A response to Kenward
In the argument over his use of "La Greenfield" in an earlier message,
Michael posed the question "So, it would be alright to use throwaway
descriptions of second rate male scientists?" Ignoring the embedded insult,
it is never right to use throwaway descriptions in an environment where they
might be understood. That is just poor communication.
I too found Michael's description of Susan Greenfield as "La" to be
unnecessary, unconstructive, old fashioned and sexist. Michael may not have
intended to be sexist but why use "La" to trivialise the debate? What has
gender got to do with the issue? The use of "La" is as relevant to
discussing the new RI initiative as describing Greenfield as "not-black" or
"blonde."
This list is about communication and I am sure that none of us would wish to
hide behind the excuse: "my audience doesn't understand me"? Michael is at
least guilty of bad communication. The justification that Michael would say
the same in print is fallacious. Bad communication is bad communication and
bad behaviour is bad behaviour, wherever they are practiced. And I have too
been guilty of such errors: it is time to learn from our misdemeanours and
improve.
So why don't we just try to be constructive? How will we ever improve
science communication if we cannot improve the way we communicate with each
other?
Andy
=====
Ea (Evaluation Associates Ltd.), 13 Castle Street, Buckingham, England, MK18
1BP
Tel: +44 (0) 1280 821751
Fax: +44 (0) 1280 821752
Email: [log in to unmask]
WWW: http://www.evaluation.co.uk/
Latest Reports: http://www.evaluation.co.uk/evaluation/reports.html
|