Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[lonestarnot AT earthling.net]

> From: "Don Rua" <drua AT fullseven.com>
> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 13:40:09 -0400
> Subject: Re: NYTimes article: He-Mails, She-Mails: Where Sender Meets Gender
>
> [snip] 
> Regarding the above statement:  It's something I've heard on many issues
> affecting schools, 'diversity training', and many other topical issues
> lately...
> 
> [snip]
> It's all about the pursuit of
> knowledge.  The only issue should be the quality of the research, not the
> interest in understanding and answering hypotheses.

Well, I wouldn't say "only".
Resource allocation is almost always an issue.
And the allocation of resources to one investigation typically
means those resources (people, time, money, facilities) are not 
doing something else -- something someone else might want done.
Almost all research is partially supported with public resources 
and is therefore appropriately subject to public question, 
including:
  "Why did you use our resources to investigate 
   XYZ instead of investigating ABC?", and
  "What potential benefit did you expect from the research?"

Simply "Knowing XYZ" is typically not sufficient.

Even if one might imagine _only_ private resources being used, 
if the results are made public, it seems reasonable to question:
"Why?" -- "Why were they pursued?  Why were they published?"




> It is distressing that the masses sometimes seem to hunger for
> generalizations, 

Try not to be too distressed.
Affinity for generalizations derives naturally from mortality.

Try not to confuse "buyers' wants" with "sellers' pitches".
Hype sells, but has little to do with scholarly research.
It seems an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence, with a 
society _full_ of such disparate agendas, that people often react 
to the (distorted) report of research rather than the research.



OK, ... 'nuf said.
  (My sister would have disowned me otherwise.)



Bill Johnson