Scholarlink

<p>Since its online publication on 16 January 2025, <i>Scapegoating international students for the rental crisis? Insights from large-scale evidence (2017–2024) in Australia</i> has attracted significant attention and sparked widespread discussion. Among the responses is Kault’s critique, <i>Erroneous regression used to associate higher international student numbers with lower rents</i>. As our publication continues to generate impact, Kault’s critique is a welcome contribution, opening an intellectual avenue for scholarly debate, and providing an opportunity for us to reiterate viewpoints already made in the original publication and to offer necessary clarifications and further elaborations. In this response, we begin by recapitulating our study, followed by a summary of Kault’s critique and the assumptions embedded in its allegations. We then address Kault’s methodological challenges while drawing insights from established theses and existing studies to inform our rebuttal. We conclude by inviting the use of the reflexive tool of <i>viewpoint</i>, which enables critical and productive engagement with competing evidence and contrasting perspectives.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Rethinking “counterintuitive” results and analogical reasoning: a rejoinder to the critique of “erroneous regression”

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月11日

查看全文
  • Guanglun Michael Mu,
  • Hannah Soong

摘要

Since its online publication on 16 January 2025, Scapegoating international students for the rental crisis? Insights from large-scale evidence (2017–2024) in Australia has attracted significant attention and sparked widespread discussion. Among the responses is Kault’s critique, Erroneous regression used to associate higher international student numbers with lower rents. As our publication continues to generate impact, Kault’s critique is a welcome contribution, opening an intellectual avenue for scholarly debate, and providing an opportunity for us to reiterate viewpoints already made in the original publication and to offer necessary clarifications and further elaborations. In this response, we begin by recapitulating our study, followed by a summary of Kault’s critique and the assumptions embedded in its allegations. We then address Kault’s methodological challenges while drawing insights from established theses and existing studies to inform our rebuttal. We conclude by inviting the use of the reflexive tool of viewpoint, which enables critical and productive engagement with competing evidence and contrasting perspectives.