Photo: Squirrel in the Bergdorf Goodman Shoes window; © Katie Hinde, by permission.
Today is Scientist Sees Squirrel’s fourth birthday. When I pounded out my first post, I had no real concept of what I was doing. I’m a little surprised and a little bemused that after four years, I’m still pounding out posts. (It remains true that I have no real concept of what I’m doing, but at least I’ve established that I enjoy doing it.) Along the way, I appear to have written over 300 posts – and nobody can be more surprised by that than I am.
Occasions like this sometimes get celebrated with greatest-hits lists, but that would be boring. It’s tempting to do a greatest-duds list instead (starting with this one), but why would I inflict that on you? So, for some middle ground: five posts that I think were actually pretty good – but that you probably didn’t read, because almost nobody did. I’ve written about my most undercited paper; I guess these are some of my most underread blog posts. Perhaps you’ll enjoy making the acquaintance of a piece you missed the first time around. Continue reading
Photo: Eurasian red squirrel © Peter Trimming CC BY-SA 2.0
Today, Scientist Sees Squirrel is three years old. This is somewhat startling to me, as is the fact that I’ve written about 240 posts on the blog. In honour of this blogoversary, I went back and re-read my very first post: Does an academic need an attention span? I was relieved to discover that, while it’s a little clunky, it doesn’t hold up too badly. Continue reading
Image: arguing Northern Mockingbird (© Chiltepinster CC BY-SA 3.0). I’m the one on the left. And also the one on the right.
It was bound to happen sooner or later. I’ve written about 240 posts for Scientist Sees Squirrel, and the other day I busted myself: I discovered that I’ve written two contradictory ones. They’re both about originality (and yes, I can smell the irony in having written two posts on originality). The first one (“We praise originality, but we don’t value it”) argued that we undervalue originality in research. The second (“Originality is over-rated – even by me”) argued that we overrate originality in research. Nice job, Heard.
Now, I’ve re-read both posts carefully*, and I can just barely build an argument that they’re not quite as contradictory as that. Continue reading
Warning: mostly navel-gazing, albeit with some thoughts about SciComm and the openness of science.
I didn’t know much about the blogosphere before Scientist Sees Squirrel was born. Turns out maybe I still don’t, since I’m asking the rather obvious question in the title of this post.
So is Scientist Sees Squirrel a “science blog”? Well, it’s about science (inasmuch as it’s about anything), so in that sense, surely the answer should be “yes”. But I’ve just read Science Blogging: The Essential Guide, and according to that book, the answer is pretty clearly “no”. This surprised me a little, but it also crystallized something I’d been wondering rather vaguely about anyway: what is, and what should be, my audience here? Continue reading