One last thought: Why do reviewers spend so much time thinking about methodology and zero time thinking about modes of analysis? You could have a flawlessly constructed sample, twenty years working in a community, inter-coder reliability up the butt--but if you are asking the same dopey questions of your subjects (and objects) and/or settling for the same half baked answers with no further push back, engagement, or theoretical framing-- who cares? Frankly, if you look at most of the material published in communications especially, you see how this obsession on methods (and non-engagement with rigorous modes of analysis) produces nothing beyond vulgar parodies of scientific method. 3/4 of our experimental sample felt empowered after blogging (note: no comments were allowed on blogs.) ORLLY?? Folks, this is not serious scholarship --its scholarship that desperately wants to be something its not: produced in a lab. I cant work like that, cuz its nuts. If you are a grad student, I get it. You want a degree, you were asked to do a thing, you did a thing, the end. Everyone else: what is your excuse? End of rant.
Posted on: Wed, 07 May 2014 17:34:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015