>Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
>Delivered-To: [log in to unmask]
>Delivered-To: [log in to unmask]
>X-Received: from mail.rdc1.wa.home.com ([log in to unmask]
[24.0.2.66])
> by naga.mailbase.ac.uk (8.8.x/Mailbase) with ESMTP id VAA08750;
> Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:31:52 GMT
>X-Received: from den ([24.5.126.216]) by mail.rdc1.wa.home.com
> (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP
> id <20000111213151.HIAL26912.mail.rdc1.wa.home.com@den>
> for <[log in to unmask]>;
> Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:31:51 -0800
>Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:31:11 -0800
Dear Dennis,
I have to concur strongly with the advice _not_ to go the study and survey
route. The study route could go along simultaneously with building content
in existing courses and offering new courses and modules under "special
topics" numbers usually reserved in dept.s specifically for trying out new
courses/areas of study that faculty are interested in pursuing. Speaking
as a sociologist engaged in a lot of work around the definitions and
conceptualizations of meaning in a social world (as well as someone
personally and professionally involved with disability studies as well as
other social movement studies), I believe the survey route would not only
result in stalling things, but would have negative and perhaps regressive
effects. Unfortunately, at this point in time, there is little
conceptualization of what a term such as disability studies might mean
amongst the general public, and even often amongst folks with various sorts
of disabilities. Without some sort of conceptualization, people/students
by definition _cannot_ be interested in studying a topic (they don't even
know what it is or that it exists). The language, identities, movement,
and study are still in their very early formative moments (even though it's
been a while). Any response to the survey would basically be meaningless,
other than as a measure of the total lack of basic conceptualization of
what disability studies might mean, a lack of generalized progressive or
non-stigmatized discourse on the topic that would enable students to
consider it an area of study that permeates social relations, the world,
and our (everyones') lives. Only once some base has been created that has
any of these ideas within their grasp, through implementation of course
modules in existing classes and special topics courses and/or actual
programs of study/concentrations will there be any chance for a survey to
demonstrate any relevant opinions on the "interest" in the topic, here
being defined as the "market". Years ago, snack food companies found that
creating new snack foods did not cut into their own markets of other snack
foods that they themselves produced, but simply broadened the markets and
consumers perceived "needs" with advertising that worked "properly" for the
producers. I am not suggesting by any means that disability studies is
analogous to snack foods in any way. I am not trying to trivialize.
Rather, I am saying that there is something to be learned in general about
society and the working of people's interests as reflected in a "market
perspective" from that study. An interest has to be developed socially.
It will not exist intrinsically prior to that development. We are just now
in the process of very basic levels of that development in both the
disability community (or potential members of the community) and the
(self-perceived) abled general population. Any survey at this point on a
campus without disability studies modules would be likely to create
meaningless data that would easily allow regressive interpretations. It
would probably not just stall the process, but very possibly shut it down
altogether, based on supposedly irrefutable "scientific data". Strongly
worded argument here, but just my 2 cents, I suppose.
Best of luck
Natasha Kraus
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
>X-Spamcan-Reason: substring [home.com] matched [Received] with expression
[#96] from [<[log in to unmask]>] to
["|/usr/local/mailhost/mailbase/lister/restrict disability-research"]
>Subject: Dis. studies advice
>From: "Dennis Lang" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>X-List: [log in to unmask]
>X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave disability-research' to
[log in to unmask]
>X-List-Unsubscribe:
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: "Dennis Lang" <[log in to unmask]>
>Sender: [log in to unmask]
>Errors-To: [log in to unmask]
>
>To those that do from one trying to make others do. I need some strategy
>advice.
>
>I'm a non academic person with a disability trying to stimulate the
>formation of the disability studies program based on the social model of
>disability at the University of Washington, Seattle. I have a "Interest
>committee "consisting of 14 faculty and staff (and one student with a
>disability) from various graduates and undergraduates departments. The
>co-chairs of the committee disagree on how to proceed. One feels that there
>is not enough students with disabilities involved and is not sure of the
>market for a disability studies program. (The University has approximately
>30,000 students. ) She wants to study the issue and do surveys. The other
>chair wants to move forward and first create disabilities studies content in
>the existing curriculum while working towards new courses and the
>development of the undergraduate major.
>I'd definitely feel the need for more involvement by students with
>disabilities and I'm continuing to work on this issue but I'm concerned by
>the potential momentum killer of the "study and survey”approach. Should I
>be worried about a potential market? Or is this a case of “if you build it ,
>they will come?”
>Advice please.
>
>Dennis Lang
>
>
>
>
Natasha Kirsten Kraus
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology
430 Park Hall
Box 604140
University at Buffalo-SUNY
Buffalo, NY 14260-4140
[log in to unmask]
(716)645-2417 x 457
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|