[from Joel Judd 930416]
To any and all:
It took seven reviewers and nine months but a paper I submitted to
_Studies in Second Language Acquisition_ was finally given a thumbs
down. I actually almost wrote it twice--the first time there were
very detailed comments from one reviewer which I took to heart and
substantially revised the paper. So we're 0 for 1 in the marketplace.
For those interested, here are some of the criticisms. First, from the
one who suggested the rewrite in the first place:
"Overall, I feel that while this paper has been extensively rewritten,
it still not ready...I say this despite the fact that I believe the
author has taken considerable care to address most of the issues in
my and others' previous reviews of the ms."
From an example of the parameter setting literature, where the
researcher reported tables of %s which obscured individual
performance: "I don't think that anyone really believes that
grouped data really reflects individual behavior...the idea is to
determine if there appears to be evidence of parameter resetting,
not necessarily whether each individual resets his/her parameters."
In the first place, the author of the article (White, 1985 for you
netters into linguistics) DOES discuss individuals. Secondly, I'm
getting tired of this research claim which seems to search for
the behavioral equivalent of some conceptions of God--everywhere
and nowhere--as if behavior somehow occurs independent of any
particular person. This particular researcher's bias appears in
the concluding sentence: "We must be able to account...for why
come people reset parameters and others do not." This, of course,
assumes the functioning of linguistic parameters in the first
place, something which is nowhere near accepted doctrine.
Reviewer Consistency Dept: Reviewer E says "The author develops
arguments (quite well)..." Reviewer F says, "...the reasoning in
the paper is often hard to follow..."
Disturbing Controlled Variables Dept: "I take exception to many
[does this mean some of them are OK?] of the statements
characterizing the general nature of SLAR (2nd language acquisition
research). SLAR has grown into an enourmously complex field,
encompassing a wide variety of theoretical positions and
methodological procedures. It is simply not possible to
characterize it in such very general and simplistic ways as the
author of this paper does. The paper is unpublishable as it stands
for this reason alone."
Ho ho ho. You can be as complex as you want, but it doesn't make
you any more ACCURATE. Sure it's possible to characterize it
simplistically. I did it (excuse my modesty). I don't care how
many theoretical positions you have, if they're based on the
wrong model of behavior, they're not going to explain anything
about individuals.
My Favorite Concession Dept: "I accept the criticisms relating to the
absence od random sampling, but fell the author should display
greater understanding of why RS is not often used. Is is difficult,
if not unethical, to manipulate groups of learners in educational
settings in ways good for research but maybe not good for them.
An[d] so much of SLAR makes use of educational settings."
Yeah, too bad it doesn't LEARN anything from them. OK, you have
my blessing--use non-random samples. It'll be alright, I
understand. It's too hard to use listable populations and sample
quickly enough before the population characteristics change; I'm
simply being unreasonable. Of course, don't even BOTHER to consider
alternatives to sampling-based methods, like the method of specimens.
Give me a break. There--I feel better.
Gravel Switch Press, here I come.
Regards--Joel