[Xmca-l] Re: Signing up for the LSV-MAKH discussion, version 2

[Walker, Dana]

I guess I will need to recuse myself.  I was hoping to learn from this conversation, but that does not appear to be the purpose of this new sub-group.  
Dana Walker

On 4/23/18, 1:09 PM, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole" <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

    Hi Kim, you are now signed in I see.
    
    All -- Seems like time to close the doors to group. If someone important is
    missing, please get them to sign up soon because it seems time to move from
    gathering an interested group to converting to a working group to produce a
    memorable academic
    result.
    
    To this end,  I have exchanged notes with a couple of the people on the
    list (Natalia and Anna) who are invested in the topic, but unable to shift
    priorities to engage. They will be leaving the list so that we do not slip
    in to the "big audience is listening in" situation of xmca. I would
    appreciate it if others in the same circumstances would also recuse
    themselves, so to speak, for the time being. I promised to report back to
    xmca with the results of our efforts when we actually have some to report
    (!).
    
    In this regard, in response to Peter's and Greg's notes. I hope it is clear
    that I am not
    seeking a "one right answer" here. Stone soups mix a lot of flavors from
    their varied
    ingredients. I believe our biggest service here is to make clear where
    there are complementarities, where, as Peter puts it, there are
    irreconcilable differences, and how to be clear about the underlying
    paradigmatic differences that convert misunderstandings into irreconcilable
    differences.
    
    What are the differences that make a difference? \
    What are the similarities that draw some people to believe in
    complementarity?
    What difference do the differences make in practice?
    
    It is this last question that seems to be crucial in a special issue. If we
    remain at the level of general theory without showing how the theoretical
    differences make a difference in our practice -- and what differences those
    practices mak-- who cares?
    What should young scholars entering the field know so that their practices
    are more
    effective (by what criteria)? Are their theoretical commitments put at risk
    by their
    practices?
    
    I am seeing A LOT of articles now that throw around various terms as an
    interpretive frame for results in hand, but where theory is not guiding
    practice at all, and there is no evidence of self-critical next steps to
    see if the interpretive frame is more than one of many possible post-hoc
    explanations.
    
    I do not know about you-all, but I feel a keen need to read and get
    straight the
    documents that we have gathered. If you are missing something, check out the
    archive of emails where they appear as attachments. We will try to gather
    them up at this end, but our volunteer fire department is being kept busy
    by my ineptness
    as getting the various email procedures straight.
    
    Over to those we have not heard from yet.
    I will follow up with David on the "rotation"/ingrowing/internalization
    problem, having added Martin's objection to internalization to my reading
    list.
    
    mike
    
    On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Kim Anh Dang <dangthikimanh@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    
    > Hi Mike,
    >
    > Is this too late to sign up for this? Sorry I have not found the original
    > email about the process to sign up for this discussion.
    >
    > If it is not too late, could I join please?
    >
    > Thanks very much.
    >
    > Kind regards,
    >
    > Kim
    >
    > Sent from my iPhone
    >
    > > On 19 Apr 2018, at 1:30 pm, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
    > >
    > > Maybe people do not understand the confirmation delay?
    > > Try that out on them and lets see how it goes.
    > >
    > > Archive or articles url??
    > >
    > > sorry for the extra hassle
    > > mike
    > >
    > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:57 PM, Bruce Jones <bjones@ucsd.edu> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> I removed the confirmation requirement for subscriptions to the LSV-MAKH
    > >> mailinglist.
    > >>
    > >> All that's current required is my approval, which I will apply on a
    > daily
    > >> basis for the near future.
    > >>
    > >> This should help.
    > >>
    > >> Please refer any problems to me rather than the xmca list.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Bruce Jones
    > >> Sys Admin, LCHC
    > >> bjones@ucsd.edu
    > >> 619-823-8281
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >>
    >
    >
    **This message originated from outside UNC. Please use caution when opening attachments or following links. Do not enter your UNC credentials when prompted by external links.**