Comments

1. Theresa Shaw:  logistical things that keep people apart, “I believe that you actually have to make effort to have the conversation.” 
   “You almost have to structure it like the T course.”
   
   Wendy Martin:
   There is a real divide b/t qual and non qual.  Some strong controversies re: which is the better methodology; it should be “and”
   There are many meetings at CGU; driven by committees
   Grants available for Trans study, research
   
   Lorne Olfman:
   
   Berger;
   Enjoys opportunities to interact with others from different colleges b/c of his specialty
   
   McHenry: b/c of statistical techniques, his conversations consist of a negative nature re: statistics and data sets.  They don’t represent reality (data sets). 
   “never had a requirement that qualitative methods be a tool, it’s always been statistical course. . .”
   
   Drew; teaching statistics, has collaborated with colleagues in his own school but not a frequent occurrence with other colleges. 
   Limited interaction with colleges because “they often operate independently as business silos.” 
   “you need both, there are different ways to access knowledge.”  “some of the most intriguing studies take place when someone ventures out of their fields.” 
   
   Hot Groups: book about intensive collaborative groups,
   
   Brodie: more opportunities in the past.  “We don’t live here anymore, it used to be a rule that if you worked at one of the Claremont colleges you must live here”  It’s harder to find the time to talk to people.
   
   The Gender of History: 
   One of hopes of T courses was for inter disciplinary students to continue working together, perhaps on dissertation groups.  The great promise of the Trans approach. 
   
   The hope that we can get together is sustaining.  “We can do it, there are no obstacles, except our own energy and our own lack of time.”
   
   
   

   Gudiel Crosthwaite on Wednesday, 06 December 2006, 18:54 Pacific Standard Time # |