Hi David--
Sounds like that you may not want to have any theme at all. It is
understandable. Your reasoning makes sense for me. Having no year theme is
an option for the sig. There is an option on the sig voting booth that fits
your idea. I encourage you to vote in order your opinion to be counted and
heard.
Thanks for sharing your views,
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David H Kirshner [mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 3:03 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: re-sending
>
>
>
> Hello Eugene, et al.,
> I appreciate the CH-sig and all of the work you are doing on its (our)
> behalf. I've been to the site and looked over the ballot choices for an
> AERA focus. Of course some of them appeal to me more than others, yet I
> haven't voted. The reason is because I'm not quite sure what it means to
> have a SIG focus for the AERA meeting. Perhaps it means different
> things to
> different people? One possible meaning is that scholars are presumed to
> have general interests which they can direct toward different themes. In
> this interpretation, a theme doesn't serve to delimit the participants at
> the conference, only the nature of the presentations -- rather like a pot
> luck dinner in which, say, Chinese is identified as the theme for
> contributions. In this case, there is not exclusionary cost offsetting the
> advantages of thematically related presentations. But if the
> presumption is
> that scholars have definite foci to their work, and that a theme in one
> person's favor excludes another, then it seems to me there is a cost to
> achieving thematic harmony. It's entirely possible that I missed the note
> in which these trade-offs were discussed--I'm not that thorough a
> reader of
> the list mail. But without a sense of consensus around the trade-offs, I'm
> reluctant to do something that might result in someone's work not
> achieving
> the audience it otherwise might achieve. As I think about it, of course
> there are other levels of organization (e.g., Divisions) to which
> one might
> submit if the SIG focus doesn't mesh with one's interests, so maybe I need
> to rethink my cautiousness here. In any case, I wanted to let you
> know that
> at least some of the people "out here" in cyberspace who haven't voted are
> nevertheless involved with the SIG and appreciative of those who maintain
> and develop it.
> Regards.
> David Kirshner
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Cole <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu> on 06/24/2001 10:47:29 AM
>
> Please respond to xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> cc: (bcc: David H Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU)
>
> Subject: re-sending
>
>
>
> I tried sending a note to xmca from a jury-rigged account and it
> bounced, so I am re-trying.
>
> I went to the CHAT-sig AERA polling booth and found several interestng
> themes proposed. Also noted that relatively few people had voted. I
> wrote my note in the context of voicing and exiting and resistence,
> since here was a fine chance for people to shape the next general
> occasion for face to face discussion but few were voting on what to talk
> about and there is even an explicit choice for resisting!
>
> In light of the turn toward discussion of learning and development today,
> the fact that a discussion of learning is the lead candidate struck me
> as relevant I am reminded to support Eugene's efforts to give people
> a voice and agency. Go to the sig site and vote! Or you may be elected
> sig president in your absence and then think of all the work you will have
> to do!
> :-)
> mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 01 2001 - 01:01:39 PDT