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 <[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 <[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.
>>
>>
>
--
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.
|
