Comments on: questionable. http://blog.infomuse.net/2008/04/25/questionable/ on LIS, grad school, academia, and other random things... Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:22:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 By: Kristina Spurgin http://blog.infomuse.net/2008/04/25/questionable/comment-page-1/#comment-1233 Kristina Spurgin Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:47:08 +0000 http://blog.infomuse.net/?p=86#comment-1233 Oh my. The Salton this is simultaneously hilarious and appalling. I hadn't heard of it before. Yep, I've had to do the "Doe's report of Smith's findings..." thing before. It was one of those industry research reports on consumer photography. It wasn't in WorldCat and it cost like $10,000. I wonder how *anyone* got hold of that one... Oh my. The Salton this is simultaneously hilarious and appalling. I hadn’t heard of it before.

Yep, I’ve had to do the “Doe’s report of Smith’s findings…” thing before. It was one of those industry research reports on consumer photography. It wasn’t in WorldCat and it cost like $10,000. I wonder how *anyone* got hold of that one…

]]> By: Jeffrey Pomerantz http://blog.infomuse.net/2008/04/25/questionable/comment-page-1/#comment-1231 Jeffrey Pomerantz Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:22:36 +0000 http://blog.infomuse.net/?p=86#comment-1231 I'd argue that you're right, the thing to do is 2. Anything less potentially ends with this a fiasco like this: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/1697 Of course there are always going to be things you can't get your hands on, because they were published in 1957 in a defunct Polish journal or whatever. When that happens you do 1, but I'd suggest you write something like: "Doe's interpretation of Smith's concept of cyberincentableness blah blah..." Also, no, you can't spend all your time now reading backwards in time. You have the rest of your career for that. I’d argue that you’re right, the thing to do is 2. Anything less potentially ends with this a fiasco like this: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/1697

Of course there are always going to be things you can’t get your hands on, because they were published in 1957 in a defunct Polish journal or whatever. When that happens you do 1, but I’d suggest you write something like: “Doe’s interpretation of Smith’s concept of cyberincentableness blah blah…”

Also, no, you can’t spend all your time now reading backwards in time. You have the rest of your career for that.

]]> By: Kristina Spurgin http://blog.infomuse.net/2008/04/25/questionable/comment-page-1/#comment-1056 Kristina Spurgin Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:23:01 +0000 http://blog.infomuse.net/?p=86#comment-1056 Just to clarify, I no longer typically do "More than 2." That's the part about the lit review teaching me how to be more skillful at telling when to quit. :-) Just to clarify, I no longer typically do “More than 2.” That’s the part about the lit review teaching me how to be more skillful at telling when to quit. :-)

]]> By: Cristóbal Palmer http://blog.infomuse.net/2008/04/25/questionable/comment-page-1/#comment-1055 Cristóbal Palmer Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:33:05 +0000 http://blog.infomuse.net/?p=86#comment-1055 It sounds like what you're doing is something beyond 2. I think 2 is right, but you seem to suggest that you find stuff in the original article and chase further down the rabbit hole. Stop yourself AT 2. Furthermore, you don't have to read the whole article at 2 to assure yourself that the article you started with properly characterized the concept, no? Good luck! It sounds like what you’re doing is something beyond 2. I think 2 is right, but you seem to suggest that you find stuff in the original article and chase further down the rabbit hole. Stop yourself AT 2. Furthermore, you don’t have to read the whole article at 2 to assure yourself that the article you started with properly characterized the concept, no?

Good luck!

]]>