On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:07:25 +1300
Robin Paulson <robin.paul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 March 2011 12:26, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Speaking as someone with a background in science I think I agree
> > with Elizabeth's interpretation.
> >
> > I get the impression the study is much more subjective than solid,
> > the sample size far too small to get any meaningful results other
> > than this needs more research dollars to further define etc etc.
>
> ah, you mean the language is elitist and highly complicated? yes, i
> would agree - welcome to academia. i'm not sure what the catch phrase
> of the angry redneck ('politically correct') has to do with that
> though
>
big SNIP
You have jumped in again. The paper describes what it describes, and
from the small sample set makes some good points, but we don't see the
reasoning behind the choice of the sample set, which by its nature has
to have excluded a number of user groups.
Discussion of that point, or acknowledgement of the difficulties
inherent in making the choice, would have added to the paper.
The study is subjective because it is in sociology, and that is a
feature of that sort of research, where students just don't have access
to the resources needed to survey a few million or even a few thousand
people.
I'm not concerned about "complicated themes" and "complicated
theories". I've been through enough of the tertiary education system
that I should be able to cope with sociology.
I object to the overuse of jargon in the abstract.
The abstract should be meaningful to the average university graduate.
Writing the abstract in jargon, while it seems 'exact', is a means of
isolating various parts of the education community from each other, and
discouraging the spread of knowledge. I guess its an antithesis of
FLOSS.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
