Hi Gunnar,
aw shucks, nice to hear from you! I don’t participate on the list as much these days partly because my interests lie elsewhere and partly because I rarely feel the need to enter the fracas. I only come in when I have something pertinent to say, and in this case, because of my colleague’s comment coinciding with the first post. I also don’t see the need to advertise one’s departure from the list. Just leave if you’ve had enough. Perhaps this a mark of my coming from a more stable position in terms of what I know, how I know it and what I feel I need to say. But I still subscribe to the list because very occasionally, I get a great reference, idea or contact. So thank you listers for this.
As to the issues of ‘right’ and ‘coherent’, I would argue that the ‘right’ rooms, people and conversations are often open to only a few, eliding the voices and contributions of the majority (not just women, but people of colour etc). As to coherence, remarkably, often many of those most vehement about their positions do not cite the theorists/practitioners on which their views are based so that others may read them for themselves, despite the sometimes long winded posts. This is where generosity comes in. Share resources – the traces are there anyway.
For those interested, Janice Moulton has an insightful (yes, feminist) take on what she calls the paradigm of the adversary method of philosophical debate (for a brief taste: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-306-48017-4_9#page-1 <http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-306-48017-4_9#page-1>) that provides a way of understanding gendered practices in disciplinary debate and many of the behaviours on this list.
Some people have commented that listers might just jump in anyway, brace themselves, suck it up, admit when they’re wrong in order to learn, etc, there are still a vast majority of people who will not post because of the relations of power that constrain what can be said and by whom, and most importantly, what gets taken up in conversation and how the conversation proceeds (who gets a response, etc). One day, when I have the time, I will do a gender analysis of the conversations on this list – I wanted to do it during my PhD, but my supervisor wisely said, just write the PhD. One day :)
all the best,
teena
Moulton, J. 1983, A Paradigm of Philosophy: The Adversary Method, Springer ebook.
> *Teena--Please call me out on the implications of "right" and "coherent." Other than this thread, we haven't heard from you in way too long. I miss you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|