<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Marnie, Keith, et al.<div><br><div> I think that the likelihood of tenure review committees deciding to give credit for publications in magazines like Parenting is close to zero. Of course, there is no such thing as bad publicity and no reason not to engage in such outreach, when possible. And there is nothing wrong with setting up blogs and such. But, in the end, we are researchers and so we really ought to treat these issues as researchable topics. Of course, that means we need funding. It seems that the Canadians have figured out how to do this. If you remember, the discussion of Baby Signs last Fall eventually came upon a truly definitive review of the topic from Johnston, Durieux-Smith, & Bloom. If you would like to review that article, the link is <a href="http://www.cllrnet.ca/news/inthenews/104">http://www.cllrnet.ca/news/inthenews/104</a> That article itself didn't get through to Parenting, but it is certainly composed in a way that should allow the message to get through.</div><div> Apparently, this research was sponsored through a Canadian Center of Excellence grant that funded the Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network. Wisely, this center decided to initiate a competition for reviews of this type.</div><div> Clearly such a review and evaluation is now needed on LENA. It could easily come up with results that surprise all of us. In any case, I love this model of the way in which researchers can make a substantive contribution to the understanding of products targeted to parents and still end up with a grant award and a good journal publication. I wonder who could support this type of work in the States.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>--Brian MacWhinney</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; "><a href="http://www.cllrnet.ca/news/inthenews/104">http://www.cllrnet.ca/news/inthenews/104</a></div></div><div><div><div>On Mar 1, 2008, at 1:27 PM, Marnie Arkenberg wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font> <div>On LENA: Basically we all feel there needs to be some kind of dissemination of our research, not just to the scientific community but to the general public as well. As mundane as it may sound, as a paranoid new parent I read information from online parenting sources and parenting magazines--places that are quick and easy to access. It's rare for me to see a name of a researcher from our community, much less something written by us. If we want to make statements to the public about the issues and research we think important for parents to know, we need to be proactive about writing articles suited for that venue. We've set the stage for this not to happen--at last glance, at least at my institution, magazine publications didn't count much towards tenure. We can blame journalists if we want, but we certainly play a role.</div> <div><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~<br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Info-CHILDES" group. <br> To post to this group, send email to info-childes@googlegroups.com <br> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to info-childes-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com <br> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/info-childes?hl=en <br> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---<br>
</body></html><br>