Re: [xmca] Re: Mentoring

[Patrick Jaki <patrick.jaki@gmail.com>]

I hope together we can pull this off.

On 10 July 2011 20:18, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, Andy, the catch to using xmca as a mentoring match up system is that
> no matter who does the low tech version someONE has to do it (Tammy and I
> spent a couple of sessions trying to figure out a rational way to do the
> connecting up and it was quite difficult- we did not like the outcome) -- .
> >From my experience trying, we really need a mini-market system that is
> regulated in a very light handed way or we fail. Some open software social
> networking app should do the job or be modifiable quickly to do the job.
>
> Tammy is not paid for the summer, and in general, looking to me to support
> us going forward is prospect with diminishing returns. Over the coming
> year,
> we have to get leaner and smarter.
>
> So far, only David's suggestion of devolving MCA is on the table; otherwise
> except for your suggestion that someone at LCHC do the work for connecting
> writer-readers in a mentoring club, no one has responded to questions about
> improving xmca. Perhaps after the weekend.
>
> I hope that Monday dawns beautifully over on your side of the world as
> Sunday has here.
>
> mike
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > **
> > Mike, I appreciate your efforts to mobilise clever people to get this
> > system working on a proper basis. But everyone is always too busy. Would
> it
> > be possible to ask Tammy to set up one of her Google/Excel shared
> > spreadsheets with two lists: one of aspiring mentees and the other of
> > volunteering mentors, with keywords, and a Google group listserv for
> > messages between mentors, so that we can work together and allocate
> people.
> > Very lo-tech, a little taxing, but I think it could be implemented by
> Tammy
> > in 24 hours. It is just a matter of hooking up couples.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > mike cole wrote:
> >
> > With respect to dis-establishing MCA and going back to a newsletter:
> >
> > I did not want to start MCA in the first place. Yrjo urged its formation
> as
> > a means to
> > legitimate cultural-historical research, broadly conceived. To
> > dis-establish it would
> > mean that no longer could contributors use anything they published there
> as
> > a warrant for getting promotions-- the situation in this regard has
> become
> > markedly
> > worse in the interim, but I would be perfectly contented to see such a
> > devolution.
> > And in the process, shift media and go purely electronic.
> >
> > That reverses the long push for respectibility, reached this year through
> a
> > lot of Michael's effort focused primarily on getting materials in on time
> > (!!). Now people
> > can site all the ratings they need for their academic files and MCA is
> just
> > fine. Part of the establishment.
> >
> > Is this situation peculiar in some way to MCA or is it a part of that
> > increased acceptance and appropriation? Those who are present at ISCAR
> might
> > convey
> > the feel of that meeting. Maybe the entire push for cultural historical
> > approaches
> > that "take context seriously" by using the cultural-historical tradition
> of
> > understanding "activity" is itself passe? (I personally do not think so,
> > but, then, I would be the last to know!).
> >
> > Or maybe its brightest adherents have re-deployed into such ventures as
> > "learning sciences" or "developmental science" (two movements I am
> familiar
> > with)? Or maybe we miss opportunities for self-development when we see
> them?
> >
> > Personally, I was disappointed by the discussion of the special issue on
> > Action Research and CHAT. What my colleagues at LCHC and I do as research
> is
> > seen by some as action research, some as CHAT intervention research. To
> us,
> > the issue of theory/practice relations is really important. Seth
> Chaiklin's
> > article posed
> > some issues in this regard that really never seemed to get discussed, let
> > along answered. In this case the authors engaged, XMCA did not engage
> back.
> >
> > Perhaps we can return to it. Again, personally, there are articles in the
> > current issue of MCA that seem worth discussing. Perhaps not. I have read
> > none of them, and like you, have to depend upon the abstracts to make my
> > bets.
> >
> > With respect to discussing articles of people from XMCA itself.
> >
> > This is really a matter that goes to the membership of XMCA. The webpage
> > has not gone away
> >
> >                             http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/index.html
> >
> > Use it or lose it. Or, help us develop a new practice that the group
> finds
> > valuable.
> >
> > With respect to getting modern and more multi-modal digital to enrich the
> > discourse
> >
> > I am all for it. With the resources at its disposal, LCHC is seeking to
> > propose a kind
> > of portal that would include a variety of modes of experssion. We thought
> > we had
> > this problem solved a year ago. We were wrong. Lets hope we have not been
> > wrong again.
> >
> > I also always worry about the disenfranchised when those with lots of
> bytes
> > at their disposal free start using higher end technologies that make
> their
> > discourse richer. Who is being left out?
> >
> > Once open a time, it was a big deal to us that we could get a free,
> > electronic, version of one article so that those far away who cannot
> afford
> > MCA can participate in the discourse. Then it was free for a while. But
> now,
> > guess what?  Payment is back again and none the cheaper. Going electronic
> > would solve that, but would it solve the ISI problems?
> >
> > As I see, the finances, the ideology, and the actual organization of the
> > activities are all interconnected. Makes me very wishy washy.
> >
> > To end by repeating what I wrote in the note to Jaki: We are doing the
> best
> > we can. If you can help, just up and offer. We all stand to learn from
> such
> > collaboration.
> >
> > mike
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I can't say too much David, but I will just that it is only about now
> that
> >> we will begin to publish material in any way reflecting the new
> editorship
> >> as we inherited a couple of years of backlog. Secondly, our reviewers
> really
> >> are demanding a high standard from our authors. Since becoming an editor
> at
> >> the beginning of October I have overseen only one manuscript that made
> it
> >> through to acceptance, after revisions, though I think I am now close to
> my
> >> second. Aware of this, the editors are taking action to attract a good
> >> quality of mss and we just have to see if our work is successful.
> >>
> >> Peer review is like democracy: it is a terrible system, but its the best
> >> we've got.
> >>
> >> It may well be that if we want to do some genre bending then the lchc
> >> website is the best way of doing it. Personally, I would like to see web
> >> publication the norm and peer review used as a rating but not as a means
> of
> >> refusing publication. But it takes time. Many of our community rely on
> MCA
> >> publication for academic status and thus jobs and promotion, and this
> places
> >> an obligation on us work like any other academic journal.
> >>
> >> That is a personal view.
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >>
> >> David Kellogg wrote:
> >>
> >>> Your creaky memory serves you (and all the rest of us) excellently
> well,
> >>> Bruce. Actually, we kept discussing papers on the LCHC site as recently
> as
> >>> last year (I uploaded some stuff on the Psychology of Art, and there
> have
> >>> been wonderful papers from Andy and many others).
> >>>  I recently downloaded the whole backlog of journals, and I am really
> >>> distressed by how DULL and TEPID the writing has become. It's not
> surprising
> >>> that the discussions we have often peter out after only a few
> exchanges.
> >>>  I'm not over-impressed by the abstracts on offer in this issue,
> either.
> >>> Normally I would go ahead and vote for the article on second language
> >>> teaching. But the abstract reads suspiciously like a washing-powder
> style
> >>> methodological comparison, with "SCT-CHAT" on one side and a caricature
> of
> >>> "SLA" on the other.
> >>>  Andy is right. Going outside the system of free articles for
> discussion
> >>> is a good answer for the discussion list, but it does nothing to
> address the
> >>> main problem, which is the quality of articles that appear in the
> journal.
> >>>  I guess I think that the editors need to be a little more interested
> in
> >>> genre bending, the reviewers a little more open to "revise and
> resubmit"
> >>> instead of outright rejection, and we writers need to be thick skinned
> and
> >>> persistent.  Contrary to what Andy says, rejections are not that bad. I
> >>> think I'd much rather have a rejection than to have to put my name over
> some
> >>> of the articles I've read lately. But then, that includes some of the
> drafts
> >>> I submitted mysefl!
> >>>  David Kellogg
> >>> Seoul National University of Education
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- On Fri, 7/8/11, Bruce Robinson <bruce@brucerob.eu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Bruce Robinson <bruce@brucerob.eu>
> >>> Subject: Re: [xmca] The Polls are OPEN!!
> >>> To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <
> >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>> Date: Friday, July 8, 2011, 2:14 AM
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If my creaky memory serves, we did discuss non-MCA articles suggested
> and
> >>> mainly written by list members for a long period in the late 90s /
> early
> >>> 00s. There are or were indications of this somewhere on the MCA
> website. Not
> >>> sure why or how it stopped.
> >>>
> >>> Bruce Robinson
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
> >>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 2:28 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: [xmca] The Polls are OPEN!!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> David, I think there is a LOT of merit to taking articles posted on
> the
> >>>> LCHC for discussion as the focus of XMCA discussion. We should not do
> that
> >>>> *instead* of the one MCA article per quarter though. There is plenty
> of time
> >>>> between the quarterly publication of MCA to discuss an article on the
> >>>> website. We should do more of that, for the reasons you give.
> >>>>
> >>>> Andy
> >>>>
> >>>> David Kellogg wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Mike:
> >>>>>  I wonder if there is any way we could include "write-ins" on the
> >>>>> ballot. People could upload manuscripts to the "Papers for
> Discussion" at
> >>>>> LCHC and then these could be included in the vote.
> >>>>>  This might address several problems which seem to be dogging our
> >>>>> quarterly discussions.
> >>>>>  a) It often happens that the articles on offer have almost nothing
> to
> >>>>> do with what people have on their minds and what is being discussed
> on the
> >>>>> list.
> >>>>>  b) It sometimes happens that the authors chosen for publication in
> the
> >>>>> journal turn out to be more interested in being published than in
> being
> >>>>> discussed and do not take part.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> c) It occasionally happens that people like myself clutter up the
> list
> >>>>> with long posts which really ought to be articles but which have no
> chance
> >>>>> of publication, at least not in their current form.
> >>>>>  It may also be a good way of getting the writing mentorship project
> >>>>> off the ground, and it might even return us, one small but much
> appreciated
> >>>>> step, towards that pre-MCA tradition of an unrefereed and unreviewed
> >>>>> newsletter, with writing that is unafraid to walk on the wild side.
> >>>>>  David Kellogg
> >>>>> Seoul National University of Education
> >>>>> --- On Wed, 7/6/11, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> >>>>> Subject: [xmca] The Polls are OPEN!!
> >>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>> Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2011, 3:45 PM
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A wide range of articles to choose from for XMCA discussion and
> private
> >>>>> musings.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Journal/poll.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> *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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> *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
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------------
> > *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
>



-- 
Patrick Jaki
Forced Migration Studies Programme
University of The Witwatersrand.
Work: 27 11 717 3166
P. O Box 505 Wits
2050
Johannesburg
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca