[Xmca-l] Re: theory not

[Andy Blunden]

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


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
> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> hworthen@illinois.edu
>
> On Jun 15, 2014, at 4:14 PM, mike cole wrote:
>
>   
>> Paper attached for those unable to open.
>> mike
>> <What theory is not-1.docx>
>>     
>
>
>
>
>