[Xmca-l] [#Listserve Issues] - Suggestions for Changing Practices at XMCA

[Greg Thompson]

If I may naysay just a bit (Mike knows I can be an insufferable naysayer!),
I suspect that the greatest problem with the list is how successful it has
been. Over the past 20 years, the list, as well as the interest in
Vygotsky, CHAT, SCT, etc, has hugely expanded. The interests of XMCA-ites
include: first language learning, second language learning, language in the
classroom, literacy, diversity issues, culture and education, workplace
learning and activity, organizing (both community AND labor), philosophy,
and that's not to mention the split between those new to Vygotsky vs. those
who have been around for longer. That introduces a dizzying diversity of
interests.

My sense is that this great diversity, while an asset in so many ways,
makes it difficult to find the common ground necessary to engage in this
particular type of activity and make for the kind of shared motive that can
smoothly propel us forward together (we are certainly moving forward, but
in fits and starts and in a manner that seems alienating to the many while
barely sustaining for the few). This lack of common ground means that posts
often have to be very long in order to establish the necessary common
ground. And I agree with Helena that this is a big problem. But I think the
problem stems from a lack of common ground and the constant need to
establish one's bases for even asking a question in the first place.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?
In light of this concern, I wonder if there might be some way to divide up
the list into subgroups so that people with already established common
ground can work together without having to explain the basic assumptions of
their area of interest. Some options come to mind;

1.    Break the listserve up into multiple listserves. This would
streamline things but it would also mean that there wouldn't be as much
cross-talk between people working in different areas.

2.   Alternatively, we could say that at the beginning of the subject line
the poster should indicate the subset of concerns that are addressed in the
post as I have done in this email, using the sub-topic "Listserve Issues".
Two ways to do this:

2a. Provide a list of possible topics to always indicate first in the
subject line. We could collectively "police" this by asking/reminding
posters to indicate the sub-topic in their heading (as I have done here,
with the subtopic marked with a hashtag since it seems like those are cool
these days - and no, I'm not a tweeter).

2b. Let the categories emerge organically as people make them up as they go
along. (this can get messy quickly).

I'm partial to 2a, but can see the sense in 2b. (and I'm not much of a fan
of option 1).

2a or 2b would allow the group to continue with its large size and provide
individuals with the choice to focus on certain topics while ignoring
others (and more groups would also provide more people with the opportunity
to participate). The hope would be that small communities within
communities would form that would be more focused and directed while at the
same time maintaining the community as a whole as a kind of meta-community.

My two cents.
greg



On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:

> Hi Mike, et al,
>
> I believe for all these cases (of transgressing time-honored conventions),
> this will be taken care of by having a newcomer's page! I am sure of this!
> It was something I proposed upon joining. :)
>
> Might I also add that I too have a lot of sympathy for Bruce's comment:
>
> "I have myself considered leaving but stayed because I value the project
> and get something from xmca, though I feel that has diminished over time."
>
> Though I cannot say that I feel that it has diminished over time, because
> I am a newcomer! :) (Though maybe having an Old-Timer's page is also
> required!) I cannot really say what the list _is_ or what it _should be_, I
> can only offer what I'd like to see it be and hope people share my same
> desires. If people are against that, I'm sure I'll learn about it right
> quick, or maybe I'll learn from a boomerang hitting me backside the head. :)
>
> I would kindly offer that it may be difficult for people to indicate what
> they are willing to contribute without having an idea what kind of help is
> needed. With this in mind, I'd like to suggest perhaps coming up with A
> List of Ideals (aka Final Forms), of what we would like the list to become
> (since it is always going to be an unfinished project), and use Our Ideals
> as a constellation to guide us (Perhaps we can make a page called Our North
> Star where this list is maintained).
>
> >From these agreed-upon ideals, we might generate a scratchpad list of
> actions, written in a brainstormy way for people to offer up loose projects
> that might create more value and interest (based upon Our North Star). Of
> course this might be _the opportunity_ for dusting off old ideas for old
> projects people have left to collect dust in their closets.
>
> In keeping with the season, these snowflakey-projects will thus start to
> coalesce into balls!
>
> As these snowy balls start to snowball, it seems that these projects might
> generate BOF's (birds of a feather), and people will flock (and I mean
> flock like crows!) to where their interests reside. These BOFs can start to
> make their own snowstructures accordingly (igloos, snowmen, or snowball
> fights, take your pick), breaking down said project into tasks, and tasks
> into actions among each other, zoped-sledding it as they go!
>
> How's that for a strategy broken down into tactical maneuverings?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Annalisa
>



-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson