Log in/out

The ways in which research in mathematics education has become established are not detached from academic capitalism. This paper questions the extent to which the field is willing to value theoretical disruption, critique, and innovation, or whether it tends instead to reproduce already legitimised ways of researching and writing. From a situated theoretical reflection, I examine how systems of evaluation, publication, and doctoral formation shape what comes to be recognised as valid research.
I argue that the field is sustained, in part, by a "fetishism of the academic article," through which the accumulation of publications comes to be seen as synonymous with progress. This fetishism does not operate solely as an external imposition; it is accompanied by symbolic enjoyment associated with recognition and a sense of belonging. Rather than proposing an external escape, the article invites readers to recognise these dynamics from within and to imagine forms of research and writing that open space for theoretical risk, dialogue, and a collective redefinition of the field.