Talk:Female scientist: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen ({{subpages}}) |
imported>Chris Day No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
While this also fits sociology, it's a very good argument for a General Science sub/supergroup. For that matter, this discussion is just as relevant to Engineering as to Science. Does it make sense to slightly pervert the Subgroup mechanism do create an "interdisciplinary" or other subgroup containing all the science and engineering workgroups? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 15:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC) | While this also fits sociology, it's a very good argument for a General Science sub/supergroup. For that matter, this discussion is just as relevant to Engineering as to Science. Does it make sense to slightly pervert the Subgroup mechanism do create an "interdisciplinary" or other subgroup containing all the science and engineering workgroups? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 15:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Subgroups were always intended to [[CZ:Subgroups#Rationale|encourage interdisciplinary interaction]] between workgroups. I guess the name is a bit of a misnomer. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 15:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:33, 5 March 2010
Becoming a scientist does require at least one X chromosome. :-)
While this also fits sociology, it's a very good argument for a General Science sub/supergroup. For that matter, this discussion is just as relevant to Engineering as to Science. Does it make sense to slightly pervert the Subgroup mechanism do create an "interdisciplinary" or other subgroup containing all the science and engineering workgroups? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Subgroups were always intended to encourage interdisciplinary interaction between workgroups. I guess the name is a bit of a misnomer. Chris Day 15:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)