seen today on Facebook: attentions to peer review & revisions

===
With permission I share this observation seen on my Facebook newsfeed this morning. (The kinds of things that my feed turns up given the folks in my FB friends group ::smiling::). As you can see I liked it! (note the Public icon which shows it can be shared widely. Even so I asked permission both to share it with you all and to put it up on our class website.)

===
More from the Facebook Newsfeed: Publishing Ada (our example of open peer review too): http://www.slideshare.net/kestlund/publishing-ada?from_m_app=ios  

===

Multiple Realities & Queer Symposium on Friday!

===
Companion to the book, Multispecies Salon: http://www.multispecies-salon.org/

===
Compare to say, Nadir & Peppermint's ecoarttech: http://www.ecoarttech.net

===
Compare to say, Morton's Hyperobjects:

===
On Audible: http://www.audible.com/pd/Nonfiction/Hyperobjects-Audiobook/B00OQFVGVC

===

Thursday 16 April – Kirksey 

[Friday 17 April: LGBT SYMP events: Fawas & Smalls; Rodríguez] 

[Tuesday 20 April, Wednesday 22, Friday 24: Gessen events on campus]

===
What work do the boundary objects do?
"ontological turn" on Google Ngram over time:

===

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=ontological+turn&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Contological%20turn%3B%2Cc0

===
===

Archives:

by Eduardo Galeano
who died today 13 April 2015

https://newint.org/features/2002/01/05/rave/

The Right to Rave

the air shall be cleansed of all poisons except those born of human fears and human passions;
in the streets, cars shall be run over by dogs;
people shall not be driven by cars, or programmed by computers, or bought by supermarkets, or watched by televisions;
the TV set shall no longer be the most important member of the family and shall be treated like an iron or a washing machine;
people shall work for a living instead of living for work;
written into law shall be the crime of stupidity, committed by those who live to have or to win, instead of living just to live like the bird that sings without knowing it and the child who plays unaware that he or she is playing;
in no country shall young men who refuse to go to war go to jail, rather only those who want to make war;
economists shall not measure living standards by consumption levels or the quality of life by the quantity of things;
cooks shall not believe that lobsters love to be boiled alive;
historians shall not believe that countries love to be invaded;
politicians shall not believe that the poor love to eat promises;
earnestness shall no longer be a virtue, and no-one shall be taken seriously who can’t make fun of himself;
death and money shall lose their magical powers, and neither demise nor fortune shall make a virtuous gentleman of a rat;
no-one shall be considered a hero or a fool for doing what he believes is right instead of what serves him best;
the world shall wage war not on the poor but rather on poverty, and the arms industry shall have no alternative but to declare bankruptcy;
food shall not be a commodity nor shall communications be a business, because food and communication are human rights;
no-one shall die of hunger, because no-one shall die of overeating;
street children shall not be treated like garbage, because there shall be no street children;
[image, unknown] rich kids shall not be treated like gold, because there shall be no rich kids;
education shall not be the privilege of those who can pay;
the police shall not be the curse of those who cannot pay;
justice and liberty, Siamese twins condemned to live apart, shall meet again and be reunited, back to back;
a woman, a black woman, shall be president of Brazil, and another black woman shall be president of the United States; an Indian woman shall govern Guatemala and another Peru;
in Argentina, the crazy women of the Plaza de Mayo shall be held up as examples of mental health because they refused to forget in a time of obligatory amnesia;
the Church, holy mother, shall correct the typos on the tablet of Moses and the Sixth Commandment shall dictate the celebration of the body;
the Church shall also proclaim another commandment, the one God forgot: You shall love nature, to which you belong;
clothed with forests shall be the deserts of the world and of the soul;
the despairing shall be paired and the lost shall be found, for they are the ones who despaired and lost their way from so much lonely seeking;
we shall be compatriots and contemporaries for all who have a yearning for justice and beauty, no matter where they were born or where they lived, because the borders of geography and time shall cease to exist;
perfection shall remain the boring privilege of the gods, while in our bungling, messy world every night shall be lived as if it were the last and every day as if it were the first.

from Upside Down, Metropolitan Books.
Published on January 5, 2002

===
I've been sick and here I am climbing out of the sickness hole....

===

systems justice and multispecies attentions

===

<<<SECTION III: affect and materiality: systems justice

Anker. 2014. Orgies of Feeling. Duke. 978-0822356974. ASIN: B00NCU8PWA.

Gessen & Huff-Hannon, eds. 2014. Gay Propaganda. OR Books. 978-1939293350. ASIN: B00J7XJBWO.

Kirksey, ed. 2014. The Multispecies Salon. Duke. 978-0822356257. ASIN: B00PIKKE1C.

Rodríguez. 2014. Sexual Futures, Queer Gestures, and Other Latina Longings. NYU. 978-0814764923. ASIN: B00L8BUIES.

Povinelli. 2011. Economies of Abandonment. 978-0822350842. ASIN: B0068JZCAK.

REFERENCE: Burgett & Mendler, eds. 2014 (2nd ed). Keywords for American Cultural Studies. NYU.978-0814708019. ASIN: B00PSKHO1.

Thursday 9 April – Anker, Povinelli, Kirksey 

Thursday 16 April – Kirksey 

[Friday 17 April: LGBT SYMP events: Fawas & Smalls; Rodríguez] 

[Tuesday 20 April, Wednesday 22, Friday 24: Gessen events on campus]

Thursday 23 April – Gessen <GESSEN AT CLASS SPECIAL EVENT @ Marie Mount 1310B> 

Thursday 30 April – Kirksey, Povinelli  

Thursday 7 May – LAST DAY! poster sessions 

===
I added Kirksey to 9 April, shifting that and 30 April readings for our discussions: this can be reflected in your readings according to Director of Readings, or as you want and need! It reflects my own sense of where we are going in the class now after our paper sessions....

And we talked about Open Peer Review a bit in class. Here is an argument for double blind peer review, for your thinking, and to add to our transcontextual tangling!

From the journal Nature Climate Change:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n6/full/nclimate1923.html

===

Our paper sessions!

===

MIRANDA JOSEPH, "Investing in the Cruel Entrepreneurial University" 
> Wednesday, April 1, 2015; 5pm at Marie Mount Hall 1400

===

Thursday 2 April – paper sessions

===
Please come to class 5 mins early and be ready to begin our process promptly at 4:01!

Bring your professional bio to display along with your handout.

Bring enough handouts for everyone, with your name and title of project on them, and also an extra to use to mark the space you set up to share your project.

• @ 4:01: 9 mins: set up: create your space with handout as place holder; decide who will be displaying in each session
• 15 mins: everyone silently looks at the handouts, makes notes about the title of the paper, author, other identifying info for feedback
• 30 + mins: session 1: half display, half wander and interact with all displays
• 30 + mins: session 2: switch
• brief break 10 mins around 5:30
• last 45 or so mins of class for feedback, peer review set ups

Basically everyone creates a little space marked by their paper handout. Then we all go around silently and look at the handouts and make notes on what everyone is doing as understood that way.

We do NOT present contents of paper: we emphasize INTERACTION! That's a bit tricky and hard to get ourselves into this as a special practice: I say to folks: tweet at each other! So questions and answers are fine but not at any length! That's hard! we love to be the center of attention rather than actually interacting.

No monologing, yes, tweeting!

Think poster session, only with papers and handouts; think tweeting rather than presenting; think feedback at various ranges of engagement and detail.

===
ABOUT HANDOUTS: Be sure your handout has your paper's title and your full name on it. It should be able to convey both the conclusions you came to in your paper and how you got there in a quick gestalt, such that we can read all of these in that 15 mins we go around and take notes silently, and others will immediately understand what you are doing!

Yep! Quite a task! A mix of text and visuals are best: not too much detail, but also enough detail to facilitate real engagement with your stuff! People will be interacting with you on the basis of the handout! You will be adding, in the briefest way possible, other details, or exchanging views and interests and thoughts. DO NOT PRESENT! DO INTERACT!

You will be surprised at how much you can convey both on the handout and in the interaction and how much useful feedback you will get in this process!

===
This will also allow us to consider how best to divvy up who will do peer reviews of papers. Assume you will probably each do 3 peer reviews, so you might be considering who you want to review you, or who you want to review during this process! We will be doing what is called "open peer review" -- nothing is confidential.

A couple of links about peer review if you want to see these at this point: I will bring materials too:

= All four pages here: http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/reviewer-guidelines

= http://adanewmedia.org/beta-reader-and-review-policy/

I will bring examples of my own reviews for presses of book projects, articles for journals, etc. And I will bring guidelines I have collected too: from Feminist Studies for example.

===

For paper sessions: 1) learning to create abstracts and using as basis for scholarly interaction; 2) you will also create a professional bio before the event, such as those you will be asked to provide in various circumstances, sometimes for conference panels or journal contributions; 3) set up for sessions, handouts, in interactive poster-session style: new practices today as conference formats are sites of experimentation.

With website: 1) you will read everyone's papers after the sessions; 2) we will offer "peer-review" to two other classmates, learning how this is done professionally and feeling out how to offer and receive suggestions; 3) a simple website for the class will function as an online academic journal for the papers produced by our class and put up after class peer-review; 4) you will each curate some form of web-based professional presence, and will link that up to your paper on the class journal website.

Here is a nice example from one of Cathy Davidson's courses at Duke. Enjoy it! Ours can be even more simple: http://dukesurprise.com  Or this: http://www.hastac.org/collections/field-notes-21st-century-literacies  Check TAB assignment fun for links to possible platforms. Learn one skill at a time, be friendly about it all, everyone learns (don't have the most skilled already person do the work for everyone). Pick something to learn and take it easy! 

REVISIT TAB: assignment fun & TAB: communities of practice
===

what's neo in neo-liberal? a symphony of liberalism

===
from Povinelli 2011, pp. xvi-xvii

Thursday 19 March – SPRING BREAK

Thursday 26 March – Povinelli, Kirksey, Anker, Gessen, Rodríguez <ANKER AT CLASS>
[Wednesday 1 April: Miranda Joseph at LGBT Series: check out Burgett & Mendler: Community] 

Thursday 2 April – paper sessions

===
Remember: Miranda Joseph speaks on The Cruel Entrepreneurial University as part of the LGBT lecture series Wed 1 April at 5 pm, Marie Mount Hall 1400.

Why and how are university politics entwined with LGBT issues and concerns?

Learn something about those students protest in the context of international struggles in UK paper the Guardian, here:

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/mar/25/university-protests-around-the-world-a-fight-against-commercialisation?CMP=share_btn_fb

And this is the website of the collective at Amsterdam: http://rethinkuva.org/about-rethink-uva/

===

listening on a Sunday morning of Spring Break: other than moral outrage, how do we motivate ...justice?

===
"So I want to ask you, if moral outrage isn't the trigger that — it's true, we really, really think of moral outrage — I mean, we are a society of advocates, right?

"DR. MCCULLOUGH: Right.

"MS. TIPPETT: Then what? What activates — what has the power to activate the instincts to moral repair, to care for the stranger, that are at the heart of our religious traditions, that actually do manifest again and again in human society and that lead to this kind of moral progress that you talk about?"

From On Being, a conversation on the materialities of ethics and justice...

http://onbeing.org/program/arthur-zajonc-michael-mccullough-mind-and-morality-a-dialogue/transcript/7373#main_content

"DR. MCCULLOUGH: Yeah, I think the ability to take risks is really encouraged when people are not worried about their safety or where their next meal is going to come from. I mean, there's a sort of basic — I think, a basic ability to take risks that is encouraged when we know that not everything is on the line. So scarcity seems to be a real problem. So a lot of these things have vicious sorts of feedback loops to them. When we begin to take some of these affordances away or threaten them, some systems may not be resilient enough to have too many of these affordances peeled away before the system becomes fragile.

"So, I don't think there's anything inevitable about things getting better and better, actually. I think we need to safeguard and sort of buttress what we've got and try to not take it for granted, not allow those — these rights we've discovered that people have. Well, how strange is that? People have rights. That was a moral discovery."

===
"DR. ZAJONC: Oh man. No. All this kind of soft language of mine, it's all hazardous — or raising the question of materialism. Oh man, this is a dogma. I think of it as an assertion. It's proof by assertion as opposed to by reason. And I want to — nowadays, I'm old enough, I want to call it into question. I never felt that it was adequate with the last 40 years of being in science. But for most of those 40 years I felt like, step out of line at your risk, at your peril. I've done it occasionally and more consistently recently, late in life.

"But we shouldn't have illusions about science, even today, welcoming the full discourse. There are certain general commitments. And one has to be — sort of pluck up one's courage at least to step into the fray. And then, more often than not, I think there's a positive response. You can get hit a few times. But basically, that's fine. So, I think we should practice this kind of work more and more, allow for that difference, explore it with real respect and civility and have it be the — what Hannah Arendt might like as our public place of discourse where really the most important ideas can be debated openly. And it doesn't — we don't have to come to a single conclusion at the end."

===
"DR. ZAJONC: Well for me, I think there are two ways it can be interpreted, right? One is a way in which, in some sense, it's the biology of evolution, evolutionary psychology, the neurosciences that underlie, you might say, any of our actions. OK? So what you're discovering is just a fact about history and biology. So it's like the law of science or the law of physics. But now, in this case, it's more in your realm, Michael, than my realm. But I think of it differently. See, I think of it as all of that evolution, all that neuroscience, all of that gives biological support to the possibility of ethics. Doesn't predict ethics. It just gives — it's, like, necessary but not sufficient. Sure, I need a hand in order to write. Chop off my hand, I'm not going to write very well.

"OK. So I need a biological support to hold the pencil. But writing is not explained by that biological support. It's necessary, but not sufficient. I think the same thing is true for morality and most of what we talk about in terms of evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, and all the rest. Sure, there's an infrastructure. There's a support for it. But that's not it. That's not enough.

"DR. MCCULLOUGH: I agree with that. I mean, when I talk about ethical discoveries, I would not want to be getting my ethics from my biology. That's a — don't go there. That is not the place to get it from. It's to be gotten somewhere else. But I think — all I wanted to say when using — and maybe I was being playful in using the term discovery — but I do think that some of what makes those ethical advances possible are recognitions of similarity or universality, which are not always easy to see. They may not even come to the untutored eye without the benefits of science. The universals of human nature may be difficult to see with the naked eye."

===

Interview with Libby Anker

===
In preparation for our visit from Libby Anker after Break!

http://www.processhistory.org/?p=186#more-186

===