I liked PJ's quote and ideas on this topic. Even without making
agreements I think your message, PJ, will make a difference.

Having introduced, pursued and facilitated a thread about
firewalking and it's implications for adventure education theory
(for about 2 weeks), I am now inspired (and better resourced) to
complete my writing on this topic. So thank you to all who took
part. And I will back up my thanks one day soon by sending in a
reference where you can find the finished article.

This process (pursuing a topic for 2 weeks) seems to more or less
fit with PJ's ideas about a 'rotating subject facilitator'. I
think anyone is free to introduce, pursue and facilitate a
discussion on a topic that matters to them. But this doesn't
guarantee a response and participation. I think each of us will
continue to drop in and out as it suits us. Each of us will also
have our own ways of trying to make things work. Some topics will
generate more interest than others. Some facilitation styles will
work better than others. Let us continue to experiment. As
participation grows more possibilities open up.

By the way, if you want to read more about firewalking, there
are currently lots of firewalkers (participants, organisers and
others) writing in to the UKHRD list on the subject - look for
'firewalking' in the archives at http://www.ukhrd.com (but it
will take a few days for the latest emails to get into the
archives).

Roger Greenaway
Reviewing Skills Training
[log in to unmask]
http://reviewing.co.uk


----- Original Message -----
From: "PJ Giampietro" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: friendly criticism


> Greetings list members,
>
> I've been a quiet yet avid reader on this list, and as an
"academic-in-training" I've appreciated the critical discourse.
With respect to Roger's post, I wonder if we ought to think about
the unique qualities of how we might hold conversations on an
internet-based discussion list like this one.
>
> I'm reminded of an article written by Richard Paul, "Community,
Conflict, and Ways of Knowing", in which he discussed the idea of
conflict in an academic community, specifically a classroom:
>
> "My point is that there is very little conflict in American
classrooms, and the reason is that the soft virtues of community
are lacking there. Without the soft virtues of community, the
hard virtues of cognitive teaching and learning will be absent as
well. Our ability to confront each other critically and honestly
over alleged facts, imputed meanings, or personal biases and
prejudices--THAT is the ability impaired by the absence of
community... Conflict is open, public, and often very noisy.
Competition is a secret, zero-sum gain. COMMUNAL CONFLICT is a
public encounter in which the whole group can win by growing."
>
> If the goal of such a list as this is to share ideas, ask
questions, to challenge one another, I wonder how best to do
that? How would someone who stumbles into the list orient him or
herself to the rules governing discourse? Also note that in
normal professional gatherings a moderator might steer the
conversation into specific directions, keeping the discussion
"on-track". That is absent here.
>
> So, I wonder if computer-based discussions forums like this one
need a few agreed-upon guiding principles about postings, or a
statement about the goals for the discussion's tenor. I'm not
advocating some drawn-out agreement, just a few grounding-type
statements, such as the lists goals, the valuing of challenges to
assumptions, etc. I also wonder if a list such as this one would
also benefit from having a rotating subject facilitator? Say for
the next two weeks person A is interested in guiding the
discussion on X subject. (It seems that James'posting started
that in a way. It gave the list something to ground itself around
as a discussion.)
>
> Thanks!
>
> PJ Giampietro
>
>
> Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
> http://www.shopping.altavista.com
>