In response to Jay LemkeUs encouraging comments----
I would like to keep the issues raised by Mary and Suzanne concerning not
only technology and gender, but discussing dominant cultural norms that are
difficult to see.
I am new to this list and have not contributed much to any discussion and
would like to explore with this group why. I have read postings that I felt I
could respond to, but only did mentally. There are two reasons that I could
come up with on my own. One is that I have not yet developed a sense of the
community that the xmca list represents. Before I know _how_ to voice my
ideas I need to understand my audience and have some expectations concerning
the types of response I could get and how to interpret them. Are they
concerned about me as a person? Are they idealists? Do they wish to help me
understand the Truth? Are they interested in constructing a truth we both can
discuss? Do they voice the marginal concerns that I have trouble seeing? The
better I understand who I communicate with, the better I can both tailor my
contributions and interpret the information I receive. I am taking a risk
here in speaking to a faceless group of as yet unknown people. Maybe one of
the benefits of e-mail technology is in giving me the courage to speak where
the risk of rejection is high.
The other reason I see is that this group has a history/context/language that
I do not share. I have a friend that has shared bits and pieces with me over
the past couple of years and I know that gender issues exploded painfully at
one point. I havenUt developed the ease of use of the vocabulary that most of
the postings reflect. I can only speak in my own words and would not sound as
learned and authoritarian as most of what I have read. If the intention of
this group is to encourage new, diverse voices, then I will tell you that
this is a problem. If the intention of this group is to evolve as a
close-knit community of people who continually draw on past shared
experience, then I will have to decide if itUs worth the effort to work my
way into the circle, remain content observing from outside, or leave and find
another, more rewarding list-serve to participate in. If the group does not
have one common, manifest intention regarding this issue of participation
(which I suspect is the case) perhaps it would be worth discussing.
As an addendum, I am female and quite comfortable with computers and some
technologies, but not with others. Mary and SuzanneUs article spoke to me in
a personal voice which is why I refer to them by their first names. It is not
often the case that published research articles are so intimate and I am
aware that this is often looked on as inferior science which should be
impersonal and objective. I also believe that this is because the dominant
paradigm in science is one developed by a hyperlogical, predominantly male,
western perspective. I would like to hear some discussion of how and why
research can/should be contextual rather than generalizable, participatory
rather than Ttrue experimental,U and personal rather than objective. Or are
these terms not necessarily dichotomous?
Kathie
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
Katherine E. Goff / "If the world is night,
District Elementary Technology Coordinator/ Shine my life like a light."
Cotton Creek Elementary Computer Specialist / ---The Indigo Girls
Katherine_Goff who-is-at together.cudenver.edu