4.0911 E-mail: Conversation/Publication, Boys/Girls, Age? (3/57)
Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Sun, 20 Jan 91 17:07:09 EST
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 4, No. 0911. Sunday, 20 Jan 1991.
(1) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 12:51:32 EST (25 lines)
From: Germaine Warkentin <WARKENT@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: E-mail: conversation or publication?
(2) Date: 18 Jan 91 10:49:00 EST (16 lines)
From: "Mary Dee Harris" <mdharris@guvax.georgetown.edu>
Subject: E-mail boys and girls
(3) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 11:33:48 EST (16 lines)
From: Lee Jacobus <JACOBUS@UCONNVM>
Subject: Re: 4.0903 Age and the Use of Computers & E-Mail
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 12:51:32 EST
From: Germaine Warkentin <WARKENT@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: E-mail: conversation or publication?
Andrew Gilmartin makes some good points in his response to my assertion
that I think of e-mail as primarily conversational. It might help to
know that my statement emerged from a discussion raging a couple of days
ago on FICINO, the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies'
electronic seminar for persons interested in that area. There, a rigid
line was being drawn which if followed would put us in the position of
"peer review" of e-mail exchanges! Gilmartin's remarks sketch an
analogy I can agree with: that between the presentation of new
scholarship on e-mail, and the standard conference paper. What I do NOT
agree with is his observation that publication is the imprimatur that a
work is part of the canon. Publication is merely confirmation that the
scholar presenting work to her peers is ready at last to engage in the
full and public debate which should ensue to test that work's merit.
That the debate doesn't always ensue merely testifies to the laziness or
preoccupation of the scholar's audience, and not the imperfection of the
system. My students often say wistfully that being finished the Ph.D.
means that the constant criticism of their work is finally over. "Ha!"
I say, "kiddo, it's just beginning!" Articles and books in opposition,
book reviews, peer review of papers and grant proposals -- all those go
on throughout academic life. And beyond, in some cases! In this
respect as in others, "canonical" is a very chancy concept! Germaine.
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------24----
Date: 18 Jan 91 10:49:00 EST
From: "Mary Dee Harris" <mdharris@guvax.georgetown.edu>
Subject: E-mail boys and girls
I must ask Norman Miller what his explanation is for all us "girls" on
the e-mail circuit if interest in such gadgetry derives from "boys"
getting ham radio sets. No, I never got even a crystal set (as did my
male cousin) and he's now a Ph.D. psychologist. Does that prove
Miller's argument?
Let's not forget that some of us have done computers and humanities all
along and in fact, got tenure that way.
Mary Dee Harris
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------23----
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 11:33:48 EST
From: Lee Jacobus <JACOBUS@UCONNVM>
Subject: Re: 4.0903 Age and the Use of Computers & E-Mail (4/74)
I think there is something to the theory that those of us currently in
our 50s were held back from playing because of catching the tail end of
the depression. I have often commented that I now seem to have more
toys than when I was a child, but vastly less time to play with them.
The computer became available to me when I had enough money to purchase
one--1982--and it became a necessity to my work even earlier in 1980 on
the mainframe. So it is natural that the excitement of this wonderful
new toy should make up for some of the opportunities missed when I was
a child (although I had a chemistry set and a primitive crystal set to
fool with). However, it is clear from looking around that all of us in
our mid fifties are not sharing in the excitement. Could they have been
among the privileged in the 1930s?
agree with is his observation that publication is the imprimatur that a
work is part of the canon. Publication is merely confirmation that the
scholar presenting work to her peers is ready at last to engage in the
full and public debate which should ensue to test that work's merit.
That the debate doesn't always ensue merely testifies to the laziness or
preoccupation of the scholar's audience, and not the imperfection of the
system. My students often say wistfully that being finished the Ph.D.
means that the constant criticism of their work is finally over. "Ha!"
I say, "kiddo, it's just beginning!" Articles and books in opposition,
book reviews, peer review of papers and grant proposals -- all those go
on throughout academic life. And beyond, in some cases! In this
Received: by BROWNVM (Mailer R2.07) id 8294; Sun, 20 Jan 91 17:07:28 EST
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 17:07:09 EST
From: Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear <EDITORS@BROWNVM>
Subject: 4.0911 E-mail: Conversation/Publication, Boys/Girls, Age? (3/57)
To: Humanist Discussion <HUMANIST@BROWNVM>
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 4, No. 0911. Sunday, 20 Jan 1991.
(1) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 12:51:32 EST (25 lines)
From: Germaine Warkentin <WARKENT@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: E-mail: conversation or publication?
(2) Date: 18 Jan 91 10:49:00 EST (16 lines)
From: "Mary Dee Harris" <mdharris@guvax.georgetown.edu>
Subject: E-mail boys and girls
(3) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 11:33:48 EST (16 lines)
From: Lee Jacobus <JACOBUS@UCONNVM>
Subject: Re: 4.0903 Age and the Use of Computers & E-Mail
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 12:51:32 EST
From: Germaine Warkentin <WARKENT@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: E-mail: conversation or publication?
Andrew Gilmartin makes some good points in his response to my assertion
that I think of e-mail as primarily conversational. It might help to
know that my statement emerged from a discussion raging a couple of days
ago on FICINO, the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies'
electronic seminar for persons interested in that area. There, a rigid
line was being drawn which if followed would put us in the position of
"peer review" of e-mail exchanges! Gilmartin's remarks sketch an
analogy I can agree with: that between the presentation of new
scholarship on e-mail, and the standard conference paper. What I do NOT
agree with is his observation that publication is the imprimatur that a
work is part of the canon. Publication is merely confirmation that the
scholar presenting work to her peers is ready at last to engage in the
full and public debate which should ensue to test that work's merit.
That the debate doesn't always ensue merely testifies to the laziness or
preoccupation of the scholar's audience, and not the imperfection of the
system. My students often say wistfully that being finished the Ph.D.
means that the constant criticism of their work is finally over. "Ha!"
I say, "kiddo, it's just beginning!" Articles and books in opposition,
book reviews, peer review of papers and grant proposals -- all those go
on throughout academic life. And beyond, in some cases! In this
respect as in others, "canonical" is a very chancy concept! Germaine.
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------24----
Date: 18 Jan 91 10:49:00 EST
From: "Mary Dee Harris" <mdharris@guvax.georgetown.edu>
Subject: E-mail boys and girls
I must ask Norman Miller what his explanation is for all us "girls" on
the e-mail circuit if interest in such gadgetry derives from "boys"
getting ham radio sets. No, I never got even a crystal set (as did my
male cousin) and he's now a Ph.D. psychologist. Does that prove
Miller's argument?
Let's not forget that some of us have done computers and humanities all
along and in fact, got tenure that way.
Mary Dee Harris
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------23----
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 11:33:48 EST
From: Lee Jacobus <JACOBUS@UCONNVM>
Subject: Re: 4.0903 Age and the Use of Computers & E-Mail (4/74)
I think there is something to the theory that those of us currently in
our 50s were held back from playing because of catching the tail end of
the depression. I have often commented that I now seem to have more
toys than when I was a child, but vastly less time to play with them.
The computer became available to me when I had enough money to purchase
one--1982--and it became a necessity to my work even earlier in 1980 on
the mainframe. So it is natural that the excitement of this wonderful
new toy should make up for some of the opportunities missed when I was
a child (although I had a chemistry set and a primitive crystal set to
fool with). However, it is clear from looking around that all of us in
our mid fifties are not sharing in the excitement. Could they have been
among the privileged in the 1930s?