Dear Bill and everybody--
I hate to be "a reality check" but I guess it is my role as the SIG Program
Officer. Bill, you are absolutely right, selecting a SIG theme is about
exclusion. However, decision about yearly theme is NOT whether to exclude or
not -- there is exclusion with our without yearly theme. The question is how
to exclude and who participates in the exclusion decision making.
Why is there exclusion of proposals in our SIG? Because at least of two
reasons:
1) Without counting the business meeting, we have only 9 slots at AERA so
far: 2 symposiums and 7 round tables. If we get more members we can get more
slots. However, we usually have more than just 9 proposals which means that
some proposals have to be EXCLUDED.
2) We want to avoid a situation that, unfortunately, time to time occurs
when nobody comes for a presentation because people do not have interest in
it (or an opportunity to attend).
So, as you see the question is not whether to exclude but how and who makes
a decision. Last year the decision was mainly made by about three reviewers
of a specific proposal. King and I just checked their decisions to avoid
gross mistakes (so we were also participants) but mainly we followed their
recommendations.
By asking all sig and xmca body to define a yearly sig theme, King and I
hope to shape the reviewers' judgments in a way that the members want.
Granted, it is unclear how each reviewer will interpret the theme and
guidelines, but it may be better than nothing in terms of people's
participation in shaping the exclusion-inclusion process.
The process of exclusion that is already there (i.e., in the AERA and SIG
institution) forces the suggested themes and foci for the next SIG meeting
to compete with each other. In our view, this competition is occurring
anyway but now it is very mechanical and limited competition (two proposals
reviewed by different teams of reviewers have different scores). It seems to
us (King and me) it would be better if we (the SIG body) shape the process.
Thus, not having yearly theme does not prevent exclusion but rather delegate
the decision making process of what to exclude entirely to three reviewers
who happen to judge a specific proposal and a mechanical process of
selecting higher scores. Do we want it?
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Barowy [mailto:wbarowy@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 8:46 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: RE: re-sending
>
>
> A different option for SIG theming might be to adopt an admixture
> of themes
> weighted by the proportion each received of the popular vote,
> with learning,
> globalization, boundaries, and play each getting their
> proportion. After all,
> why should we, if anyone, be single-minded? It could be vexing
> if there was a
> non-zero vote for "no theme" but that has not happened yet. But
> I'm looking
> forward to it!
>
> Still a quantum mechanic in spirit, and a playful one,
>
> bb
>
> --- Eugene Matusov <ematusov@udel.edu> wrote:
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 01 2001 - 01:01:40 PDT