ORI and Miller Case

In class, we talked about several different cases handled by the ORI. One of them included a researcher who would later be responsible for their own supervision following reprimand.  This is a different case.

While the researcher involved is required to write their own plan for supervision, it must then be approved by the ORI. What I found most interesting was that the researcher would then be supervised by 2-3 researchers at Miller’s home institution who were “familiar with the Respondent’s field of research, but not including the Respondent’s supervisor or collaborators”.  It does not state who is responsible for selecting the committee, but I expect it would be included in the plan for supervision supplied by the researcher involved.

It would be very interesting, to the extent permissible, to here the perspectives of those involved in the supervisor. That cannot be an easy, or comfortable position to be in. In addition, it creates a significant burden for the supervising committee. They would now be (presumably) responsible for following ever step of another person’s research, just to assure honesty. Undoubtedly their own abilities to do research would be undermined.

On Spelling, Literacy, and the (Rapid) Evolution of the English Language

Over the past few weeks, many of the in-class discussions have focused on the evolution of language and the decline of literacy, especially with respect to the rise of text messaging and email. One question that comes to mind is whether “textspeak” actually contributes to a decline in literacy. For example, is it detrimental to spell the word “you” merely as the letter “u”? Spelling is not the same thing as language. Spelling is simply a graphical representation of an idea.

In a language such as English, with notoriously complicated grammar rules, it is important to remember that for every rule there are dozens of exceptions. How did these exceptions become rules? The history of the word “goodbye” comes to mind. This common farewell is a shortening of “God b’w’ye” (different sources provide different spellings), which is itself a contraction of the original phrase “God be with ye.”

As I see it, language serves to convey ideas. The danger arises when students are not able to either express their own, or comprehend others’, ideas through language. If both “u” and “you” are understood to mean the same thing, then nothing is lost. Exchanging one spelling for another does not limit one’s range of expression.

    Of course, it is important to consider one’s audience when writing. It would be foolish to use textspeak in resume writing, but it might be perfectly appropriate to use when contacting a friend. However, with the evolution of both spelling and language, perhaps someday it will be the norm. And that might be ok.