Spread the love

Apa citing a dissertation , of course, the authors should be respected and encouraged. When a scientist-developer comes up with a new technique or even a psychological-pedagogical method that facilitates the solution of some practical or research tasks, he expects remuneration (not only moral, but also material). True, if this is a truly keen researcher, then the main reward for him should not be “fees”, but a feeling of creativity, or at least recognition and gratitude of colleagues. At the same time, a development scientist should know that far from always truly valuable ideas and methods immediately become recognized (and well paid).
Therefore, a real scientist should be ready for a certain non-recognition or, as they sometimes say, be ready to work “for thanks”, to write something “on the table”. In the conditions of market science, this is quite difficult to do, especially since the idea of ​​copyright is now very popular among development scientists, who love telling each other stories (and sometimes real stories), as some of their colleagues managed to make great money on their developments. At the same time, they often admire not the real scientific or practical value of these developments, but the ability of the author to “profitably sell himself”.
The idea of ​​copyright has many variants of its perversion. One of the most common variants of perversion is when the author, who really invented something, then makes all of his strength and talents in order to sell his development as expensive as possible. He is looking for buyers, bargaining, often overpriced, and all this is quite difficult to do in an environment where the market for psychological services and development is clearly oversaturated. As a result, instead of continuing the scientific search, the author turns into a “merchant”. Of course, we can say that in this way the author seeks to bring his developments to practice and to the consumer, but, in our opinion, this is self-justification and self-deception. After the first failures of the “profitable sale of one’s creativity”, would it not have been better to do something else, and simply hand over our achievements to those who really need them. Someone may be indignant here, this is wrong, each work should be adequately paid, etc. But we believe that the real artist’s best reward will be not so much a “fee” as a feeling of the usefulness of his work for clients or for his fellow researchers apa citing a dissertation.