I had an appointment with my supervisor today. Someone who has no idea about the research I'm writing about and a way too strong attraction to lay person-like vague statements, like "Oh, they Germans are so punctual, it's just in their mentality to love order and neatness".
Virtually all the literature I am using I found myself; to be fair, she did recommend a book to me once. She said it would suffice for the theoretical part...
Now the papers I have found, based on sound qualitative and quantitative methods with straightforward statistical measurements and conclusions, - now she basically wants me to give it all up. Well, don't give the details of the experiments - just include the results.
But isn't it the methods, the nuances in the set-up what research is pretty much all about?
No, this way it looks like pop sci, she said. It is not the proper scholarly way to write.
I am failing to see how providing details about the studies one is citing makes the paper less scholarly. For me it's just the other way round: it's not the details but lack thereof which turns a paper into endless looping philosophizing.
"The people that stayed back the facts" - This is a reality check on the current state of ASR algorithms. I took the 950-word passage by Scottie Nell Hughes discussed in yesterday's post (""), and ...
52 minutes ago