[Maths-Education] Being outdated

[maths-education@nottingham.ac.uk]

Plunkett (1979) - this dated article adds weight to an argument!
>***********************************************************************
************************************
>This message has been generated through the Mathematics Education=20
email discussion list.
>Hitting the REPLY key sends a message to all list members.
>***********************************************************************
************************************
>I would like to hear people's views about what constitutes datedness=20
in=20
>research.  I have just been shown a review of someone else's paper in=20
which=20
>citations from 1999 are criticised for being 'out of date' for no=20
other=20
>reason than they are 'not recent'.
>
>Do we really believe that, as a field of academic study, we are=20
creating=20
>new knowledge so rapidly that citations from 1999 are necessarily out=20
of=20
>date????  What I suspect is happening is that there is pressure to=20
cite the=20
>most recent person who said something, rather than someone who said=20
the=20
>same thing a few years before.  Unless the more recent citation is=20
>research-based and contains something new, rather than something old=20
but in=20
>a new context, I cannot see why people should not refer to older=20
sources.
>
>On one level, there is little new in our literature anyway, we just re-
run=20
>and re-run ancient arguments about the nature of the individual,=20
society,=20
>knowledge, truth and so on using different words, different points of=20
view=20
>perhaps.    In trying to identify what might be genuinely new, rather=20
than=20
>newly-described, I think work which focuses on certain groups (girls,=20
boys,=20
>ethnic groups etc.) and what might be common or different about their=20
>experience is useful, but even that has some central work which is=20
older=20
>than 1999.
>
>I would be interested to know what pre-1999 references people find=20
central=20
>to their work and would be annoyed to give up on the whim of a=20
reviewer=20
>with the chronological sensitivity of a mature goldfish.
>
>My current sensible vote is for Boaler 1997, but I could also suggest=20
>Dewey, Bruner, Hume, Vico, Aristotle.....
>
>And what is genuinely new?  Let's argue.
>
>Anne W.
>
>
>
>*****************************************************************
>
>
>Dr Anne Watson
>Tutor for Admissions and Fellow of Linacre College
>Lecturer in Mathematics Education,
>Department of Educational Studies,
>University of Oxford
>15 Norham Gardens
>Oxford OX2 6PY
>
>phone:	44-(0)1865-274052
>fax:		44-(0)1865-274027
>
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>An international directory of mathematics educators is available on=20
the web at www.nottingham.ac.uk/csme/directory/main.html
>______________________________________________
>Maths-Education mailing list
>Maths-Education@nottingham.ac.uk
>http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/maths-education
>
>