Hey Noam!

I haven't read the book yet, and I would wait with my own opinion until I do. There is one thing I *can* say, though, and that is that comparing phenomena from various fields is an acceptable method in discourse sociology and Foucault's works are the best example of it. If one is an expert in "culture" or "discourse", one analyzes social phenomena through that lense and does not differentiate between disciplines. Discourse and culture are trans-disciplinarian fields, so I don't see, apriori, what would be wrong with writing a book which deals extensively with many fields (I can see how someone coming from the exact sciences, or other more conceptually conservative field, would not enjoy it). Having read Almog's previous book and enjoyed it immensely, I have high expectations from him, and hope this book will not disappoint.

I don't understand the comment, much less the tone. Every academic book on the planet represents the work of several research assistants as well as the professor who wrote it.

I fear the answer is no. Even my field, in which there are no labs, and groupwork is not as essential as other fields, also has plenty of research assistantships. To some extent it's part of the feudal aspect of unviersity life. Students get fellowships - or salaries - for their work, and sometimes their name for publications; the professor gets quality (and cheap) labor. In an ideal work, the assistant would always learn from the work and become a better scholar (in my experience this has almost always been the case), but some folks are used for more menial jobs (though even telephonic surveys teach you something about methodology). Is it wonderful? Absolutely not. But it certainly is prevalent and part of university life and most certainly did not merit the sardonic tone and ugly remarks and insinuations of the message I was replying to.