Nerd bitch
Allow me to be a nerd and bitch about nerdy things for a moment:
I am currently revising a paper I wrote for some research I did in the Computer Science department of UNCC about a year and a half ago. All the experience is teaching me is that there are MAJOR stylistic clashes between APA and whatever the hell style Computer Science uses, with (big surprise here) APA coming out on the "slightly anal" side.
FIRST, the CS WTF style doesn't give as big a shit about references as APA does. In APA, if you're going to hypothesize something, you sure better have several published scientific articles to support it. God forbid you fucking GUESS or RATIONALIZE a hypothesis, God forbid you pull something out of your own brain, or your own observations. CS WTF style, not so much. If you think users are going to perform one way, you say so. Done. ALSO, in CS WTF, authors can say fun things like this: "There has been research on the subject of BLAH [1], [2], [8], [14]." THATS IT. The literature review is tiny, and is mostly spend explaining the computer program. I LOVE IT.
So I need to "support my hypotheses," despite the fact that the experiment was conducted over a year ago and I have my results now. Now that I know which hypotheses were NOT supported by my data, I have to backtrack and find literature to support them. Fun.
Here's hoping I don't need race data. Why? Oh...we don't have them.
Don't even get me STARTED on stats differences. Don't EVEN. Let's just say, I should have been a Computer Science major. Less numbers. Ironic.
I feel better. I'm off to look for more published, scientific articles supporting the notion that reference points aid retrieval time, even though I now know that they DON'T. Whoopie.
I am currently revising a paper I wrote for some research I did in the Computer Science department of UNCC about a year and a half ago. All the experience is teaching me is that there are MAJOR stylistic clashes between APA and whatever the hell style Computer Science uses, with (big surprise here) APA coming out on the "slightly anal" side.
FIRST, the CS WTF style doesn't give as big a shit about references as APA does. In APA, if you're going to hypothesize something, you sure better have several published scientific articles to support it. God forbid you fucking GUESS or RATIONALIZE a hypothesis, God forbid you pull something out of your own brain, or your own observations. CS WTF style, not so much. If you think users are going to perform one way, you say so. Done. ALSO, in CS WTF, authors can say fun things like this: "There has been research on the subject of BLAH [1], [2], [8], [14]." THATS IT. The literature review is tiny, and is mostly spend explaining the computer program. I LOVE IT.
So I need to "support my hypotheses," despite the fact that the experiment was conducted over a year ago and I have my results now. Now that I know which hypotheses were NOT supported by my data, I have to backtrack and find literature to support them. Fun.
Here's hoping I don't need race data. Why? Oh...we don't have them.
Don't even get me STARTED on stats differences. Don't EVEN. Let's just say, I should have been a Computer Science major. Less numbers. Ironic.
I feel better. I'm off to look for more published, scientific articles supporting the notion that reference points aid retrieval time, even though I now know that they DON'T. Whoopie.