Re: :-)) ; the e-mail format c.f. the conference format
Robin Harwood (HARWOOD who-is-at UConnVM.UConn.Edu)
Sat, 30 Mar 96 17:59:03 EST
Angel, I thought that your remarks regarding pressure at conferences
to "maintain a certain voice quality" were interesting. I think email
has the potential to be more casual, more like conversations that
people actually engage in (filled with misstarts, backtracks, self-
corrections). However, I think many academics (myself included) tend
to become highly invested in the way we express ourselves in writing,
and this can inhibit the free and spontaneous give-and-take of ideas
which email offers. For instance, since Mike's posting I've been
asking myself why I rarely participate in XMCA discussions. The
answer is quite simply: because the sociohistorical perspective is not
my primary area of expertise, I have been reluctant to express in
writing ideas which may be only "half-baked". In fact, the email
format (at least in academic circles) can be far from casual and
conversational, becoming instead an arena where one displays
expertise and scholarly depth--just as at a conference. This is
a thorny issue, inasmuch as much of the material of the scholarly
craft consists of words, and words which are written can feel like
a permanent expression of our craft; there's nothing casual about
that. On the other hand, a more casual or conversational tone
could encourage broader participation as well as make it possible
for people to feel comfortable asking or saying things which others
with more expertise in a given area may view as relatively
unsophisticated. The question is how to foster this...
Robin