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-fart
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 fart contribution gets reviewed, it cops a whole lot
of insults like ³out-of-date²
³read the recent literature², ³why havenıt you read my (the editorıs) five
article about this topic?"
I have read the editorıs five articles and I didnıt 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 havenıt 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 donıt 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 personıs game.
I havenıt 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] on behalf of [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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
