It’s clear that some number of people, which could be small or large, have
serious issues with this list.
My questions for those who are dissatisfied is “why not start your own
list?”
There is no scarcity of email technology. It is not hard to create a
mailing list.
If you start your own list you will quickly learn whether it is 66 or 600
who are dissatisfied.
Is there not room in the world for more than one PhD discussion list?
Dave
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 06:01 Luke Feast <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Ali,
>
> 1. Marginalization of women’s views in discussions (Condorcet winner:
> wins contests with all other choices)
> 2. Exclusion of diverse epistemological views in discussions loses to
> Marginalization of women’s views in discussions by 32–28
> 3. Intolerance of diverse cultural views in discussions loses to
> Marginalization of women’s views in discussions by 30–26, loses to
> Exclusion of diverse epistemological views in discussions by 32–29
> 4. Prejudice toward topics of most interest to those list members of high
> academic rank loses to Marginalization of women’s views in discussions by
> 33–26, loses to Intolerance of diverse cultural views in discussions by
> 31–30
> 5. Insufficient discussion of topics relevant to PhD studies in
> particular loses to Marginalization of women’s views in discussions by
> 41–20, loses to Prejudice toward topics of most interest to those list
> members of high academic rank by 32–31
> 6. Harmful effects of narrow interests on the quality of argumentation
> loses to Marginalization of women’s views in discussions by 40–21, loses to
> Insufficient discussion of topics relevant to PhD studies in particular by
> 35–26
> 7. Harmful effects of careless reasoning on the quality of argumentation
> loses to Marginalization of women’s views in discussions by 41–19, loses to
> Harmful effects of narrow interests on the quality of argumentation by 30–26
> 8. Excessive posting of irrelevant information loses to Marginalization
> of women’s views in discussions by 52–9, loses to Harmful effects of
> careless reasoning on the quality of argumentation by 46–13
>
> More details can be found on the poll webpage under the result of the
> poll, click the "show details" button
> https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_ba504af73ef2b4ab
>
> Best,
> Luke
>
> Luke Feast, Ph.D. | Senior Lecturer | Faculty of Design and Creative
> Technologies | Auckland University of Technology | New Zealand | Email
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Dave Gray
xplaner.com
phone +1.415.683.6802 | twitter @davegray
Let's keep in touch! Sign up <http://eepurl.com/oQiCX> to get occasional
notes and updates from me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|