Hello -- I just finished reading Gary Fine's article that Andy discusses below. I was pretty disappointed.
I agree with Andy about the necessity of noting and giving weight to the material basis of culture. But I can't believe that someone goes into a workplace and studies what's going on there without taking a good look at why people are there in the first place. These offices of the National Weather Service are employers and the people working there are employees.
The employees are federal employees and they have a union. There is only ONE mention of this, and it's in a footnote -- where a new MIC -- does that mean "man in charge"? -- tried to institute a dress code and it became "a union issue". So that means that there is a complex contract, dispute resolution procedure, whole armature of laws, that is going to govern the relationship between the worker and the employer. All of these are on paper if not actually on the web so it's easily available. The whole bundle is one of the cultural forms that Steve talks about. Certainly this is as much a part of the material culture as the scorched bunny rabbit. How could Fine miss that? (although he doesn't, since he mentions it in his footnote). So these two workplaces operate under rules that everyone knows about and uses, but he doesn't mention it.
So we have employers and employees and there is -- as Fine clearly points out -- a struggle between employers and employees for control of the work. Don't we want to know why? It's probably not just fun and games or kidding around. Don't we want to know what it is that management wants to see happen, as compared to what the workers want to see happen? That might give us a clue about this "science" business, which Fine seems to view with friendly amusement. A hint about what management wants to see happen is again in a footnote -- Flowerland, apparently, gets more media attention. Why does that matter? The NWS (and if a researcher is going to be thorough about giving us the material context of his subject, we should know about this) provides weather forecast information to TV stations and they in turn sell ads, so the more exciting the weather news, the more viewers will tune in and the higher price they can sell their ads for. So there is a struggle for control of the content of what is produced and it has to do with market pressures.
So maybe we can figure out that the NWS management encourages the more frequent, dramatic weather predictions for this reason, and the Chicago office takes refuge in their claim of being scientists so that they can resist that pressure. That's why the tension and the joking in the culture is around whether they are scientists or not -- becuase their claim to the certainty of the knowledge that they have produced by doing their work is what they place in opposition to the power of their supervisors, who are in turn supervised by politically appointed bureaucrats. This resistance on the part of the Chicago workers, based in the scientific nature of their work, is useful whether they are being asked to produce more dramatic predictions or wear button-down shirts.
I have found the same phenomenon among EPA employees, who also have a culture of being scientists, and who draw on their professional knowledge to resist when their supervisors and especially when Bush appointed bureaucrats re-write or ignore their reports, which happens.
I would like to know exactly when Fine's research was taking place. It looks as if it was after 9/11. In the last 5 years the question of whether global warming is happening and whether it's related to human activity has gone from being a discussion only among crackpots to being something that pretty much everybody accepts. When a TV meteorologist reports that the weather in Chicago is 74 degrees Fahrenheit in January and calls it "a beautiful day," don't you wonder why he's smiling? My guess is that there are questions that Fine didn't ask, about the 21-inch long Flowerland discussion (long enough to contextualize a peculiarly warm day or unseasonal storm), about "science", and about the actual content of what ends up in the reports. From the Chicago office point of view, what is the problem with a 21-inch discussion? Does it open the door to unscientific rambling? What's the problem with that? If someone in the Chicago office had said, "We don't like to see a TV meteorlologist going on and on becuase you send a message during that rambling that may or may not be consistent with what we know about the weather. When someone goes on and on about how great it is for kids to be able to play outside in January, that's a message. Do you think you're going to hear a TV meterollogist say, 'There will be more hurricanse like Katrina unless we cut car emissions?' No, you won't hear that. So we try to stick to just what we can say science tells us, and keep it short." -- But Fine didn't ask them.
Basically, I don't see how someone can research a workplace and not look at who has what kind of power over whom, for what purpose, and how that power gets implemented. And then the rules that govern the workplace are mentioned in the footnotes -- along with the market pressures on that workplace? Does anyone think that this is not part of the material culture of a workplace?
Helena
________________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 2:22 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] A Culture of Safety at Work
Gary Fine's paper may serve to show why I have emphasised the role of
"material culture," that is to say the mass of artefacts, in the formation
of activity and consciousness. I am certainly not criticising the findings
of this paper, which are extremely interesting, just its methodological
self-description.
Fine uses the word "culture" in the usual sense derived from anthropology,
and "idioculture" is a neolog using "idio-" in the sense of "idiom," that
is idiosyncratic, local culture. The question, from whence does this
idioculture arise and how is it sustained?
In the opening section of the paper, Fine says that:
"Cultures are ultimately grounded in interaction."
which is the axiomatics of what is now known as "intersubjectivity" and so
far as I can see dominates sociology and social philosophy, at least in the
US. He goes on:
"It is essential to conceptualise culture as grounded in
interaction ... through focus on a group's idioculture,
a system of meaning that arises from and contributes
to group dynamics. ... Idioculture, as used here, signifies
a system of knowledge, beliefs,. behaviours, and customs,
shared by members of an interacting group to which members
can refer and serves as the basis for further interaction."
and
"Group culture incorporates traditions and routine
practices, that is tied to background knowledge, common
values, group goals, and status systems ... but also
serves as a space in which new _cultural items_ are
created that complement previous traditions."
He does not explain what is meant by "cultural items," only "moral tales"
are mentioned at this point, and it has to be said that in this
methodological introduction this is the only mention of "material culture"
or artefacts.
But when we move on to the substance of the research we find that the
following are used by people to create and maintain the relevant idioculture:
* Nicknames
* a food store for shared snacks
* a staff member's dog
* "public" computer passwords
* selected ambient music from the radio
* the title "Doctor"
* laughter
* magazine pages on science stuck to the wall
* a staff member's garage and a microwave
* a scorched rabbit named Sparky
* NCPR business cards
* a "training video"
* a "mad scientist" web page
* a collection plate
* altered lettering on the building's name plate
* monocles and black-rimmed glasses
* a fish belonging to a female employee,
- referred to as a "boundary object"
* electrodes placed in this fish tank
* the locality in which the office is located
* the warning and reports issued by the office, including
their size and the statistics of their accuracy
* the spatial layout of the offices, windows, etc.
That is, a whole host of artefacts, all with publicly available meaning,
are used by the individuals involved, together with the idiosyncratic
interpretations and usages to which the artefacts are subject, in order to
create and sustain the idiocultural consciousness and activity.
The writer then concludes with some further methodological remarks on the
work of George Simmel.
"... culture is not merely a set of collective
representations, but an enactment based on social
coordination. For Simmel and the small group
tradition, culture is always grounded in action.
... the Symbolic Interactionist tradition
proposes that culture derives from the active
creation of meaning and interpretations by social
actors. ... Groups ... are arenas of action,
incorporating situated meaning, embodies action
and the power of copresence."
Now what is remarkable is that in his methodological introduction, Fine
claims that culture is created by interaction and there is virtually no
mention of the use of material culture or symbols. This is in complete
contrast with the body of the research where it turns out that the
participants in these group cultures use 22 distinct material artefacts not
to mention the normal spoken words and gestures which constitute so much of
any culture.
The body of the research is really interesting and would be of immediate
interest to anyone in the CHAT tradition, drawing attention, as it does to
the creation, use and redeployment of so many "tools-in-use" )symbols,
artefacts, signs or material culture or whatever you want to call them).
The concluding methodological reflections cite _Symbolic Interactionism_
without any attention being given to the central idea of Symbolic
Interactionism, originating from the work of GH Mead, that individuals draw
upon a repertoire of publicly available, symbols which are subject to
differing interpretation in the course of use.
The quote that Steve Gabosch has drawn off the internet accurately
represents what Fine has done in the body of this research, viz.:
"... the meanings of cultural items in a small
group must be considered in order to comprehend
their continued existence as communication. ...
"Cultural forms may be created and continue
to be utilized in situations if they are
* known to members of the interacting group,
* usable in the course of group interaction,
* functional in supporting group goals and individual needs,
* appropriate in supporting the status hierarchy of the
group, and
* triggered by events which occur in group interaction.
"These elements have impact only through the
interpretations of group members of their situations."
So Fine does excellent research, but when he describes his own methodology
he omits the role of "material culture" - what he calls "cultural items" or
we would call "artefacts" which are in fact and in the view of others
describing Fine's work of central importance.
So when we move to Helena's issue of the "culture of safety" this is not a
secondary question which can be glided over - these "cultural items" may
be dangerous machinery or warning signs which can be either ignored or
taken note of with severe consequences. It is to a large extent only the
material culture which managers and owners have direct control over, and
management relies on the manipulation of material culture in order to
control the activity of workers.
On the other hand, as Steve pointed out, when unions are removed from the
picture, and workers lose power, and the power of workers to subject
written procedures to their own independent interpretation is reduced, a
loss of safe practice results. Fine's article also reflected the fact that
independence and social power allows people to subject the material culture
to their own interpretation and control social practices accordingly.
So the question of how "cultural items" or "material culture" used in
social practice (and not just interaction!) are effective or not in
contributing to the regulation of social practices is absolutely central,
and must be made explicit in our methodology. If the "cultural items" (such
as a dangerous machine or a guard rail or a warning sign) are to be taken
for granted, as if they contained nothing other than what the partners to
an interaction take them to mean, then we are sorely mistaken. The meaning
and material impact of a cultural product is subject to contestation, and
it carries quite objective affordances and constraints.
So, let's all agree that Gary Fine's paper is really interesting and good
research, but if his work is to be replicated, recognition has to be given
to the materiality of the culture.
Andy
At 10:44 PM 17/01/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>Dale, your thinking on workplace "personality" seems to be closely
>related to Gary Alan Fine's concept of workplace and small group
>"idioculture." See what you think. I found the article in Wikipedia
>on Gary Fine helpful in grasping where he is coming from - check it
>out (google Gary Alan Fine). His focus is on looking at the
>"idioculture" or perhaps "personality" of small groups.
>
>Here is a passage from an intro I drew off the net to one of his
>articles (he also has a book on his studies of Little League culture,
>among other kinds of groups he has studied). This passage offers a
>summary of his concept of what constitutes a small-group
>"idioculture." I bolded some phrases and created separate lines for
>them for quicker reading and (hopefully) increased clarity. Fine's
>thinking about "idioculture" seems to deserve some careful reflection
>from a CHAT perspective. What do you think?
>
>http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224(197910)44%3A5%3C733%3ASGACCT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E
>Small Groups and Culture Creation: The Idioculture of Little League
>Baseball Teams
>Gary Alan Fine
>American Sociological Review, Vol. 44, No. 5 (Oct., 1979), pp. 733-745
>doi:10.2307/2094525
>This article consists of 13 page(s).
>
>Following interactionist theory, this study argues that
>
>cultural creation and usage can be examined by conceptualizing
>cultural forms as originating in a small-group context.
>
>Those cultural elements which characterize an interacting group are
>termed the idioculture of the group.
>
>This approach focuses on the content of small-group interaction, and
>suggests that the meanings of cultural items in a small group must be
>considered in order to comprehend their continued existence as
>communication.
>
>Five characteristics of cultural items affect which items will become
>part of a group culture.
>
>Cultural forms may be created and continue to be utilized in
>situations if they are
>
>known to members of the interacting group,
>usable in the course of group interaction,
>functional in supporting group goals and individual needs,
>appropriate in supporting the status hierarchy of the group,
>and triggered by events which occur in group interaction.
>
>These elements have impact only through the interpretations of group
>members of their situations. Support for this approach is drawn from a
>participant observation study of Little League baseball teams.
>
><end of modified quote from Gary Alan Fine>
>
>- Steve
>
>
>
>On Jan 17, 2008, at 3:37 PM, Dale Cyphert wrote:
>
>>Would it be useful to distinguish between a workplace "personality"
>>and a more pervasive social "culture" within which that group
>>operates? I work with this two-layer notion quite a bit when I try
>>to explain that any organization has an idiosyncratic set of norms,
>>behaviors, and expectations of how people ought to think, act, and
>>communicate. At the same time, business organizations in general
>>conform to a set of norms that is different from engineering
>>firms...and neither is ever played out exactly within any one
>>organization (or even within any one work-group in an organization.)
>>Businesses themselves, in fact, reflect the social norms of the
>>region in which they generally do business.
>>
>>Which doesn't really answer Helena's question directly, but I think
>>it's easy to get hung up on what a "culture" is, when the real
>>question is probably closer to "what are the behavior patterns and
>>priorities that direct folks toward or away safe behaviors as they
>>engage in day-to-day activities?" If the analogy were with
>>psychological constructs, that sounds more like a personality than a
>>result of culture.
>>
>>dale
>>Dale Cyphert, Ph.D.
>>Associate Professor and Interim Head
>>Department of Management
>>University of Northern Iowa
>>1227 W.27th Street
>>Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0125
>>(319) 273-6150
>>dale.cyphert@uni.edu
>>
>>Mike Cole wrote:
>>>Its always difficult to interpret non-responses on XMCA, but the
>>>note that
>>>Helena sent in the middle
>>>of the culture discussion growing out of discussion of Andy's paper
>>>appears
>>>not to have been given
>>>much attention. Its a practical issue for Helena and for the
>>>workers and
>>>company involved.
>>>I sent the note re "web culture" in hopes of moving discussion in the
>>>direction of consideration
>>>of Helena's message, but also to doubtful effect.
>>>So, let me take a stab at being useful and thereby providing people
>>>another
>>>invitation to lend a hand.
>>>In my intermittent thinking about the question, my thoughts have
>>>returned
>>>often to the idea of "cultural
>>>styles" because, as in that literature, there appears to be a claim
>>>that
>>>there is some shared pattern of
>>>meaning and associated practices that apply, more or less, to
>>>condition all
>>>of the interactions among
>>>people in a common social group living in more or less common
>>>circumstances.
>>>"Culture of the classroom"
>>>and DIFFERENT "cultures of the classroom" may be at this level of
>>>generality. Perhaps "culture of machismo"
>>>in some societies or parts of societies?
>>>I also thought about the pilot's in Ed Hutchin's aircraft who have
>>>safety
>>>check lists and routines for going
>>>through them, and routines for ensuring that the routines are gone
>>>through,
>>>and rules about how to go
>>>through those routines, and sanctions for not going through those
>>>routines.
>>>A preliminary guess about how to talk about such group-specific, but
>>>presumably within-group pervasive
>>>phenomena in the case of a factory or workplace. In such cases
>>>culture
>>>refers to a combination of values
>>>and their associated practices which members recognize, recognize
>>>that
>>>others recognize them, and can be
>>>referred to with the expectation that they will be understood by
>>>others, so
>>>they are tools for constructing joint activity,
>>>a "shared reality." Gary Alan Fine in more elaborated treatments
>>>called
>>>this sort of cutlural system an idioculture.
>>>(Fine's definition can be interpreted a la Geertz, as an
>>>interpretive,
>>>idealistic approach to culture. This is not my
>>>reading; I prefer, a s n the parts of Geertz I use, to use it as
>>>a way to
>>>keep both material and ideal aspects of
>>>culture in mind).
>>>Perhaps this way of looking at things could prove useful, Helene.
>>>I got to
>>>thinking that if ALL that constituted the
>>>"Culture of the workplace" you were studying was safety, people
>>>would enter
>>>the building, sit down in a chair, and
>>>not move a muscle all day to be sure they were safe. Absurd, of
>>>course.
>>>They are engaged in productive activity
>>>and earning their livings, so they must, like Hutchin's pilots, do
>>>things
>>>that are not guaranteed safe. So as part
>>>of many of the practices constituitive of the particular activity
>>>system,
>>>safety is a value that gets included, with
>>>others, in what people do.
>>>If this is approximately correct, the place to start may be with the
>>>explicit practices where safety is named and
>>>included. And then work to ferret out implicit practices where
>>>it is
>>>present, although perhaps not explicitly
>>>named. And , passim Yrjo, look for the contradictions that arise
>>>when
>>>this value and its associated practices
>>>and shadings of practices conflict with other, co-existing cultural
>>>features of the setting.
>>>A glance at google suggests that there is a n existing literature
>>>applied
>>>to workplaces where some such approach
>>>as I am gesturing toward may live.
>>>mike
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
mobile 0409 358 651
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
________________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Smagorinsky [smago@uga.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 5:24 AM
To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
Subject: RE: [xmca] A Culture of Safety at Work
I don't have my copy here at home, but I know that Mike Cole talks about
idiocultures in Cultural Psychology--I've referenced it in my own work. I'll
attach a manuscript version of a book chapter that employs the construct in
the context of a high school English class. The citation for the publication
is:
Smagorinsky, P., & O'Donnell-Allen, C. (2000). Idiocultural
diversity in small groups: The role of the relational framework in
collaborative learning. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian
perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through
collaborative inquiry (pp. 165-190). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Peter Smagorinsky
The University of Georgia
125 Aderhold Hall
Athens, GA 30602
smago@uga.edu/phone:706-542-4507
http://www.coe.uga.edu/lle/faculty/smagorinsky/index.html
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of Steve Gabosch
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:44 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] A Culture of Safety at Work
Dale, your thinking on workplace "personality" seems to be closely
related to Gary Alan Fine's concept of workplace and small group
"idioculture." See what you think. I found the article in Wikipedia
on Gary Fine helpful in grasping where he is coming from - check it
out (google Gary Alan Fine). His focus is on looking at the
"idioculture" or perhaps "personality" of small groups.
Here is a passage from an intro I drew off the net to one of his
articles (he also has a book on his studies of Little League culture,
among other kinds of groups he has studied). This passage offers a
summary of his concept of what constitutes a small-group
"idioculture." I bolded some phrases and created separate lines for
them for quicker reading and (hopefully) increased clarity. Fine's
thinking about "idioculture" seems to deserve some careful reflection
from a CHAT perspective. What do you think?
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224(197910)44%3A5%3C733%3ASGACCT%3E2.
0.CO%3B2-E
Small Groups and Culture Creation: The Idioculture of Little League
Baseball Teams
Gary Alan Fine
American Sociological Review, Vol. 44, No. 5 (Oct., 1979), pp. 733-745
doi:10.2307/2094525
This article consists of 13 page(s).
Following interactionist theory, this study argues that
cultural creation and usage can be examined by conceptualizing
cultural forms as originating in a small-group context.
Those cultural elements which characterize an interacting group are
termed the idioculture of the group.
This approach focuses on the content of small-group interaction, and
suggests that the meanings of cultural items in a small group must be
considered in order to comprehend their continued existence as
communication.
Five characteristics of cultural items affect which items will become
part of a group culture.
Cultural forms may be created and continue to be utilized in
situations if they are
known to members of the interacting group,
usable in the course of group interaction,
functional in supporting group goals and individual needs,
appropriate in supporting the status hierarchy of the group,
and triggered by events which occur in group interaction.
These elements have impact only through the interpretations of group
members of their situations. Support for this approach is drawn from a
participant observation study of Little League baseball teams.
<end of modified quote from Gary Alan Fine>
- Steve
On Jan 17, 2008, at 3:37 PM, Dale Cyphert wrote:
> Would it be useful to distinguish between a workplace "personality"
> and a more pervasive social "culture" within which that group
> operates? I work with this two-layer notion quite a bit when I try
> to explain that any organization has an idiosyncratic set of norms,
> behaviors, and expectations of how people ought to think, act, and
> communicate. At the same time, business organizations in general
> conform to a set of norms that is different from engineering
> firms...and neither is ever played out exactly within any one
> organization (or even within any one work-group in an organization.)
> Businesses themselves, in fact, reflect the social norms of the
> region in which they generally do business.
>
> Which doesn't really answer Helena's question directly, but I think
> it's easy to get hung up on what a "culture" is, when the real
> question is probably closer to "what are the behavior patterns and
> priorities that direct folks toward or away safe behaviors as they
> engage in day-to-day activities?" If the analogy were with
> psychological constructs, that sounds more like a personality than a
> result of culture.
>
> dale
> Dale Cyphert, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor and Interim Head
> Department of Management
> University of Northern Iowa
> 1227 W.27th Street
> Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0125
> (319) 273-6150
> dale.cyphert@uni.edu
>
> Mike Cole wrote:
>> Its always difficult to interpret non-responses on XMCA, but the
>> note that
>> Helena sent in the middle
>> of the culture discussion growing out of discussion of Andy's paper
>> appears
>> not to have been given
>> much attention. Its a practical issue for Helena and for the
>> workers and
>> company involved.
>> I sent the note re "web culture" in hopes of moving discussion in the
>> direction of consideration
>> of Helena's message, but also to doubtful effect.
>> So, let me take a stab at being useful and thereby providing people
>> another
>> invitation to lend a hand.
>> In my intermittent thinking about the question, my thoughts have
>> returned
>> often to the idea of "cultural
>> styles" because, as in that literature, there appears to be a claim
>> that
>> there is some shared pattern of
>> meaning and associated practices that apply, more or less, to
>> condition all
>> of the interactions among
>> people in a common social group living in more or less common
>> circumstances.
>> "Culture of the classroom"
>> and DIFFERENT "cultures of the classroom" may be at this level of
>> generality. Perhaps "culture of machismo"
>> in some societies or parts of societies?
>> I also thought about the pilot's in Ed Hutchin's aircraft who have
>> safety
>> check lists and routines for going
>> through them, and routines for ensuring that the routines are gone
>> through,
>> and rules about how to go
>> through those routines, and sanctions for not going through those
>> routines.
>> A preliminary guess about how to talk about such group-specific, but
>> presumably within-group pervasive
>> phenomena in the case of a factory or workplace. In such cases
>> culture
>> refers to a combination of values
>> and their associated practices which members recognize, recognize
>> that
>> others recognize them, and can be
>> referred to with the expectation that they will be understood by
>> others, so
>> they are tools for constructing joint activity,
>> a "shared reality." Gary Alan Fine in more elaborated treatments
>> called
>> this sort of cutlural system an idioculture.
>> (Fine's definition can be interpreted a la Geertz, as an
>> interpretive,
>> idealistic approach to culture. This is not my
>> reading; I prefer, a s n the parts of Geertz I use, to use it as
>> a way to
>> keep both material and ideal aspects of
>> culture in mind).
>> Perhaps this way of looking at things could prove useful, Helene.
>> I got to
>> thinking that if ALL that constituted the
>> "Culture of the workplace" you were studying was safety, people
>> would enter
>> the building, sit down in a chair, and
>> not move a muscle all day to be sure they were safe. Absurd, of
>> course.
>> They are engaged in productive activity
>> and earning their livings, so they must, like Hutchin's pilots, do
>> things
>> that are not guaranteed safe. So as part
>> of many of the practices constituitive of the particular activity
>> system,
>> safety is a value that gets included, with
>> others, in what people do.
>> If this is approximately correct, the place to start may be with the
>> explicit practices where safety is named and
>> included. And then work to ferret out implicit practices where
>> it is
>> present, although perhaps not explicitly
>> named. And , passim Yrjo, look for the contradictions that arise
>> when
>> this value and its associated practices
>> and shadings of practices conflict with other, co-existing cultural
>> features of the setting.
>> A glance at google suggests that there is a n existing literature
>> applied
>> to workplaces where some such approach
>> as I am gesturing toward may live.
>> mike
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
Received on Fri Jan 18 09:23 PST 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 13 2008 - 12:33:27 PST