[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [xmca] Mentoring in research/writing Surprising Result So far

Well said, Mike.


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 8:43 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Mentoring in research/writing Surprising Result So far

In all of this discussion, I would like to second an idea that David Ki
made: In controversies over the interpretation of David's texts by reviewers
and editorial practices, we ought not to loose track of David Kellog's
project, which is to seek an understanding of Vygotsky's thought that can be
constructed from careful reading of the texts in their chronological order
of writing (in so far as that can be discerned). He is working from
different texts, different life experiences, different current social
circumstances than those who have undertaken such investigations before. He
is doing what Tony's quote from Barthes urges upon us: the constant
necessity to re-read our prior interpretations in the hopes that subsequent
understandings are more adequate to our circumstances.

David claimed himself with respect to the nascent mentoring program (I am
hearing birth pains) to be a junior. He has more than one
mentor/interlocutor on XMCA including David Ki, Martin, and myself. Our
participation does not mean that we agree with all that David writes, or
(speaking personally) always understand what he is writing (the range of
reference is broad, patience for reading transcript wanting).

Lets grow the discourse to enable the creation of development-enhancing
conditions for human development. We think culture is some how involved.

The contradictions that produce public displays of feelings I believe is a
part of
what goes into creating a community. If participation is not self enriching
and at the same time nurishing of the medium of this experience, then we
should all do something else with our time.

mike

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:09 PM, <cconnery@ithaca.edu> wrote:

> Good evening:
> The conversation about the function and quality of reviews is of interest.
> As a recent reviewer of a seriously flawed submission to MCA, I found Andy's
> response to the prospective writer to be useful, generative, and ethical. It
> seemed to me that his letter explaining the need for revisions was honest
> and professional.
>
> This experience paled dramatically to previous rejections I have witnessed
> and experienced myself. In contrast, I found the new format to be a very
> positive reflection on MCA. Hopefully, this practice will continue and be
> applied to all authors in a continued spirit of respect and commitment to
> our collective efforts.
>
> Best wishes,
> Cathrene
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 19:24:33 -0500
> >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu (on behalf of Jorge Fernando
> Larreamendy Joerns  <jlarream@uniandes.edu.co>)
> >Subject: Re: [xmca] Mentoring in research/writing Surprising Result So far
> >To: ablunden@mira.net,"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >
> >I tend to agree, also, with Martin. It is difficult to find talented
> reviewers, in part because reviewing is a genre that is constructed
> precisely when reviewers are called upon to do their job, many times without
> prior mentoring as to what a useful, respectful review should look like. On
> the other hand, if rejections are hard for the authors (at times, even a
> revise and resubmit can be hard also), they are also a critical decision for
> the editor, particularly when the manuscript at hand has what I would call
> local merits, that is, when it raises good points but as a whole may not
> come to a good end. I personally prefer also more than one reviewer, but
> even so not always it is possible to get two sensible reviews (the
> distinction between reviewers and reviews comes in handy). Like Andy, I
> thank all of you who have collaborated in the reviewing process with no
> other incentive than making the journal a good scenario for scholarly
> communication and action.
> >
> >Jorge
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns, Ph.D.
> >Profesor Asociado y Director
> >Departamento de Psicología
> >Universidad de los Andes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On May 24, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you for all that Martin and in this instance I am in 100%
> agreement with you. :) I am a little upset because I know that there are
> about 3 times as many dedicated, anonymous, unthanked MCA reviewers for
> every MCA aspiring author. My experience over the past 6 months as a
> co-editor has been that our reviewers, very many of whom are on this list
> and are reading these messages, take their reviewing work extremely
> seriously and do a really fine job, and generally authors of rejected
> manuscripts sincerely thank their reviewers for their helpful advice.
> >>
> >> That said, all rejections are hard, and I have had some doozies myself,
> believe me. One or two almost made me suicidal. But I don't want busy
> reviewes, mostly with their own research staff and departments to deal with,
> to start turning away from reviewing in MCA because of fear of criticism.
> Reviewers, you are immensely valued and I publicly thank you for your work.
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >> Martin Packer wrote:
> >>> David Kellogg - in his recent message and in the one dated June 2010
> that David Kirshner links to - has raised some important issues, and I'd
> like to reply as one of the new troika of editors of MCA (along with Jorge
> Larreamendy and Andy Blunden), not about the specifics of the review of
> David's manuscript but on the general topic of the reviewing process in a
> journal such as MCA. I am a new editor for MCA, but for the past eight years
> or so I have been an editor (one of three there too) of the Taylor & Francis
> journal Qualitative Research in Psychology. Over that time I've not become a
> perfect editor, by any means, but I've figured out what seems to me a
> workable approach to the responsibilities of editorial tasks.
> >>>
> >>> David suggests that if a manuscript is sent out for review this
> indicates that the editor has decided that it is "at least potentially
> valuable," and he continues "What that means is that I will NEVER give that
> article the rating 'Do not resubmit.'" My view is a little different. There
> are some manuscripts that as editor I reject without sending them for
> review. There are others where, because I think there is potential but that
> reviewers would be harsh on the manuscript in its current form, I invite the
> author to make revisions (I spell them out) and resubmit, and I only then
> send the manuscript out to reviewers. These seem to me to be appropriate
> decisions for an editor to make single-handedly (or at times in consultation
> with the other editors). But there are manuscripts I send for review because
> it is not clear to me whether they are publishable or not. I often need the
> reviewers' expertise in order to decide whether or not a manuscript has a
> sound argument, or cites the appropriate literature, and so on. In such
> case, reviewers may well recommend that the manuscript be rejected. The
> final decision is mine, of course, but without the reviewers' evaluation it
> would be difficult or even impossible for me to make.
> >>>
> >>> David also raises the issue of the number of reviews that are
> considered necessary. My experience is that it is getting increasingly
> difficult to find people willing to review manuscripts (probably because
> more and more journals are asking), and that at the same time authors are
> increasingly expecting a rapid decision on their manuscript. As a
> consequence of these twin pressures I do make decisions on the basis of a
> single review, though I prefer to obtain more, if it is sufficiently clear
> from that review, and from my own evaluation, what the strengths and flaws
> of the manuscript are.
> >>>
> >>> David Kirshner asks whether MCA invites collaborative reviews. In the
> past, with QRP, I have at times invited a reviewer to collaborate with one
> of their students, or to ask a student to write a separate review. (I think
> I copied this from Barbara Rogoff's practice when she was editing Human
> Development.) I found that often the student review was the better -
> clearer, more detailed, more informed. MCA doesn't have a policy one way or
> the other, but we are quite open to this kind of approach.
> >>>
> >>> On the citation 'policy,' if that's what one should call it, my
> understanding of this may be different from others, but I ran into it when
> submitting a manuscript that was published in MCA a few years ago.
> Wolff-Michael Roth asked me to change the way some citations ran, and as I
> understood it (I was a bit slow; it took me a while!) the point was that one
> should build an argument on evidence and logic rather than on appeals to
> authority. I was reminded of what Jean Lave once told me about the
> interdisciplinary departments at UC Irvine - an informal norm developed that
> one couldn't cite an authority (Levi-Brulh, let's say) unless one could also
> rehearse that person's argument on the topic under discussion.
> >>>
> >>> Consider this example:  "Parker (2007), in arguing that depression is
> over-diagnosed, stated that the reliability of the DSM criteria for
> depression and the threshold for reaching a diagnosis of depression are low,
> and, consequently, normal emotional states are diagnosed as clinical
> depression."
> >>> Put this way, the emphasis seems to be on Parker, with the implication
> that he or she is an authority we should pay attention to. Most probably,
> however, the point the author intends to emphasize is that an argument can
> be made that depression is over-diagnosed because the DSM has a low
> threshold. if so, the sentence would be better worded something like this:
> >>> "The DSM criteria set a threshold for the diagnosis of depression that
> is arguably low and has poor validity (Parker, 2007). Consequently, normal
> emotional states are diagnosed as clinical depression."
> >>> Finally (and I have just read Huw Lloyd's message) reviewing is indeed
> a demanding task, and the quality of reviews varies widely. David is surely
> correct that a review should ideally not contain uncivil language. I can
> still recall a review I received as a new PhD which included the phrase:
> "This is the kind of work that gives qualitative research a bad name!" I
> think it is unavoidable that we academics get hot under the collar, and
> another thing an editor has to do is not take such statements at face value,
> make sense of the debates and conflicts within and between research areas,
> and reach a decision that takes such factors into account. Sometimes the
> manuscript one wants to publish is the one that stirs up controversy.
> >>>
> >>> That's my two cents, at least. Jorge and Andy may differ in some of the
> details. I will be happy to discuss the matter further; xmca is the owner of
> MCA; its editors are just its caretakers for a while.
> >>>
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >>> __________________________________________
> >>> _____
> >>> xmca mailing list
> >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> *Andy Blunden*
> >> Joint Editor MCA:
> http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
> >> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> >> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> >> MIA: http://www.marxists.org
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________________
> >> _____
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >__________________________________________
> >_____
> >xmca mailing list
> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca