Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Multiple postings and Response to Can Education Research Be "Scientific"? What's "Scientific"? (was "in Defense of. . . .")



I appreciate that having the same message posted on several lists can increase the potential for debate, but it also gets very messy. I received the posting cited above, that starts:

Some subscribers to Phys-L (or whatever list) might be
interested in a recent post "Can Education Research Be
'Scientific'? What's 'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .')
" [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:


from at least three lists. This was criticising a post on one of those lists. The author of that post (Noah Podolefsky) responded to point out that the post cited above misrepresented what he had said by taking things out of context (for example suggesting Podolefsky adopted a position when he in fact reported only that some others adopted that position). But that response has only appeared (so far) on the original list. So on at least two other lists the original posting has (so far) appeared without the person being misrepresented having the chance to put the record straight.

This all seems very messy to me.

I think there are occasions when cross-posting is appropriate, but I find the systematic cross-posting that seems to have become habitual recently, unhelpful.

Perhaps it is sensible to initiate discussions on several lists, but then it may be more appropriate only to post responses to the replies on the particular lists where those replies appear.

I also wonder about copyright issues here. There are normal understandings about what is considered about fair use, but presumably if I add my own copyright statement (see below) then anyone who chooses to ignore this statement is infringing my copyright (as well as acting unethically/unprofessionally).

I would not want to start appending such a statement to all my list postings, but perhaps we are reaching the stage where we will need to do this to stop our words being re-quoted in distorted ways on other lists (whether due to poor scholarship or deliberate mischief-making) without our knowledge?

Or perhaps I'm the only one who gets uneasy about the way these things are developing, and everyone else is happy enough with the messy way some messages get selectively redistributed around different lists?

Best wishes

Keith


*This posting is copyright Keith S Taber (2012): permission is granted for it to be cited/quoted on the lists to which I have posted it: it may not be reproduced elsewhere except that (a) it is posted in full with no omissions or editing; (b) a copy of the full text in which the posting appears, with details of where posted, are provided to the author at kst24@cam.ac.uk*

--


Dr. Keith S. Taber
Chair: Science, Technology & Mathematics Education Academic Group
University Reader in Science Education
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education


Editor: Chemistry Education Research and Practice
(Published by the Royal Society of Chemistry)
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/rp/about.asp


Book Reviews Editor: Studies in Science Education
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/03057267.asp



http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.html

https://camtools.cam.ac.uk/access/wiki/site/~kst24/index.html



Science Education Centre
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education
184 Hills Road
Cambridge CB2 8PQ
United Kingdom


ECLIPSE -
Exploring Conceptual Learning, Integration and Progression
in Science Education
https://camtools.cam.ac.uk/wiki/eclipse/Eclipse.html