Dear Temasek listers
Apparently my recent email has been blocked by your MailMarshall
Because: "it may contain unacceptable language, or inappropriate material.¡±
I have posted the email below, minus the words I think the MailMarshall found offensive.
Strange, that in a topic about olfactory matters, it was a term related to olfactory matters that wa blocked?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Don,
An excellent account of how to take a first look at an article under
review, and, also, excellent advice to early career researchers.
I am old enough that I sometimes see a connection between something new
and something old.
As an older researcher,I often simply want to make my observations of
connections available to the current hot-shot researchers.
There is NO general category in journals for interesting old-f***
contributions.
All contributions are treated the same - they are all seen as coming from
hot-shot cutting edge, recently post-doc go-getters.
When my anonymous old f*** contribution gets reviewed, it cops a whole lot
of insults like "out-of-date"
"read the recent literature", "why haven¡¯t you read my (the editor¡¯s) five
article about this topic?"
I have read the editor©ös five articles and I didn¡¯t find them very useful
to the connections I am making.
(I was polite in not telling him that in my article.)
Also, I think their work has taken a wrong turn or has gotten distracted
by evidence.
He/she/they haven¡¯t read the ancient and peripheral texts I cite, mostly
because my cultural accumulation of interests is
at least 30 years more redundant than theirs.
Of course, these obstacle can be overcome in face-to-face meetings at
conferences, over a beer or wine.
But, I don¡¯t have time or money or prestige enough to get to these
conferences.
We seem to be in danger of forgetting how to use the contributions of the
elderly.
I know how to cite and quote and reference but often, these days, I think
that is a young person¡¯s game.
I haven¡¯t got time or energy to go back and re-read Dostoyevsky so I can
prove my assertion that Raskolnikov said
this or that in Crime and Punishment.
Trust me? No, certainly not! Simply work out whether my point is worth
taking a look at.
But, in order to do that, you first have to look at my point.
Cheers
Keith
On 5/07/2015 7:49 am, "PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design on behalf of Don Norman"
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> on behalf of [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
The latest paper referenced was 1980 -- 35 years is a long time in
science,
and indeed, the science of olfaction has made enormous leaps in the
past decades. [I often judge people's understanding of a topic by the age
of the most recent citations. Non-specialists are especially guilty of
relying on either popularizations (which cannot always be trusted) or
really old stuff, presumably the stuff they studied when they went to
school. Real experts cite the current literature and usually ignore
anything older than 10 years, except for a few landmark studies. (I
am not arguing that is a good thing, ignoring the older literature, but
ignoring or ignorance of the recent literature is a bad signal of
understanding.)]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|