LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for CASLL-L Archives


CASLL-L Archives

CASLL-L Archives


CASLL-L@LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CASLL-L Home

CASLL-L Home

CASLL-L  May 2001

CASLL-L May 2001

Subject:

Re: inkshedding on inkshedding

From:

Marcy Bauman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CASLL/Inkshed <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 22 May 2001 12:09:07 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (120 lines)

Ah, Peter, you've identified the Perennial Inkshed Problem:  How to balance
people's need to present with the need of the conference to have a more
leisurely schedule than most conferences allow.  I think you're right about
this:

>From my limited experience, it is at THIS point (after inkshedding and
immediate sharing) that discussion is most >fruitful.  That is, even though
discussion lets only one mouth speak at a time--there is an increased
dialogic quality >to discussion when everyone has written and then read at
least 5 to 10 inksheds.  I found that the publication of >bits of inkshed
the next morning--while terrific--was not a substitute for the more
immediately interactive process I >just described.  The published bits are
such tiny snippets--and there's little processing of them after they are
>distributed.  I heard some people saying that the inkshedding felt boring.
I think this is a function of it's not being >processed more.

It really does change the dynamic of the discussion if the discussion
begins *after* inkshedding, when everyone has read half a dozen inksheds
(and therefore knows what six other people thought).  The questions tend to
be more well-formulated, to operate on many levels, to provoke better, more
exploring-of-issues kinds of discussion and less "here's what *I* think"
kinds of comments (the kind I'm really guilty of!).  There is indeed
something profound about reading the inksheds while the ink is still wet --
before they've been distilled into the "printable" bits.  There's something
wonderful about reading your session inksheds afterwards, too, when they've
been marked by several people, and you can clearly see that yes, several
people responded to one bit or another.

> I fear this sounds ungrateful or not understanding.  For of course I
> understand perfectly well the cause of this situation.  I often saw Doug
> TRYING for more inkshedding--and apologizing and being uncomfortable at
> not having more time for it and for sharing.  And of course the lack of
> time came from what might be called a deeply "inksheddish" and "dialogic"
> tradition at your conferences:  the tradition (I gather) of accepting ALL
> proposals and avoiding concurrent sessions.  Doug (and the agenda
> planners) had no choice but to push us relentlessly from presentation to
> presentation.

I think there are many elements that go into making inkshedding dialogic in
the ways that you've described it.  And as you so rightly perceive, this
kind of inkshedding has to be orchestrated very carefully.  Time enough to
do it is one factor, to be sure . . . and there are ways to organize the
conference, as you suggest, so that enough time can be built in.

There are others factors as well.  I'm thinking out loud here, and I'm
writing this partly for Linda, who has the task of organizing this
conference after having only attended once -- I think our shared
observations could really help her out!

One really important factor is the physical layout of the room.  It should
be easy for people to pass the inksheds around after they've been written;
tables where people sit on more than one side tend to focus the group's
attention to the other participants and make it easier to see when people
are done writing and to exchange papers.  At Canmore it was hard to share
Inksheds because you could really only be attentive to what the people
sitting next to you were doing; I, at least, didn't feel part of a group of
people inkshedding together the way I have at other conferences.  Also,  I
think it's absolutely crucial that the people who want to talk after a
session be provided with immediate and convenient egress, so that the
conversations don't interrupt people who are trying to write.  Not
everybody wants to write after every session, and that's okay . . . we've
all had the experience of feeling completely brain-dead at some points in
the conference, and sometimes catching up with that person you haven't seen
in years takes precedence.  But those activities ought not to disrupt the
conference program agenda.

Another important factor is the editorial process.  I think there's value
in turning the inksheds around quickly -- ie, having the morning session's
inksheds available by the end of the day, at least (sooner if possible),
and having the afternoon inksheds available the following morning.  The
sooner people have the inksheds the sooner they, too, become part of the
ongoing dialogue of the conference and the more seriously people attend to
the reading and writing (which gets harder and harder to do as the
conference goes on and people get tired).

In past years we've had groups of conferees volunteer to transcribe each
session's inksheds, and I'm kind of ambivalent about not doing that this
year; on the one hand, it was nice not to have that responsibility, but on
the other, I kind of missed getting my hands dirty, so to speak . . . and I
missed the camaraderie of sitting with others trying to decipher
handwriting, and of reading each other bits that seemed significant but
that *didn't* get marked . . .

Well, that's all I can think of . . . I'm sure others will have more ideas.
Peter, you've unwittingly tapped into another Inkshed tradtion, which is
the annual post-conference "what worked/what didn't" discussion . . . and
let me say while I'm at it that one of the things that *really* worked for
me this year was the quality of the presentations -- many were not the
traditional readings of papers, and many were works-in-progess where we as
the audience were invited, through inkshedding, to help people think
through a problem or otherwise add our perspective.  Also, many of the
presentations resonated particularly loudly with the others in their
session.  I think the call for participation must have been especially
welcoming of alternative formats, and the conference committee did a
terrific job of organizing the presentations into sessions.


Marcy





        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                           Marcy Bauman
                         Media Consultant
                       College of Pharmacy
                      University of Michigan
                           734-647-2227
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

                -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
   [log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
       write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]

   For the list archives and information about the organization,
the annual conference, and publications, go to the Inkshed Web site at
         http://www.StThomasU.ca/inkshed/
                 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010
October 2010
April 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager