Hi Chris,
I realise I may be way out on a limb on this one.
I'd like to see MORE salami slicing of research. Like emails, Unix software
and Mac widgets, its better if a paper only reports one significant finding.
Many papers (and I've done it myself) report multiple findings in different
direction argued on the basis of mixed reasoning. It makes it hard to review
and hard to use the knowledge. Big complex multi-directional papers provide
camouflage for weakly reasoned or poorly justified outcomes. Describing and
justifying a single research finding helps make faulty reasoning easier to
see.
Another practical benefit is that when you read a paper describing research
leading to a single finding, its easy (for the writer and the reviewer) to
tell whether the finding is significant new knowledge or not.
All the best (and wearing my fire proof beanie)
Cheers,
Terry
===
Dr. Terence Love
Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
Mobile: 0434975 848
[log in to unmask]
===
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris
Rust
Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2007 2:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Publishing Requirements for the PhD Degree -- short response to
Chris
Ken Friedman wrote:
> ..You write, "I agree with Ken's concern but I would not go down the
> road he follows." what road it is that?
Sorry Ken, I should have been more clear. I felt you were focusing on
improving students ability to publish (which is valuable in itself) but I
saw that, if coupled to the Bologna Process, as fuelling the problem.
More, better presented papers do not mitigate the problems of excessive
publishing of salami-slicing research down into trivial publishable chunks.
But yes, we are on the same track, I encourage all my students to publish
but wetend to focus on conferences and only when they have something
interesting to say. When you finish your PhD is a good time to reflect on
how you can disseminate your contribution to knowledge, that contribution
(if it is a serious one) is not fully developed at the mid point.
My most embarrassing moment as a supervisor was when a student submitted a
paper to a conference, without me knowing, when it was accepted he asked me
to be co-author and I had a real struggle to work that out, since didn't
feel the paper was significant or well-developed (neither did the conference
audience when he presented it). Sticking to the Bolgna Process will make
that kind of thing much more regular.
best
Chris
|