[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Mentoring in research/writing Surprising Result So far
Yes, you said it nicely, Mike: "The contradictions that produce public
displays of feelings I believe is a part of what goes into creating a
community".
Best,
Luísa A.
On 25 May 2011 16:48, Duvall, Emily <emily@uidaho.edu> wrote:
> Well said, Mike.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of mike cole
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 8:43 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Mentoring in research/writing Surprising Result So
> far
>
> In all of this discussion, I would like to second an idea that David Ki
> made: In controversies over the interpretation of David's texts by
> reviewers
> and editorial practices, we ought not to loose track of David Kellog's
> project, which is to seek an understanding of Vygotsky's thought that can
> be
> constructed from careful reading of the texts in their chronological order
> of writing (in so far as that can be discerned). He is working from
> different texts, different life experiences, different current social
> circumstances than those who have undertaken such investigations before. He
> is doing what Tony's quote from Barthes urges upon us: the constant
> necessity to re-read our prior interpretations in the hopes that subsequent
> understandings are more adequate to our circumstances.
>
> David claimed himself with respect to the nascent mentoring program (I am
> hearing birth pains) to be a junior. He has more than one
> mentor/interlocutor on XMCA including David Ki, Martin, and myself. Our
> participation does not mean that we agree with all that David writes, or
> (speaking personally) always understand what he is writing (the range of
> reference is broad, patience for reading transcript wanting).
>
> Lets grow the discourse to enable the creation of development-enhancing
> conditions for human development. We think culture is some how involved.
>
> The contradictions that produce public displays of feelings I believe is a
> part of
> what goes into creating a community. If participation is not self enriching
> and at the same time nurishing of the medium of this experience, then we
> should all do something else with our time.
>
> mike
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:09 PM, <cconnery@ithaca.edu> wrote:
>
> > Good evening:
> > The conversation about the function and quality of reviews is of
> interest.
> > As a recent reviewer of a seriously flawed submission to MCA, I found
> Andy's
> > response to the prospective writer to be useful, generative, and ethical.
> It
> > seemed to me that his letter explaining the need for revisions was honest
> > and professional.
> >
> > This experience paled dramatically to previous rejections I have
> witnessed
> > and experienced myself. In contrast, I found the new format to be a very
> > positive reflection on MCA. Hopefully, this practice will continue and be
> > applied to all authors in a continued spirit of respect and commitment to
> > our collective efforts.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Cathrene
> > ---- Original message ----
> > >Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 19:24:33 -0500
> > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu (on behalf of Jorge Fernando
> > Larreamendy Joerns <jlarream@uniandes.edu.co>)
> > >Subject: Re: [xmca] Mentoring in research/writing Surprising Result So
> far
> > >To: ablunden@mira.net,"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >
> > >I tend to agree, also, with Martin. It is difficult to find talented
> > reviewers, in part because reviewing is a genre that is constructed
> > precisely when reviewers are called upon to do their job, many times
> without
> > prior mentoring as to what a useful, respectful review should look like.
> On
> > the other hand, if rejections are hard for the authors (at times, even a
> > revise and resubmit can be hard also), they are also a critical decision
> for
> > the editor, particularly when the manuscript at hand has what I would
> call
> > local merits, that is, when it raises good points but as a whole may not
> > come to a good end. I personally prefer also more than one reviewer, but
> > even so not always it is possible to get two sensible reviews (the
> > distinction between reviewers and reviews comes in handy). Like Andy, I
> > thank all of you who have collaborated in the reviewing process with no
> > other incentive than making the journal a good scenario for scholarly
> > communication and action.
> > >
> > >Jorge
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns, Ph.D.
> > >Profesor Asociado y Director
> > >Departamento de Psicología
> > >Universidad de los Andes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On May 24, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thank you for all that Martin and in this instance I am in 100%
> > agreement with you. :) I am a little upset because I know that there are
> > about 3 times as many dedicated, anonymous, unthanked MCA reviewers for
> > every MCA aspiring author. My experience over the past 6 months as a
> > co-editor has been that our reviewers, very many of whom are on this list
> > and are reading these messages, take their reviewing work extremely
> > seriously and do a really fine job, and generally authors of rejected
> > manuscripts sincerely thank their reviewers for their helpful advice.
> > >>
> > >> That said, all rejections are hard, and I have had some doozies
> myself,
> > believe me. One or two almost made me suicidal. But I don't want busy
> > reviewes, mostly with their own research staff and departments to deal
> with,
> > to start turning away from reviewing in MCA because of fear of criticism.
> > Reviewers, you are immensely valued and I publicly thank you for your
> work.
> > >>
> > >> Andy
> > >>
> > >> Martin Packer wrote:
> > >>> David Kellogg - in his recent message and in the one dated June 2010
> > that David Kirshner links to - has raised some important issues, and I'd
> > like to reply as one of the new troika of editors of MCA (along with
> Jorge
> > Larreamendy and Andy Blunden), not about the specifics of the review of
> > David's manuscript but on the general topic of the reviewing process in a
> > journal such as MCA. I am a new editor for MCA, but for the past eight
> years
> > or so I have been an editor (one of three there too) of the Taylor &
> Francis
> > journal Qualitative Research in Psychology. Over that time I've not
> become a
> > perfect editor, by any means, but I've figured out what seems to me a
> > workable approach to the responsibilities of editorial tasks.
> > >>>
> > >>> David suggests that if a manuscript is sent out for review this
> > indicates that the editor has decided that it is "at least potentially
> > valuable," and he continues "What that means is that I will NEVER give
> that
> > article the rating 'Do not resubmit.'" My view is a little different.
> There
> > are some manuscripts that as editor I reject without sending them for
> > review. There are others where, because I think there is potential but
> that
> > reviewers would be harsh on the manuscript in its current form, I invite
> the
> > author to make revisions (I spell them out) and resubmit, and I only then
> > send the manuscript out to reviewers. These seem to me to be appropriate
> > decisions for an editor to make single-handedly (or at times in
> consultation
> > with the other editors). But there are manuscripts I send for review
> because
> > it is not clear to me whether they are publishable or not. I often need
> the
> > reviewers' expertise in order to decide whether or not a manuscript has a
> > sound argument, or cites the appropriate literature, and so on. In such
> > case, reviewers may well recommend that the manuscript be rejected. The
> > final decision is mine, of course, but without the reviewers' evaluation
> it
> > would be difficult or even impossible for me to make.
> > >>>
> > >>> David also raises the issue of the number of reviews that are
> > considered necessary. My experience is that it is getting increasingly
> > difficult to find people willing to review manuscripts (probably because
> > more and more journals are asking), and that at the same time authors are
> > increasingly expecting a rapid decision on their manuscript. As a
> > consequence of these twin pressures I do make decisions on the basis of a
> > single review, though I prefer to obtain more, if it is sufficiently
> clear
> > from that review, and from my own evaluation, what the strengths and
> flaws
> > of the manuscript are.
> > >>>
> > >>> David Kirshner asks whether MCA invites collaborative reviews. In the
> > past, with QRP, I have at times invited a reviewer to collaborate with
> one
> > of their students, or to ask a student to write a separate review. (I
> think
> > I copied this from Barbara Rogoff's practice when she was editing Human
> > Development.) I found that often the student review was the better -
> > clearer, more detailed, more informed. MCA doesn't have a policy one way
> or
> > the other, but we are quite open to this kind of approach.
> > >>>
> > >>> On the citation 'policy,' if that's what one should call it, my
> > understanding of this may be different from others, but I ran into it
> when
> > submitting a manuscript that was published in MCA a few years ago.
> > Wolff-Michael Roth asked me to change the way some citations ran, and as
> I
> > understood it (I was a bit slow; it took me a while!) the point was that
> one
> > should build an argument on evidence and logic rather than on appeals to
> > authority. I was reminded of what Jean Lave once told me about the
> > interdisciplinary departments at UC Irvine - an informal norm developed
> that
> > one couldn't cite an authority (Levi-Brulh, let's say) unless one could
> also
> > rehearse that person's argument on the topic under discussion.
> > >>>
> > >>> Consider this example: "Parker (2007), in arguing that depression is
> > over-diagnosed, stated that the reliability of the DSM criteria for
> > depression and the threshold for reaching a diagnosis of depression are
> low,
> > and, consequently, normal emotional states are diagnosed as clinical
> > depression."
> > >>> Put this way, the emphasis seems to be on Parker, with the
> implication
> > that he or she is an authority we should pay attention to. Most probably,
> > however, the point the author intends to emphasize is that an argument
> can
> > be made that depression is over-diagnosed because the DSM has a low
> > threshold. if so, the sentence would be better worded something like
> this:
> > >>> "The DSM criteria set a threshold for the diagnosis of depression
> that
> > is arguably low and has poor validity (Parker, 2007). Consequently,
> normal
> > emotional states are diagnosed as clinical depression."
> > >>> Finally (and I have just read Huw Lloyd's message) reviewing is
> indeed
> > a demanding task, and the quality of reviews varies widely. David is
> surely
> > correct that a review should ideally not contain uncivil language. I can
> > still recall a review I received as a new PhD which included the phrase:
> > "This is the kind of work that gives qualitative research a bad name!" I
> > think it is unavoidable that we academics get hot under the collar, and
> > another thing an editor has to do is not take such statements at face
> value,
> > make sense of the debates and conflicts within and between research
> areas,
> > and reach a decision that takes such factors into account. Sometimes the
> > manuscript one wants to publish is the one that stirs up controversy.
> > >>>
> > >>> That's my two cents, at least. Jorge and Andy may differ in some of
> the
> > details. I will be happy to discuss the matter further; xmca is the owner
> of
> > MCA; its editors are just its caretakers for a while.
> > >>>
> > >>> Martin
> > >>>
> > >>> __________________________________________
> > >>> _____
> > >>> xmca mailing list
> > >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> *Andy Blunden*
> > >> Joint Editor MCA:
> > http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
> > >> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > >> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> > >> MIA: http://www.marxists.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> __________________________________________
> > >> _____
> > >> 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
> >
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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
>
--
Luísa Aires
Universidade Aberta, Delegação do Porto/DEED
R.Ameal, nº 752
4200-055 Porto
laires@univ-ab.pt
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca