the informants are describing.
>it had an interesting effect
>it had an effect
you only you effect with words like an, on and or. (as it shows in the link you linked)
an example of affect would be
>how does lolita affect the chinese population
from the context of the email, she could have said.
>informants expressed that the clothes affect people in interesting ways
effect vs affect are difficult, but it has to do more with noun vs verb understanding.
Affect can also be a noun and is used in psychology and certain other fields in academia to refer to how people express their emotions/feelings/reactions to stimuli through voice, gestures, facial expressions, etc.
The woman doesn't sound all that intelligent, but she is using affect correctly.
It looks more like a case of a quick and dirty literature gathering phase rather than necessarily just being a complete dumbass. I recognize a lot of those news articles from older Lolita papers, and she's missing out on some notable news pieces published since then. Also, the vocabulary she uses was more common in 2005. If time was wasting on the grant and she needed an article out fast, she probably thought she could build a bibliography entirely from older bibliographies and only did a cursory search for newer and/or primary sources.
To be honest, this is the reality of academia. You don't have to be a genius to be a professor, you just have to be in the right field at the right time and be able to bring in those sweet grant dollars.