As a commentator on disability I have read the posts and essentially
it would seem to be we focus on the debate and welcome the thorny
issues - lambasting or criticising is rarely productive. Let's instead
talk about what concerns us in a non-inflammatory manner.
Fiona Place
PO BOX 1317
Double Bay
NSW 1360
Down Syndrome; a family perspective
http://web.me.com/fplace/Down_Syndrome;_a_family_perspective
On 09/06/2010, at 7:37 AM, James Overboe wrote:
> Thanks BJ and Liz for your posts.
>
> Ironically when teaching I make myself vulnerable and put myself out
> there as a means to put a human face on teaching disability. In
> spite of my somewhat assertive position on these postings and often
> my introductory remarks that sets the tone of the class by inverting
> the usual power dynamics involved within the disability/non-
> disability relationship my major concern has been the students I
> teach and what are the implications of what i teach them outside the
> four walls of the classroom. My teaching ossicilates between two
> poles. First, reflects a space where they can express themselves and
> find themselves within the subject matter. And in doing so, allow
> them to risk. In fact one of my favourite mantras for myself is
> "risk being stupid" borrowed from brian massumi, and I encourage
> students to do the same. And second and equally important to provide
> an environment where they can safely do this (and by safety i do not
> mean coddling students). in my class I actively reiterate the risk
> of applying this new way of thinking about disability learned in my
> class to a social world that I feel stills sees disability to
> varying degrees a social tragedy. And subsequently try to prepare my
> students as much as possible for a normative backlash.
>
> For me the instructor asking students to post on this list provided
> the first allowing them to test the waters and risk (and some on the
> listserve have seen it as a good exercise myself i am still not
> convinced). Without assigning blame this class seemed to be ill-
> prepared to venture out on the social terrain of the web where their
> audience within the context of this listserve membership would
> suggest have for the most part a (strong) DS background where even
> some members critique both normalization and the benefits of
> inclusion (including me). I can understand where BJ gets the sense
> of lambs being slaughtered although again i do not believe it was
> mine or anyone else's intent. iI believe even the most aggressive of
> us were trying to rectify what many of us would call the
> miseducation of students (again this is not a shot at the instructor
> within the context of [some] special education theory the course
> material would be fine (if these student comments reflect the course
> material). I believe many of us were trying to educate students so
> they might avoid a confrontation with an "angry cripple" which would
> be unpleasant for both parties as Jerry's scenario eloquently points
> out.
>
> Perhaps a better audience would be a special education list serve
> (although I keep on hearing that community is changing and may be
> more closely aligning with those of us who saw this exercise as a
> miseducation. I don't know only time wii tell.
> let me be clear i still believe this exercise is wrought negative
> ramifications for students who are vulnerable whatever the
> listserve. I agree with Liz and others who point out the ethics of
> this exercise are at the least questionable. but if the instructor
> can do it. so be it. if this exercise continues hopefully more
> consideration will be given to the responsibility of unleashing
> these reflection into cyberspace and its ramifications for students
> and audience.
>
> From differing perspectives I know that Liz and B.J and myself as
> well as others have had students interests at heart which is
> important. our perspective and interpretations and points of
> importance may differ but we are all concerned with the
> vulnerability of students.
>
> BJ I do believe we could have resolved our differences in a fifteen
> minute face-to-face meeting. Perhaps someday we will have an
> opportunity to meet face-to-face. :).
>
> be well all (especially you students lurking :) )
>
> James
>
>
> James Overboe
> Assistant Professor
> Sociology Department
> Cultural Analysis and Social Theory M.A. Program
> Wilfrid Laurier University
>>>> BJ Kitchin <[log in to unmask]> 06/08/10 3:49 PM >>>
> (Liz I know you got this twice - At least I corrected the spelling
> of your
> name :)
>
> Dear Liz,
>
> Thank you very much for the kind and clarifying response. I
> appreciate it
> and your advice is wonderful, thank you for that as well. I
> couldn't agree
> more that email presents many challenges to clear communication.
> Its a
> reminder that is good to get often.
>
> I mixed speaking generally and specifically in my response it which
> is not
> the best way to go about responding. Your words push me to read and
> ponder
> a bit more before responding. I have heard from James Overboe as
> well and
> its clearly difficult to coin a phrase in type that can hold the
> value of a
> complete person, all their thoughts, and all their worth. I could
> be more
> patient. To clarify, my invocation of old guards and missing the
> boat on
> social media were meant to make my sentiment clearer; though
> admittedly I
> put you and other's like James there initially I don't need to keep
> you
> there. I understand better why you offered what you did (Thank you
> James as
> well) and I too appreciated Mr Priestly's note. Im not naive about
> the
> risks of putting information on the net... but I also really value the
> sharing of the real self... for my own reasons I see wisdom in it.
> Liz,
> your sharing in your last note expanded my understanding of your
> position
> greatly, thank you.
>
> Perhaps I felt the need to counter what I felt was out of balance.
> I roll
> with undergrads and the teachers who teach them every day. I am one
> of
> their teachers, and not long ago I was an undergrad myself. I am a
> PhD
> candidate now just coming to the end of my course work.
>
> The majority of undergrads from my view are young, 18 to 22 and still
> looking to us as the "grown-ups" in large part for the answers. At
> least in
> my neck of the woods. Its a right of passage to be an undergrad and
> figure
> out that you really don't know much. I could feel them, at least
> some, even
> one cringing at some of the comments rolling out in the aftermath of
> this
> assignment. Some really trying to give of their heart and not really
> understanding what on earth just happened.
>
> I teach in the DIS unit here. Our first course is DIS
> 300<http://www.ccids.umaine.edu/interedu/ids/
> idscoursedesc.htm#DIS_300>Disability:
> Interaction of Human Diversity and Global Environments. Our
> students come from all the major disciplines on campus. Their minds
> get
> flipped to reconsider everything they had previously thought about
> people,
> diversity, environments (all kinds), and how the interaction of
> these ideas
> converge to define and inform us about how we consider disability
> and thus
> respond to it. I grade their work and I see them struggle to figure
> out
> what it all means, and at my stage in the game I struggle along with
> them
> really.
>
> If I had invited someone to guest speak and they had barked in the
> way I
> have interpreted some (not all) of the responses on the list to have
> barked
> I would take issue even if I knew full well the point they were
> trying to
> make was an important one. I did't like the "heart" of some of the
> messages
> I read. I come from the perspective that its not fair to ask
> someone to
> know what they do not yet know. Having grown up in foster care I
> have grown
> bully hairs on the back of my neck, and when they bristle I have
> learned to
> attend to them.
>
> As for John's reference to the fist amendment in saying "it pisses
> some
> people off" I wasn't sure how to take it or how it was directed. I
> actually
> thought it might be directed at me. As an American myself I have
> heard that
> very phrase many times. It reminds me of the values here for
> independence
> and respect for divergent opinion (second part of that gets the shaft
> sometimes)... I cringe a little though when I hear it put like that
> (bully
> hairs again) but I am very glad for our first amendment, the freedom
> of
> speech is potent.
>
> I know we didn't sign up for the list to teach students half way
> around the
> world and I certainly do not think any one is obliged to do so...
> but even
> though boarders and cultures are draped around us differently I
> believe we
> are all connected. I will also say I am glad that I am not the
> professor
> who gave them this assignment. I have little doubt the lesson has
> not been
> lost on them!
>
> Again, thank you for your kind and articulate words.
>
> Best
>
> BJ
>
> PS,
>
> James Overboe: I did read your response and could have said the same
> to you
> as I say to Liz above... thank you for your frank and assertive
> words even
> if I don't agree entirely or didn't understand you completely.
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Liz Panton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Dear BJ,
>>
>> I like your reply to my comments - truly - though I am also truly
>> sorry if
>> I came over as a "shark". Perhaps another aspect of cultural
>> difference at
>> work?
>>
>> I decided not to read the assignments when I saw comments that they
>> included disclosures about family members. I would not want to read
>> private
>> and personal information that might have been shared by students
>> without the
>> permission of their
>> families, even if there is not the remotest possibility that I
>> could ever
>> know the people concerned.
>>
>> Your reply made me remember another occasion when I also reacted with
>> "horrified disbelief" - but also laughed a lot - at a local radio
>> station.
>> One of my favourite programmes is created and presented entirely by
>> children. One evening the main
>> presenter primed his regular "sidekick" with a very stilted prompt
>> that was
>> clearly being read out,
>>
>> "So, has-anything-interesting-happened-this-week?"
>>
>> "No".
>>
>> "Isn't your mam in hospital?" (with more than a hint of exasperation)
>>
>> "Oh yes!!" (followed by a gob-smackingly detailed expose of his
>> mother's
>> medical history, bodily functions and emotional responses,
>> broadcast to the
>> whole city).
>>
>> His mum might have been roaring with laughter in her hospital bed
>> but I
>> could just picture the poor woman hiding her head under the sheets in
>> mortification as her son rambled on. I sat transfixed in the car
>> with
>> handbrake half-released, listening
>> with a mixture of amusement and "horrified disbelief". I still
>> listen to
>> the program but am ready now to hit the off-button in case there
>> are any
>> further revelations!
>>
>> As with other very varied comments on the process carried out with
>> the
>> students on this list, the responses say rather more about us as
>> individuals
>> and perhaps our "cultural baggage" than the student exercise
>> itself, which
>> is what you would expect.
>> For my part, I would rather not be privy to information that those
>> concerned might have wished to be kept private, so I chose not to
>> read any
>> of the assignments. I am not trying to adopt any sort of moral
>> high-ground,
>> it is just that it would make
>> me feel uncomfortable and there is no need for me to read the
>> assignments,
>> as many others had already offered a range of comments. I also find
>> the
>> comments, in all their diversity, quite interesting enough in their
>> own
>> right.
>>
>> Something else I find interesting is the perception (BJ) that some
>> comments
>> about the process represent an "old guard" attitude and, if I have
>> read
>> rightly, that you have placed me in that camp and have aligned
>> yourself with
>> a more modern/current
>> viewpoint. From my perspective, I feel the opposite is true, which
>> just
>> goes to show what shifting sands we all move on :-)
>>
>> Of course, I welcome the positive reply from Mark Priestly. I have
>> not
>> suggested that any content from the assignments should be deleted
>> from the
>> public archive. I have not read the assignments and, for the
>> reasons given
>> above, do not wish to do
>> so. If there is any content that anyone feels ought to be deleted
>> because
>> it apparently breaches the privacy of non-list members, perhaps the
>> person
>> who posted the content could be contacted "off-list" (by the
>> tutor?) to ask
>> if this possible
>> problem is actually real one? My assumption has been that family
>> members
>> were not aware that their personal circumstances were being made
>> public -
>> perhaps they were aware and perhaps they were happy about it?
>> Perhaps they
>> were not aware previously
>> but might be OK about it if asked now?
>>
>> I am not sure if the references to "Freedom of Speech" (John Noble)
>> relate
>> to possible breaches of privacy or to comments about some of the
>> terminology
>> used by some of the students? Or something else? I don't know
>> anything
>> about "internet law" and
>> have assumed that, since JISCMail is hosted in the UK, that UK law
>> applies.
>> I think that there are legal and cultural differences between the
>> UK and the
>> USA in terms of the relative priority (emphasis?) in law given to
>> "Freedom
>> of Speech" vs
>> "privacy of the private individual". (Maybe someone else here can
>> confirm
>> or clarify?) I am not suggesting that one position is "better" than
>> the
>> other, just that these differences might explain some individual
>> differences
>> of perspective and opinion.
>>
>> From the comments that I have read about the assignments, nobody
>> seems to
>> be suggesting that any of the students set out to cause any offence
>> by their
>> use of terminology that some (many? most?) but not all on this list
>> find
>> offensive. Unless I have
>> missed something, at least none of the students referred either
>> casually or
>> derogatively to "loonies", "cripples", "retards", "dements", etc.
>> (The
>> persistence of the term "mental retardation" in "scholarly" texts is
>> something that always gets my
>> hackles up!)
>>
>> I agree with others who have commented that the student exercise has
>> generated a very interesting discussion. I like finding out what
>> others
>> think about these issues, perhaps especially when their views are
>> very
>> different to my own.
>>
>> It is so hard to be sure that forms of words in email discussions
>> express
>> the intended "tone". When I first read something and "hear"
>> harshness,
>> aggression, sarcasm, etc. I try again and see if there is another
>> "reading".
>> There usually is. So, if I
>> have not managed to avoid a "bad tone" on first reading, my
>> apologies in
>> hope that the rough edges will rub off with a second reading :-)
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Liz P
>>
>>
>> On 7 June 2010 23:21, BJ Kitchin
>> <[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ]
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> What is clear to me (BJ) is that the voices on the list are diverse
>> and the
>> opinions shared resemble this. Including those with the opinion of
>> "horrified disbelief." Which is fine as far as opinions go I
>> suppose but
>> that sentiment certainly seems
>> a but overboard to me. Still, there has been breadth of
>> perspective for
>> the students who have stuck with this to process. I fear however,
>> that the
>> message the students might take away is that they can expect to be
>> treated
>> harshly by members of
>> this list more articulate and learned then they. Hammering them
>> and there
>> professor for problems with there ideas, means of expression, and
>> so forth.
>> I don't fret too much about it because its all feedback and that's
>> what
>> they asked for (good and
>> bad)... its worth thinking about though.
>>
>> How should the student's interpret the "horrified disbelief" they
>> have
>> participated in causing? And as James pointed out, the
>> "Offensiveness" and
>> "Scarring?" Forgive my sarcasm, I really do think the assignment
>> needs a
>> great deal of refinement but
>> some of the reactions here make me think the old guard is moaning
>> from
>> their antiquated perspectives on the mountain of decency and good
>> manners. I
>> am reminded of a line from the movie the Wizard of Oz (Old American
>> Film)...
>> "Lion's, and tigers, and
>> bears... OH MY!" Lets be a little more brave, hmmm?
>>
>> The comments about horrors and institutional review processes is a
>> bit much
>> really (IMO). You did qualify why you have that perspective which
>> was great
>> but this was not research, even though methods are indeed in
>> question. And,
>> should Professors
>> run all there assignments by an institutional review board? Is that
>> really
>> what you are suggesting?
>>
>> Should we "go off" on a class we were instructing when we disagree
>> with
>> their approaches and ideas, like some have here? (Not withstanding
>> James
>> Overboe's chide that we should receive some of Professor Neuville's
>> remuneration/peanuts for
>> co-instruction. That was funny and perfectly acceptable IMO :-).
>> That
>> said, we don't have to read or respond. I reject the notion that
>> used us to
>> do his work, even if it was mostly offered in jest. I do think its
>> fair to
>> say we look to the list
>> to connect with other people... and their grace.
>>
>> I don't think these litany of posts warrant's in anyway whatsoever
>> that the
>> list take measures to lock down the possibility of this sort of
>> thing ever
>> happening again! Egads! I do think you propose other options that
>> could work
>> quite nicely. Perhaps
>> we can self regulate a bit more democratically. After all Liz you
>> haven't
>> even read what the students posted so you say. Nor do you need to
>> but I
>> don't think the professor really wanted to throw his students and
>> their
>> ideas to the scholar sharks of
>> the world... there are indeed sharks in the world though and its
>> good to
>> know that.
>>
>> I would agree as well that the list cannot control or demand the
>> contingency of common sense and common courtesy in order to have
>> the right
>> to post, particularly given that to some degree such things are
>> relative.
>> That said, perhaps we should
>> examine all of the comments regarding the students posts as violating
>> common sense and common courtesy; ergo some of the responses from the
>> scholars and teachers on the list are offenders too? I'm not sure.
>> Though I
>> do not agree with the process of
>> the assignment in whole I certainly can appreciate the intent.
>>
>> What most who have responded seem to agree about is that the public
>> sphere
>> is a dangerous place to speak. I agree. Still, its an interesting
>> phenomenon of social media, of which a listserve is even if its
>> clunky and
>> antiquated, to remove some of
>> the controls around how ideas get talked/typed about. In this way
>> social
>> media can denude some of the barriers that "normalize"
>> communication. That
>> is risky though. Still, its gaining speed! People are connecting
>> to the
>> tune of billions over
>> social media and thumbing their noses to some degree at the
>> institutional
>> power to control when they want to say something from the top
>> rope. Or in
>> the case of the students, just share what they think - (or just
>> complete an
>> assignment and get on
>> with summer break). I only mention this because perhaps there is a
>> little
>> nostalgia for those mediated controls over how we share our ideas
>> going on
>> here. I suggest that perhaps common sense is historically and
>> geographically positional... and
>> times and places are-a-changing.
>>
>> Social media takes away some of the filters installed by
>> institutional
>> hegemony (rightly or wrongly installed) ... perhaps there is some
>> good in
>> that albeit there is bad too.
>>
>> One thing is certain... these students have inspired some interesting
>> conversation!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Liz Panton
>> <[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ]
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Another Liz here, who has decided to add her voice of horrified
>> disbelief
>> at
>> the way this exercise has been conducted. I did not read any of the
>> student
>> contributions as I had no idea what the subject line meant. I only
>> looked
>> at
>> the content of the explanation from the tutor when I saw that and
>> explanation was being provided, as I was mildly intrigued to find
>> out what
>> the subject line referred to.
>>
>> I have read some of the responses from list members and accept that
>> some
>> people have been generous enough and felt safe enough to comment
>> publicly
>> on
>> the content of the student assignments and the exercise itself. I
>> cannot
>> comment on the assignments but am astonished that an exercise like
>> this
>> could proceed without being first submitted to the tutor's
>> educational
>> institution for ethical approval. I cannot imagine that it would
>> have been
>> allowed to proceed in this way if that safeguard had been applied.
>>
>> Quite apart from the lack of duty of care displayed to the
>> students, and
>> their families, I feel that there has been an abuse of this email
>> list and
>> its members. All the responses, including mine, are in the public
>> domain
>> and are available for further use, eg. quotation or analysis,
>> subject to
>> copyright [
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/copyrightissues.html ]
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/copyrightissues.html
>>
>> I appreciate and accept that the tutor has learned from this
>> exercise and
>> has offered his apologies and I do not want to be rude. However, I am
>> finding it difficult to think of a more diplomatic way of
>> suggesting that,
>> since JISCMail cannot reply on members to exercise common sense and
>> common
>> courtesy, that the Policy and Security section needs to be updated
>> in order
>> to avoid a recurrence on this or any other list. (I cannot find any
>>
>> reference to a "list owner" for this list other than the Centre for
>>
>> Disability Studies at Leeds University so have cc'ed to the contact
>> email
>> address on that website - apologies if I have missed this in earlier
>> correspondence).
>>
>> What I would expect as acceptable conduct would be for a tutor to
>> first
>> approach the list owner about using a list in this way. I would NOT
>> expect
>> a
>> list owner to then allow an exercise to be conducted in the way
>> this one
>> has
>> proceeded.
>>
>> I would find it acceptable for list members to be invited to
>> participate in
>> an exercise like this "off list" in a private forum. If "self-
>> selection" is
>> the rule, then some guidance or criteria would be useful, even if
>> only
>> "everyone is welcome". It would also be helpful for there to be
>> clear
>> acknowledgement that the list has a global membership and that
>> students
>> must
>> assume significant cultural and socio-linguistic differences if the
>> discussion is open to anyone interested in participating.
>>
>> Then, that all concerned, students and "reviewers", would be
>> supplied with
>> appropriate guidance on confidentiality, disclosure of personal
>> information
>> and UK data protection law. I have an NHS professional background
>> and
>> personal experience of receiving "disability services" and these
>> facts
>> undoubtedly colour my expectations, which would include a
>> requirement for
>> participants in this type of exercise to explicitly "opt in" by
>> signing a
>> confidentiality and data protection form that explained how data
>> would be
>> processed, stored and ultimately destroyed. I accept that this
>> might be out
>> of step with the expectations of many other list members.
>>
>> My personal experience also includes supervising university
>> students on
>> experience placement in the NHS and, as a part of this, enabling
>> their
>> successful and uncontroversial involvement with another email list (
>> [ http://www.webwhispers.org ]http://www.webwhispers.org) by ensuring
>> careful "introductions" and clear
>> information on the purpose of their participation and how any
>> information
>> shared will be processed. As a member of the Disability Research
>> list, I
>> expect to be treated with the same basic care and consideration by
>> any
>> tutor
>> seeking to use the Disability Research list for the benefit of
>> students.
>>
>> Presumably the students who sent in assignments are still members
>> of this
>> list and will be reading criticisms of the way their involvement was
>> handled. I am very sorry for that in so far as it might affect their
>> relationship with the tutor and institution. I did think about
>> sending my
>> comments only to the tutor but the public response has been very
>> varied so
>> there are positive comments to balance the negative feedback from
>> myself
>> and
>> others. (My very positive comment would be to say that I applaud
>> the tutor
>> for having the imagination to solicit comments/reviews from list
>> members!
>> My
>> problem is with the execution of the exercise.) I also felt that,
>> while
>> others might disagree with my perspective, that it would be helpful
>> to add
>> it to the discussion about the principles that might or should
>> apply to
>> this
>> type of exercise.
>>
>> So, I hope this contribution is helpful and that ways will be found
>> for
>> future involvement of students by means that are wholly
>> constructive and
>> acceptable.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Liz Panton
>>
>>
>> On 7 June 2010 07:33, Liz <[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ]
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I decided at the start of this particular discussion i would not
>>>> add to
>> it
>>>> as I may feel the urge to speak rather plainly and not articulate
>>>> myself
>>>> quite as eloquently as others have done on this subject. I shall
>>>> contain
>> the
>>>> urge to rant.
>>>>
>>>> To say some measure of 'enlightenment' is better than none is rot.
>>>> Particularly when in my opinion, the students 'sympathy'
>>>> 'admiration'
>> and an
>>>> apparent newfound 'acceptance' and 'understanding' merely shows a
>> naivety
>>>> that could prove as dangerous as ignorance. It was cringe-worthy
>>>> reading
>>>> (oops - there it is - my plain-speak).
>>>>
>>>> I urge those students to question why some people may get a little
>> ticked
>>>> off with such views and challenge the tutor/lecturer using further
>> debate.
>>>> The responsibility of the tutor/lecturer should not cease on module
>> close.
>>>>
>>>> If i seem a little harsh - i make no apologies : )
>>>>
>>>> ________________End of message________________
>>>>
>>>> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre
>>>> for
>>>> Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (
>>>> [ http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies ]
>> www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
>>>> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
>>>> [ mailto:[log in to unmask] ]
>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>> Archives and tools are located at:
>>>> [ http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html ]
>> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>>>> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this
>>>> web
>> page.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> I raise money for Communication Matters with Everyclick.com
>> Find out how you can help here: [ http://www.everyclick.com/
>> lizpanton ]
>> http://www.everyclick.com/lizpanton
>>
>>
>> ________________End of message________________
>>
>> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
>> Disability Studies at the University of Leeds ([
>> http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies ]
>> www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
>> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [ mailto:
>> [log in to unmask] ]
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Archives and tools are located at:
>> [ http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html ]
>> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this
>> web page.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> I raise money for Communication Matters with Everyclick.com
>> Find out how you can help here: [ http://www.everyclick.com/
>> lizpanton ]
>> http://www.everyclick.com/lizpanton
>>
>>
>
> ________________End of message________________
>
> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre
> for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies)
> .
> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
>
> Archives and tools are located at:
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this
> web page.
>
> ________________End of message________________
>
> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre
> for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies)
> .
> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
>
> Archives and tools are located at:
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this
> web page.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|
