Nice Try, Bill, But ... There You Go Again
回应Bill McKelvey的评论，指出其关于参与式学术目的、科学与实践差距、研究者偏见及研究者与从业者关系等四个观点需要修正。
Bill McKelvey's commentary is provocative, but four points need correction. (1) The purpose of engaged scholarship is not just to advance practice but to create scientific knowledge. (2) Bill's food chain metaphor mistakenly views the gap between science and practice as a knowledge transfer problem. (3) Bill ignores the impact of biases of researchers by only focusing on practitioner bias. (4) He considers differing views of researchers and practitioners as antithetical; we view them as complementary.