Re: [Critical-Realism] The way forward

[Bas van Heur <basvanheur@xxxxxxx>]

I also agree with Jan's general points, even though 200 words replies 
might be a bit too brief.

the reason why I haven't been responding to - although I tried following 
- the posts of the last couple of days is because it was simply too 
much. I realize other people have more time on their hands (or are not 
members of multiple mailinglists!), but research on internet cultures as 
well as my own experience shows that the so-called open mailinglists 
tend to be dominated by a small group of people constantly online (the 
research also shows that these usually tend to be single men, but hey, 
that might be changing...) This creates a situation in which other - 
less frequent - visitors/readers are de facto excluded from 
participating, since the main arguments will already have been exchanged 
before they even check their mail. Often this list is dominated by two 
or three people, which certainly does not improve the quality of the 
debate, I think...


Bas



Dave Taylor wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I have some difficulty with the maximum one per day and 200 word post
> proposed below, for several reasons.
>
> a.  People like myself with more time and perhaps interest than others can
> have a lot more to say.
>
> b.  When the aim is not the interpretation of a phrase but to give reasons
> for disagreeing with a way of thinking or to propose ways of clarifying an
> argument, 200 words can hardly compare with the original article or chapter.
>
>
> c.  When, as as happened recently, a suggestive comment opens up a whole
> range of new insights, one has to get these down as they come, for after a
> day they are likely to have faded or to appear inconsequent if others have
> taken off (erspecially dismissively) in different directions.
>
> My own experience has been that apparently untidy discussion can look much
> more intelligible if reordered after the event  to encourage and facilitate
> reflection.  What is difficult is personality clashes between those looking
> for convergence between different perspectives and those seeing views
> different from their own as inferior competition, to be attacked (even ad
> hominem) rather than learned from (the "not invented here" syndrome). The
> discipline I see as most needed is an explicit rule that CR discussion must
> seek deeper, more abstract, more inclusive readings rather than elimination
> or castigation of unpopular opinions.
>  
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan
> Norrie
> Sent: 07 June 2007 15:43
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] The way forward
>
> Dear all,
>
> In thinking about how to proceed, it might be worth knowing that new
> editions of RTS and DPF are expected next Spring, since people have
> difficulty in getting hold of the RTS in particular. February 2008 is
> mentioned, but there is often slippage in these matters.
>
> How do we proceed now? I agree with Jan's general points about structure and
> length of posts, and a moderator. If we went for a mix of JCR articles and a
> book, could we have two moderators perhaps?
>
> Alan
>
> At 15:16 04/06/2007, you wrote:
>   
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I think Ruth's and Mervin's suggestions are an excellent way to go 
>> forward. The point is of course how to manage the process in both a 
>> disciplinary and educationally satisfying manner. In the past i have 
>> participated in zillions of on-list structured readings, but most of 
>> them failed because of .... you know well. What we need for starters is 
>> some kind of minimum protocol. With only some good texts and dito 
>> intentions we go nowhere. So let me propose some suggestions for such a 
>> minimum protocol:
>>
>> - Keep it simple, small is beautiful.
>>
>> - Devise a program for, let's say, one month, with a selected theme.
>>
>> - I am not in favor of whole books or long articles.
>>
>> - Maximum lenght of posts (200 words) and amount of contributions per 
>> participant (once a day).
>>
>> - Select a program/theme moderator who manages the thread.
>>
>> I don't know if something like this will work, we'll see. I invite 
>> others to bring in their own ideas; indeed, with Che in mind: let's be 
>> realistic, let's do the impossible.
>>
>> yours,
>> Jan
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>     
>
> Alan Norrie
>
> Edmund-Davies Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice President,
> International Association for Critical Realism
>
> School of Law, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS
>
> Secretary: Grace Alleyne 020 7848 2273  Fax: 020 7848 2465
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism