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 <[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
>
> 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) 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 <[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 (
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> --
> I raise money for Communication Matters with Everyclick.com
> Find out how you can help here: 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.
|
