https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/things-could-be-better thumbs its nose at the academic #IMRAD paper, reporting a finding, robust over issues, populations and questioning procedures, that people when asked how something could be different always say how it could be better.
What would have happened if people were asked how a narrow escape from a bad situation, like #Jan6, could have turned out differently?
People might say, Trump could have served an extra term.
Which would be bad (or good), depending on your point of view.
Humor and #iconoclasm are great but invested in helping #non-native-speaking researchers get their work published, I’m supporting IMRAD.
It tells a story too, if an over-formalized and not-exactly-true one.
This essay is not standing up too well.
Trump did serve an extra term, so #Jan6 was not a narrow escape from a bad situation, and the response to the question, How could it have turned out differently, would have been the good (or bad) alternative, as https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/things-could-be-better observed.
Mastroianni rubs me up the wrong way. I bristled reading another of his substack pieces, https://www.experimental-history.com/p/28-slightly-rude-notes-on-writing.
That could be a good sign that he has something important to say about IMRAD. See his views of Peer review
Back to ActionResearch