Alan Edward Klein
Allowing Ads
None of what you say justifies being impolite.
Apparently.
As @MattKing pointed out, academic articles aren't as accessible as some other texts. When it comes to publications in some realms (let's say Math, Physics etc.) people accept this rather easily. When it comes to texts in other fields, I suppose they don't recognize the complexities because at first glance, the text appears to be quite simple. Much of the complexity is hidden - but it's there alright. It becomes apparent if you really try to understand the mechanics of the research, or even try to replicate it. At that point, issues related to definitions, operationalization and methods (which in itself is kind of a universe) become really pressing. People with training in academic research recognize this, because of their training. Lay people don't always recognize this and tend to oversimplify matters. That's not an insult any more than pointing out that for people with no training in legal matters, legislation can be complex and difficult to make sense of. Training makes a difference; it's there for a reason and it's just not realistic to expect to be capable of the same things lacking training as someone who has had this training. With sports, everyone recognizes this, but for some reason, when it comes to academia, apparently it's insulting to some to point out the same simple reality.
No. That means that the Avedons and Leibovitzes in the research could still be there, and most likely there were a bunch of them, but what was not investigated is how their different route to success worked exactly. They are part of the flow in figure 2F that starts bottom left and ends top right. Of this group, they write the following:
In keeping with the scope of the research, the authors reflect on the trajectories of these 'break-through' artists only in terms of how they exhibited their work in the kinds of ways that are central to the definition of career success used here: at venues with great centrality (which happens to correlate to high monetary valuation of sold art). The Avedons and Leibovitzes wouldn't be excluded from the research. Their achievements are just not the focal point, in the same way that the particular career paths and achievements of sculptors, pilots, bakers and postmen who turned photographers weren't central to this research.
This is one of the statemens why my feedback to you has been direct, and lacking sugar coating as @Sirius Glass put it. If your critique of the article is offered in the form of imperatives, which suggest that you know what could and should have been done, then you make yourself vulnerable to counter-criticism that identifies the errors in your assumptions. If you would phrase your thoughts in a different way, you might be met with a different response. Had you for instance started out in this thread by asking "hey, does anybody know why they studied A and excluded B? B seems logical to me, but they only focused on A and I don't really understand why." Things might have developed differently. Instead, you made statements (part false, that's what I initially responded to) about what you personally feel are shortcomings in the study and formulated your views as imperatives towards the authors. Taking that example of the marathon runner again: it would be a bit like me walking up to Kipchoge and starting to explain to him that he should hold his hands a little lower when running because I feel it looks funny the way he's doing it.
The point is that these particular data would not support the kind of analysis that you envision. So go ahead and set up a new project, gather new data and do it your way. It's a totally different research than the one discussed here. They're only tangentially related. You'll find that out when you'd start drafting a set of research questions, figuring out suitable methods and identifying potential data sources. At that point you'll see that each of these are significantly different from what's available in this report. The only area where there's some overlap would be in the theoretical framework.
That's fine, and nothing stops you from raising a kid that way. However:
1: This article doesn't cater to parents in raising kids.
2: Your statement suggests that you're not so much interested in what might come out of such an analysis as you've hinted at, but that you have a predetermined expectation of what should come out. In other words, there's a strong bias. This is (again) not an insult, but just a reflection on human nature - we're all biased. In research, what's important is to realize this and figure out how it could inform a research project, but also how it threatens them, as well as the interpretation of outcomes of existing projects. In this particular case, what appears to happen is that your bias (what you hope that might come out of a project like this) results in a rejection of the relevance of the present research and ex-post suggestions to change its scope in fundamental ways that are not supported by the data used. It's a free world, of course, but that also entails that people will then point it's nonsensical to make such suggestions. Especially if they just keep coming, even after it has been pointed out multiple times and in multiple ways that what you appear to want, is just not part of the package here.
Also:
I'm not your supplier. You're not my customer. This is not business. Your statement is out of place and not applicable here.
Yes, nobody doubts this and your example is inspirational (great to hear about the double-career success of your son). What's important to note, though, is that success in terms of making a (good) living is not what the authors in this paper investigated. Their definition of success is made along the lines of reputation, exhibition history and work valuation. The authors themselves explicitly state that this is a limited view of the much broader construct of success:
(emphasis mine)
Taking a broader view on the construct of success would certainly be possible, but it would require different questions, different methods and different data. The same is true for investigating alternative paths to success (even in the narrow conceptualization in this research) that rely on other achievements than art exhibitions.
None of what you say justifies being impolite.
Are you running Berlin this year?
Thanks for spending the time on that post. I rummaged around a bit yesterday trying to find an article which explained research papers in simple terms. Nothing I found was as well written as your offering above.
That's how I tried to make my way through academia for the most part, and it's how most people I know do it. Not everything is being read in full. Thank heavens.Myself, I'm like a skipping stone on water for the bulk of most research papers, who much appreciates the hand holding aspects of abstracts and conclusions.
That's how I tried to make my way through academia for the most part, and it's how most people I know do it. Not everything is being read in full. Thank heavens.
….As for running, I'm a Courtney Dauwalter fan (prefer trails to roads) but still in awe of Kipchog.…
Who? OK, I had to look him up. I’ve been a pretty avid runner for 20-some years, having completed 2 marathons, lots of half’s, and countless 10Ks, 5K, etc., was a high school cross country coach for 10 years, and am currently vice-prez of our local running club but I have never paid attention to the competitive side running outside what I do and I’m not really competitive anymore. I just try to finish before they shut off the clock.
I guess it’s not much different from many of the photographers I see mentioned on this site as I have to look them up as well. Looking at their work can have a positive impact on my own but watching elite runners isn’t going to do much for my own running. Hmmm, maybe there’s a study in that.
Courtney is a 'she' not a 'he' who also placed first overall (in other words, beat all the men) in the Moab 240 mile trail race... by 22 miles!Who? OK, I had to look him up...
What? You skimmed your way through college and graduate school?
Absolutely correct.Good points. You missed hard work which reminds me of the saying that success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.
Courtney is a 'she' not a 'he' who also placed first overall (in other words, beat all the men) in the Moab 240 mile trail race... by 22 miles!
Amazing ultra/endurance runner.
Vince! Courtney is a woman! And a real badass at that. As Murray noted, records fall when Courtney shows up.
You're right. But I'm tired of insults from moderators. They should moderate and keep their opinions to themselves.
I disagree. The moderators have provided lots of high quality information, both technical and otherwise, as well as their opinions on on a variety of topics.
As to the subject study, I found it both valuable and enlightening and would have been good supplemental material in the Professional Practices classes I took at the university a couple years ago. Over the years I’ve read LOTS of academic studies and I found this one neither “flawed” or “deficient in scope.” The authors stated their goals and kept the scope narrow to control the variables. That the “scope” may not have satisfied some readers is just an invitation for those readers to mount their own study. To challenge a study as flawed, it’s really necessary to point out its errors, such as in its data analysis methods, not that the scope was too narrow.
My second one man show was B&W prints from a six month sea kayaking trip on BC's coast, using a 4x5 field camera.
While discussing the shows installation and opening night reception, the museums curator said something like, "This would have been really interesting if you had photographed the people who live on the coast".
The assistant curators eyes widened and her head went back bit as she looked at me (she's a friend from high school) but I replied something like, "Well, that's a moot point" and continued discussing the show as if the curator had never said it.
Opinions are essentially weightless in this world...few things are absolute...being 100% correct is highly improbable.
People shouldn't get their panties bunched up so easily and be prepared to change their opinion when someone offers up contrary information never considered before.
For those needing a bit of a diversion today, here's a short peek into Courtney's brain:
And, on topic, “The similarities between running a marathon and academic research.”
https://azpbs.org/horizon/2021/10/similarities-between-marathons-academic-research/
It seems that the “pain cave” can be visited in both.
Which is fine and dandy if one is documenting time, place, and people. Since I am more interested in working with the light on the landscape, having human elements in the image tends to distract the viewer in a different direction than I want them to go. The viewer will tend to weave stories around the human elements, rather than the light.Some, like myself, purposely avoid having people in a photograph because clothes and hair styles date the photograph.
Some, like myself, purposely avoid having people in a photograph because clothes and hair styles date the photograph.
When I travelled by ferry from Prince Rupert to Skagway, some time in the 1990s, a young couple came on board, with their kayaks and gear, who had just spent their honeymoon kayaking round the Queen Charlotte Islands. Struck me as a wonderful and enviable thing to do. To take a 4x5 camera in such conditions is elevating things to another level!My second one man show was B&W prints from a six month sea kayaking trip on BC's coast, using a 4x5 field camera.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?