Thanks much for the helpful reply, Robin. To echo Stephen Black's point, I still think there's a widespread perception out there that Ig Nobels are awarded to the authors of research that is either silly or of patently poor quality, and that's certainly how I've seen them portrayed in the popular press (as Stephen notes, at least some of this perception probably derives from the name). I wonder whether it might be best to stick with a "cleaner" definition for such awards (largely because most of the silly recipients frankly aren't terribly thought-provoking, only silly), although perhaps my view is a minority one......Scott
It's a spinoff of the Journal of Irreproducible Results, which had as its stated subject material "research which could not or should not be replicated" (or words to that effect).
--
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mnsu.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
