Dear xmca-ers,
This morning i realised that every day - let us say - 300 xmca-ers (is that
appr. the number of inactive members, Eva?) are deleting their messages
without responding, including 99,99% of the occasions me. Does this idea
bother me?
No, it does not in the case i can follow the ungoing discussion, unless
information is being exchanged about books, conferencemeetings, work and
researchsituations, meetings with colleagues aboard etc. Like in a (real)
group discussion the 'silent' members can be satisfied, active listeners,
and so am i when i am involved (and sometimes even respond).
But when i can not follow the discussion i get uninterested, thinking 'well
let us hope for better times, just delete'.
When does this happen? When there is too much unnecessary jargon in too
long messages, too little context, too little connection with relevant
'personal stories' , too little variety in the discussion.
I am very willing to consider the fact of my getting uninvolved as a
personal matter, due to restricted interests, difficulty with english
terminology as a dutch native speaker and my reservedness to active
participation. And i must say that in general i find this list very
valuable and informative.
But now the question is being raised of the limited participation i thought
that maybe these considerations are not altogether 'personal'.
I agree with Mary (if i understood you right) that it is worthwile to think
about conditions in which people do _not_ participate. I just wanted to let
you know under what conditions i 'drop out'.
Anna
Mary Bryson wrote
>when folks hear "communities of practice" and "conditions for
participation" they
>seem to forget about conditions for non-participation, the DE-legitimated
>peripheral practioners.
=================================================================
Anna Strumphler, e-mail: W.deVries@net.HCC.nl
Amsteldijk 28 tel.: (31)20-6719906
1074 HT Amsterdam
The Netherlands
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:03 PST