Re: [xmca] Access to articles and discussion

From: Jennifer Langer-Osuna <jmgdo who-is-at>
Date: Tue Dec 02 2008 - 15:40:38 PST

So first clarifying question, ha! When and how does the next article
discussion (Sawchuk & Stetsenko) get first initiated? I'd like to make
sure I'm starting this one from the top. Will Mike just put out the
first email post at some point in the near future?


On Dec 2, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:

> I'm certainly a case in point of someone who has learnt their CHAT
> almost exclusively through participation in xmca, and has no
> academic or research knowledge of the subject, Jennifer.
> It's great to hear from you, and clarifying questions are exactly
> what is needed. Much better than bouncing one opinion off another
> opinion. And if those who speak assume a certain level of knowledge
> in their listeners, so listeners who don't think they share that
> level of knowledge remain silent, then this tends to become a self-
> fulfilling prophecy. If there are no clarifying questions, I must
> presume everyone understands.
> Andy
> Jennifer Langer-Osuna wrote:
>> I didn't vote and have never participated in the discussions. I am
>> working on my dissertation that makes use of activity theoretic
>> principles and so certainly benefit from these discussions. What
>> keeps me from participating is that there is a level of expert/
>> assumed knowledge among the active participants that I am not yet
>> fluent in. Sometimes that means that the discussions go in a
>> direction that is above my head. Other times, I can follow but
>> truly have nothing to add because my "role" is in making sense of
>> what you more expert participants are saying. If I were to try to
>> jump in, I'd likely sound out of left field.
>> But in the spirit of increasing novice (legitimate peripheral
>> participants) voices I will read the latest Sawchunk and Stetsenko
>> paper and try to respond primarily through clarifying questions. So
>> be patient with me. I may not even know what needs clarifying,
>> meaning that I get the sense that there are even more fundamental
>> philosophers and such that are basing people's responses that I am
>> not familiar with. But I will still go ahead and try to be more
>> verbal about my confusion. I have no problem sounding like an
>> idiot. Like a professor once said, "You are ready to earn the PhD
>> when you come to truly realize that you know absolutely nothing,
>> but understand why that is so."
>> Jenny Langer-Osuna
>> UC Berkeley doctoral student
>> Math Education
>> On Dec 1, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>> Thanks Tamara.
>>> Yes, I think the acknowledgment of new voices, when they speak, is
>>> vital. Mike always does this, but I think it is quite wrong for
>>> the rest of us to just leave that role to Mike, who has enough to
>>> do. So, thanks!
>>> Andy
>>> Tamara Ball wrote:
>>>> My humble suggestion is this: that those of you more experienced
>>>> and comfortable with the XMCA discussion forum keep vigilant
>>>> watch for new voices whenever they do emerge and then respond.
>>>> Use the response also as a space for your own assertion, to be
>>>> sure(perhaps one you would have made anyway), but even the
>>>> notation of "re:" as the slightest acknowledgment of that new
>>>> voice is alluring and validating. Any thoughtful response will
>>>> do - but in my opinion, better if it is not only "sweet",
>>>> encouraging or gentle but rather truly responsive and generative.
>>>> In my own novice experience, intimidation is linked to a feeling
>>>> of irrelevance which comes with the frayed edges of a thread that
>>>> is not continued in some way or another. As Andy suggests,
>>>> workload is always an issue of course, but I do understand that
>>>> there are ways that participation in the parlance of this forum
>>>> can actually *decrease* workload by creatively and expeditiously
>>>> negotiating ideas or problems central to the work each of us has
>>>> in front of us. For instance I am in heat of writing a grant
>>>> proposal that I hope will lead to a multi-year post-doc position
>>>> that will allow me to expand the work I am already involved with
>>>> at the Center for Adaptive Optics ( electro-engineering,
>>>> astronomy and optometry research center with a strong education
>>>> component). I can imagine exploring more powerful ways to shape
>>>> the structure of that work through conversations here that are
>>>> also linked to the more central debates at hand. Tamara
>>>> On Nov 30, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>> Well I'm not one of those who vote and don't discuss but I am
>>>>> willing to have a guess at issues here, and maybe people will be
>>>>> provoked into correcting me?
>>>>> I have had brief discussions with several people either offline
>>>>> or via FaceBook who have expressed an interest in xmca
>>>>> discussions but say (basically) they are not clever enough to
>>>>> contribute. Having been assured that this is absolutely not the
>>>>> case, they later go on to become contributors. For some, it is
>>>>> that fear of speaking up and maybe getting their heads bitten
>>>>> off. In other cases, I am sure, it is a simple matter of the
>>>>> insanity of academic workloads already driving people to the edge.
>>>>> I have racked my brain and failed to come up with a viable means
>>>>> of resolving this, other than being civil and respectful in
>>>>> discussions. When I asked about Bobath, someone who had never
>>>>> spoken before spoke up saying "At last something I feel
>>>>> qualified to speak on." Likewise, when I asked for help for my
>>>>> brother with his daughter's maths problems, loads of really
>>>>> helpful and knowledgeable people spoke up. But the general
>>>>> debate, people seem to find intimidating. And yet, in my
>>>>> experience, unjustifiably so.
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> Mike Cole wrote:
>>>>>> I fear that at present the article to be made available free
>>>>>> for discussion
>>>>>> at Taylor and Francis
>>>>>> has not been released. The ever-lengthening duration of
>>>>>> Thanksgiving holiday
>>>>>> has probably not
>>>>>> helped matters. Consequently, many, probabaly most, members of
>>>>>> xmca do not
>>>>>> have access to the
>>>>>> article in question by Stetsenko and Sawchuk. We are working on
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>> The issue of discussion of article in MCA that are not made
>>>>>> available free
>>>>>> is even more difficult and we
>>>>>> are working on that too. We have a situation where often two or
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> articles are ones that people want
>>>>>> to discuss but we are unlikely to get T&F to offer the journal
>>>>>> for free. So
>>>>>> we are discussing with them
>>>>>> the cost of electronic versions so that acces to people without
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> financial means to get access can
>>>>>> be handled in a viable way.
>>>>>> Simultaneously, I would not that more than 30 people voted to
>>>>>> discuss the
>>>>>> Sanino article, but to date, very
>>>>>> few people have availed themselves of the opportunity they
>>>>>> obtained for the
>>>>>> group by their votes. I take
>>>>>> this to be a problem and would appreciate suggestions for
>>>>>> making XMCA a more
>>>>>> multi-voiced forum for
>>>>>> discussion. Might the overwhelming majority of people who voted
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> discussion of this article but who have
>>>>>> failed to comment on it help me and others understand what is a
>>>>>> foot. Is it
>>>>>> amplification or amputation, perhaps some productive
>>>>>> transformation, that is
>>>>>> required
>>>>>> The academic semester/quarter draws to a close in the United
>>>>>> States. The
>>>>>> stock market is open in Asia. The people of Mumbai, Peshewar,
>>>>>> Ramadi,
>>>>>> Eastern Congo, flood raviged Brazil and elsewhere bury their
>>>>>> dead. The polar
>>>>>> bears, I hear, are enjoying a cool winter, but word is sparse
>>>>>> from that part
>>>>>> of the world. The future beckons. What is that she is holding
>>>>>> in her hand?
>>>>>> Or is it behind our backs?
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> <>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Andy Blunden +61 3 9380 9435 Skype
>>>>> andy.blunden
>>>>> Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> <>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Andy Blunden +61 3 9380 9435 Skype
>>> andy.blunden
>>> Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden +61 3 9380 9435 Skype
> andy.blunden
> Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list
Received on Tue Dec 2 15:41:18 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 06 2009 - 13:39:38 PST