Yeah this! It's super weird cause those notes read like the kind of notes I'd take for class or sth - they're essentially just a summary of Stanley's main points. Which is fine if you just want to use them as reading notes, but as notes for a dissertation?? It's just super weird to me cause I don't understand how she plans to use these notes, since they don't seem to contain original insights that relates to Ruby's argument(s). Is she planning to just shove a point-for-point summary of Stanley's theory into her dissertation?to me it just looks like she's rewriting whatever the previous researcher said