JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  February 2007

PHD-DESIGN February 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Conferences less relevant to design research?

From:

Karel van der Waarde <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Karel van der Waarde <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:21:25 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (88 lines)

Dear all,

Thanks Terence for sharing his fears that the value of attending 
conferences is reduced by 'research quality assessments'.

[There are many related issues here: I'm not convinced that 'research 
quality' can be assessed by 'impact factors', 'number of citations' 
or the 'number of publications'. Nor am I convinced that the 
'research quality' can be valued by governments. Many different 
problematic controversies seem to come together. I mention five:
1) Peer reviewed journals & competition. (Do you approve a paper from 
a competitor, giving them the benefits of another good publication? 
The selection of peer-reviewers must be cross-continental to avoid 
commercial contamination.)

2) Impact factors of journals/citation indices. (Does this lead to 
even more specialised journals with even more repetitive articles? 
It's allready hard to keep up with the main publications.)

3) Costs of peer reviewed journals. (The costs of academic journals 
is becoming very high for libraries: severe cuts are frequent. This 
leads to a reduction in availability, not to an increase + I'm 
embarrassed to read that publishers ask substantial amounts of money 
for my papers on their websites. Surely, a pdf of 3 pages A4 is not 
worth 45 dollars?)

4) Research quality Assessments. (Who's assessing? And do they really 
know enough about specific research?)

5) Competitions for funding. (Again, who is assessing the 
applications? and who pays for the time that the application took?)

I think that these are all based on an incompatible view. It's not 
possible to value the quality of research, nor the benefits of 
attending a conference, in money or numbers.]

Personally, I would like to have access to three different types of research:
1) Research in progress. Novel ideas, applying methods to other 
areas, trying new things. There is no guarantee that anything comes 
out, but it is likely that some ideas prove fruitful and are 
worthwhile.
2) Research findings. The clear and concise reporting of the 
question, approach, data, conclusions and discussion.
3) Handbooks and reviews: compilations of research findings and 
meta-analyses. These are the standards as good as we know at the 
moment.

The format in which these three types are presented is related to this:
1) Research in progress. A direct discussion with colleagues, cynics 
and students  at conferences and meetings, but also through e-mail 
lists, blogs and websites. This sharpens the discussions and 
stimulates.
2) Research findings. A combination of digital formats (pdf?) and 
paper formats. Searchable and 'comfortable to study'. (One of the 
things that would be really useful for some papers is when the 
original digital data are made available too. At least it would be 
possible to check if the conclusions make sense.) A combination of 
websites, pdf's, and printed journals.
3) Handbooks in book-form. (May be with an accompanying website with 
a selection of relevant links and discussion fora.).

If a 'research quality assessment' is required, than I probably would 
include criteria related to these:
- Did you present your research in progress to your peers? How? And 
where there any reactions?
- How did you make your research results available? Is it easily 
accessible to those who are likely to benefit? Which parts are hard 
to access or not publicly available?
- How does your research relate to 'best practice' and 'current 
knowledge' as it is described in handbooks/meta-analyses.

The conflict might be between the view of research as an ongoing 
activity that continuously generates ideas, data, discussions and 
suggestions. These activities are discussed in short-term, 
medium-term and long-term public venues.

Only when research is limited to 'a project with an end report', it 
can fit into measurable criteria of 'citation indexes', 'impact 
factors', and 'financial years'.

Visiting conferences is essential as Catherine Harper pointed out. 
Unfortunately, it's in direct conflict with 'measurable quality 
assessment' and 'project research'.

Kind regards,
Karel van der Waarde
[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager