People -- I'd be grateful to get comments on this of several sorts:
1 -- How does this use of AT look to you?
2 -- Is it so internal to Chicago that some of the situation is
incomprehensible? It's got a lot of stuff about race/politics, unions (with their
peculiar US structures), the construction industry...
3 -- Can you actually read it -- the tables, etc.
I've got it broken out into 5 documents: the title and abstact, the paper itself
(UALE is the United Association for Labor Education, where I a draft it in April
along with my co-author Rev. Anthony Haynes); a diagram of the activity systems
we are engaged with (I didn't use triangles -- partly a drafting challenge, partly
not wanting to have to explain what the triangles mean to people who aren't
familiar with them); two appendices, one comparing our current WIA (federal job
training program) programs with union apprenticeship programs and our little math
class; a table of the graduates, with names, sites of churches, and race/marital
status either disguised or blanked out.
Thanks -- let me know if it doesn't come through.
Helena Worthen
Yrjo Engestrom wrote:
> I am certainly interested.
>
> Yrjo Engestrom
>
> > Hello -- have been quiet for a while due to massive deadline traffic. But I
> > would very much like to post the paper that I've been working on for a while.
> > It's the one I'm scheduled to talk on at ISCRAT in June (but I'm waiting to
> > hear if my department has any money left).
> >
> > This is about the experience of minority applicants to building trades
> > apprenticeship programs in Chicago. I try to be up front about using activity
> > theory although in Industrial Relations, AT is the acupuncture of theoretical
> > approaches....
> >
> > May I send this paper to the list? I am looking for comments.
> >
> > If so, when and how?
> >
> > Thanks --
> >
> > Helena Worthen
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 27 2002 - 08:02:49 PDT