BB and others
Here's my two cents worth on this...
If the Scribner award is to be a viable career award for all of Div.
C, it needs to have a pretty broad wording because of the breadth of
the division. Most other division- and AERA-level awards are not
closely tied to the person name of the award, though we naively
thought this one could be, in part because of the nature of Sylvia's
work and because of the organization structure we put in place.
Trying to convince Div. C to narrow/specify the award statement will
be a no-go in my opinion because of the nature of a division career
award (and also because of the top-down nature of division
governance).
It seems rather more feasible to remove Sylvia's name from the Div. C
award and use it for a CH SIG award. I know that the number and
range of nominations for the Div. C award have decreased over the
years because of the way the nominating/voting process has been
handled and the justified perception of exclusivity. Removing
Sylvia's name from it may further the downhill slide of the award
status. I suspect that a letter from the SIG , prominent SIG
members, and perhaps one of Sylvia's relatives would do the trick.
This will give the CH SIG the possibility of having a high profile
award more closely linked with Sylvia's work. I would not limit it
to those who draw directly on Sylvia's work, but rather to the
theories/methodologies/issues with which Sylvia was concerned. My
own preference would be to set up a prominent and hard working awards
committee similar to the one that was initially in place for Div. C
with some of the members rotating off and new on each year, publicize
the award nominating process/committee members widely, and go for it!
Cheers,
King
>I agree. One possible course of action(s) is not to take the name of the
>award away from its place in division C, but to change the extant "system"
>(loosely speaking) in it's practice of making the award. This could involve
>combinations of the following:
>
>1) Actions to tighten up the description, to bring the awarding process closer
>to its original intent. Writing a letter is included here. My instinct is
>that key people in this action will be those who are affiliated with
>Scribner's work, those who established the award, and those of us who draw
>upon her work -- e.g. chsig. Within this course of action a possible
>strategy is to delicately point out the need to improve the awarding process,
>more closely coordinating the merits of Scribner's work with the merits of
>the candidates. This alone is a change in the rules/object of the "system".
>A short Bio of Scribner, including a list of publications, would facilitate
>these actions.
>
>2) We could also consider how chsig membership, i.e. those that draw upon
>Scribner's work, can be represented in the award committee. This would
>involve a change in the collective subject making the decisions.
>
>3) CHSIG can make a yearly practice of collectively making a nomination for a
>candidate. A collective nomination carries the weight of the SIG.
>
>4) (Fill in the option!)
-- ______________________________ King Beach Learning, Technology and Culture Michigan State University phone: 517-381-8884 fax: 517-381-8885 email: kdbeach@msu.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 01:00:06 PST