I think that Saxe may systematically scan publications focusing on her area of cognitive study; specifically the Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience journal from Oxford University. I think that Saxe would be especially partial to this journal since she attended Oxford herself. Another example is Social Neuroscience from Psychology Press. Through my research I discovered that much like the History discipline, Neuroscience also publishes compendiums of selected readings that have contributed to the field. The website for Social Neuroscience offers a list of suggested reading- the first suggestion being Social Neuroscience: Key Readings edited by John T. Cacioppo and Gary G. Berntson. (http://www.psypress.com/socialneuroscience/books.asp )
Earlier this week I mentioned that Saxe may reference common magazines for observations of children, but as my research of her area of expertise grows I have realized that her research has encompassed far more than the Popular Science brief mentioned. It seems that research in the field of Social Cognitive Neuroscience has been ongoing for quite some time (as compared to something like nanotechnology I’m sure) so Saxe has a plethora of information to examine, but it would be interesting to know- with the aid of a well –educated scientist- how much of the older research has been disproved.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You brought a good point mentioning that "Saxe would be especially partial to this journal since she attended Oxford herself." My scientist is a professor from Carnegie Mellon, and will often cite papers written by researchers at this university. I suppose it's because he knows first-hand the research and the qualifications of his colleagues through informal discussions and collaboration. I would also think it's much easier to find research at your home university than it is to go digging at other universities and in the databases. According to the Law of Least Effort, we will often look to our home and work environments first for information before venturing out to do further research, simply because it's easier and more convenient. Luckily for our scientists, Oxford and Carnegie Mellon are prestigious universities, and therefore are good choices anyways.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to add that I agree that finding new, innovative information from your own university seems like it would be a lot easier in many cases. Just think of the verbal grapevine you experienced through classmates and professors you have had in undergrad or other programs. One almost has to believe that there is a similar sort of informal information connection / trans-discipline discussion among university faculty too. Plus working at the same university, it would be a lot easier to get hold of official data before or soon after it's published especially if it's a friend's. Also I wonder if it isn't possible that they are encouraged to cite each others work as it will advance both the careers of their friends and the university as a whole.
ReplyDeleteLastly, wouldn't you think researchers would try to publish in journals that their students would have some access to too?
I think when you're in a particular university environment, you have a chance for normal interaction in addition to published literature. At Carnegie Mellon there are ample opportunities to mingle or even attend a more formal talk.
ReplyDelete