And I'm not sure that women (and I hate making generalisations like this) buy into that kind of stuff
I hate it when generalisations like that are made, because it detracts from what you are actually saying. :) I am going to show you that it is the nature of the way the question is asked, and not the question itself, that determines whether the person is showing off.
Assume a scientist has discovered created a new species of apple, and has just given a talk on it, but she was a bit unclear about how to grow the new variety. Here are two ways to clarify the latest research in apple growing:
1: "I recently read about Spitzer's new technique for partial-underground growing. Do you think you can incorporate this technique in your work?"
2: "Your technique is outdated. Nobody uses the soil-root technique for apple growing any more. As you are aware from Spitzer's 2005 paper 'A new technique apple afficiandos', the semi-terranean technique offers the same advantages with none of the traditional drawbacks. Spitzer has been working on this technique for ten years, building on work by my team. Why the duplication of effort?"
Both of these ask the same question, more or less, but one is far humbler than the other. Importantly, both of them require some "showing off", ie, knowledge of Spitzer (05). That's not patriarchal: that's just research.
I hate it when generalisations like that are made, because it detracts from what you are actually saying. :) I am going to show you that it is the nature of the way the question is asked, and not the question itself, that determines whether the person is showing off.
Assume a scientist has discovered created a new species of apple, and has just given a talk on it, but she was a bit unclear about how to grow the new variety. Here are two ways to clarify the latest research in apple growing:
1: "I recently read about Spitzer's new technique for partial-underground growing. Do you think you can incorporate this technique in your work?"
2: "Your technique is outdated. Nobody uses the soil-root technique for apple growing any more. As you are aware from Spitzer's 2005 paper 'A new technique apple afficiandos', the semi-terranean technique offers the same advantages with none of the traditional drawbacks. Spitzer has been working on this technique for ten years, building on work by my team. Why the duplication of effort?"
Both of these ask the same question, more or less, but one is far humbler than the other. Importantly, both of them require some "showing off", ie, knowledge of Spitzer (05). That's not patriarchal: that's just research.
Reply
Leave a comment