[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: theory not

Sobering reading, especially interesting to read the views of editors from a very different scientific tradition. The type of non-theory manuscript I have found very disappointing in our discipline is typified by one I read recently. The authors described a case study, which involved no intervention by the authors, and no pathology: the subject successfully lived through a challenging period in their life, that's all. The authors simply pinned high-falutin labels to various events and relations or cited references to other writers as the story went along. I admit that I was so offended by the fact that all the labels were garbled and the references inappropriate, that I had failed to notice that even if the labels had been correctly applied and teh references appropriate, the paper would still have been without content!
*Andy Blunden*

Helena Worthen wrote:
Mike, i really appreciate your sending this out. I read it pretty carefully this morning and will read it again.  I know that I'm not an adept swimmer in this particular pond, (lake or bay would be more like it) but the guidelines put forth in this article are definitely things I contend with.

Thanks --

Helena Worthen

On Jun 15, 2014, at 4:14 PM, mike cole wrote:

Paper attached for those unable to open.
<What theory is not-1.docx>