If you reply to this long (14 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button - bane of discussion lists - unless you prune the copy of
this post that may appear in your reply down to a few relevant lines,
otherwise the entire already archived post may be needlessly resent
to subscribers.
In response to my post "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'?
What's 'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .') " [Hake (2012a)]
Keith Taber (2012) wrote [bracketed by lines "TTTTT. . . ."; TAKING
DUE ACCOUNT OF TABER'S RESTRICTION: "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>"]:
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
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 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
Two points:
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. Taber wrote:"[Hake's (2012a) post] was criticising a post. . .
.[[Podolefsky (2012a)]]. . . . on one of those lists. . . . . [[That,
of course, was not the main point of my post. My post considered two
important questions: (a) "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'?
and (b) What's 'Scientific'?]] . . . . The author of that post . .
. .[[i.e., Podolefsky (2012a)]]. . . . (Noah Podolefsky) responded .
. . [in Podolefsky(2012b)]]. . . . to point out. that the post cited
above . . . .[[i.e., Hake (2012a)]]. . . . misrepresented what he had
said by taking things out of context (for example suggesting that
Podolefsky. . . . .[[(2012a)]]. . . adopted a position when he in
fact reported only that some others adopted that position)."
Had Taber broken with discussion list protocol and taken the time to
actually*read* my post [Hake (2012a)] before responding to it, he
might have realized that Podolefsky's (2012b) claims that I had
"misrepresented what he had said by taking things out of context"
were baseless - see my post [Hake (2012b)] to AERA-K, Phys-L,
PhysLrnR, titled "OFF TOPIC: I Neither Quoted Podolefsky Out of
Context Nor Misrepresented What He Wrote (was 'Can Education Research
Be . . . .')."
222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. Taber wrote: I find the systematic cross-posting that seems to
have become habitual recently, unhelpful."
Unhelpful? Had Taber broken with discussion list protocol and taken
the time to actually*read* my post [Hake (2012a)] before responding
to it, he might have noticed my reference to his own valuable book
"Progressing Science Education: Constructing the Scientific Research
Programme into the Contingent Nature of Learning Science" [Taber
(2009)]. One might have thought that Taber would consider as helpful
my free advertising of his book to a segment of the Academic
Discussion List sphere [ADLsphere, pronounced "ADDLEsphere" (pun
intended) ;-) ].
Although, Taber may still find my cross-posting unhelpful, others
may find it helpful - see e.g. "In Defense of Cross Posting" [Hake
(2005a) and "Cross-Posting - Synergistic or Sinful?"[Hake (2005b)].
In the latter I wrote:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
As emphasized in "What Can We Learn from the Biologists About
Research, Development, and Change in Undergraduate Education?" [Hake
(2000)], discussion lists provide a potential way to surmount
disciplinary barriers, caused in part by the traditional departmental
structure of universities. The potential of the web as a mechanism
for promoting interdisciplinary synergy in education reform is
emphasized and schematically pictured on page 3 of my 204 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/brgk1E>. To enhance interdisciplinary synergy,
derelict subscribers such as myself, often resort to the cardinal sin
of cross-posting!
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to
think little of robbery; and from robbery he next comes to
Sabboth-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. .
. . . . . and from that to cross-posting.
With apologies to Thomas De Quincy (1827: 2004, p. 28).
REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 02 Nov 2012.]
De Quincey, T. 1827. "Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts."
Available in a 2004 edition from Kessinger Publishing,
Amazon.cominformation at <http://amzn.to/YgmbAY>, note the searchable
"Look Inside" feature. Also online at <http://bit.ly/VkdvKn> (search
for "Considered"), thanks to Project Gutenberg.
Hake, R.R. 2000. "What Can We Learn from the Biologists About
Research, Development, and Change in Undergraduate Education?" AAPT
Announcer 29(4): 99 (1999); online as a 204 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/brgk1E> and as ref. 7 at <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>.
Hake, R.R. 2005a. "In Defense of Cross Posting," online on the OPEN!
AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/iZhS2i> Post of 24 Jul 2005 to
AERA-L and various other discussion lists.
Hake, R.R. 2005b. "Cross-Posting - Synergistic or Sinful?" online on
the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/oaRDYa>. Post of 1 Nov
2005 08:37:12-0800 to AERA-L and ITForum.
Hake, R.R. 2012a. "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'? What's
'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .') "; online on the OPEN!
AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/Ujaogk>. Post of 31 Oct 2012
19:34:16-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the
complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and
are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/YrZJUS> with a
provision for comments.
Hake, R.R. 2012b. "OFF TOPIC: I Neither Quoted Podolefsky Out of
Context Nor Misrepresented What He Wrote (was 'Can Education Research
Be . . . .')," online on the OPEN! Phys-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/Rwwezt>. The same post was transmitted to PhysLrnR and
AERA-K.
Podolefsky, N. 2012a. "Re: In Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific
Research in Education', " online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at
<http://bit.ly/TMOR56>. Post of 27 Oct 2012 13:04:51-0600 to
PhysLrnR. To access the archives of PhysLnR one needs to subscribe
:-(, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on
<http://bit.ly/nG318r> and then clicking on "Join or Leave
PHYSLRNR-LIST." If you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL"
option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access
the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO
MAIL from the list!
Podolefsky. N. 2012b. "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'? What's
'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .')" online on the CLOSED!
PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/PKp5gF>. Post of 1 Nov 2012
14:03:48-0600 to PhysLrnR.
Taber, K.S. 2009. "Progressing Science Education: Constructing the
Scientific Research Programme into the Contingent Nature of Learning
Science." Dordrecht: Springer, publisher's information at
<http://bit.ly/S8ShK3>. Author's information at
<http://bit.ly/RiMWil>. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/VzfDcC>. An expurgated Google book preview is online
at <http://bit.ly/SVsV31>.
Taber, K, 2012. "Multiple postings and Response to Can Education
Research Be 'Scientific'? What's 'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. .
. .')," online on the OPEN! Phys-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/RziNgC>. Post of 02 Nov 2012 09:33:55+0000 to Phys-L.
This same post was transmitted to PhysLrnR and AERA-K by Taber.