[CBW_Exec] CBW 2011 Proposal Rankings & question
Shannon Carter
Shannon_Carter at tamu-commerce.edu
Tue Sep 7 10:09:49 CDT 2010
I'm up for the consensus. Thanks for summing that up, hannah.
Thanks, as well, for the comments about mentoring and opening things
up to more junior scholars in the earliest phases of a research project.
Remember, too, that the roundtable presentation portion embedded in
our proposal was actually imspired, in part, by the Research Network
Forum. For that participants submit works in progress and are paired
with a leading expert in that area for feedback and supper in moving
the project forward.
If (now or in the future) we treat the roundtable discussions we were
exploring as part of the way to get more, newer bw participants in cbw
(with multiple, concurrent discussion tables going on and a very, very
short presentation time--8-10 minutes each) perhaps we can accomplish
both quality/selectivity and the mentoring of newer scholars/projects.
In other words, we could accept the best proposals for the panels in
morning and afternoon and other promising yet still too raw/unrefined
for general cosumption for the roundtable sessions.
Just a thought.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 7, 2010, at 9:54 AM, "Kelly Ritter" <karitter at uncg.edu> wrote:
> Hi Marcia:
>
> I like your idea of having senior scholars (or anyone who has
> interest) helping our junior folks write better proposals. I agree
> that BW is an area where people don't usually get a lot of help with
> their scholarship, and that having better work out there benefits us
> all.
>
> Sorry if I grossed anyone out with my lice comment/oversharing. I
> promise I don't have it myself, for future encounters!
>
> Kelly
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Ribble, Marcia (ribbleml) <ribbleml at ucmail.uc.edu
> > wrote:
> Hey, Kelly, hang in there. I don't know of anyone having head lice
> last forever. It's a shorter
> time than pregnancy....
>
> I like Kelly's idea, but want to add something, maybe because I'm
> used to thinking in terms of students
> who could improve their writing with a little help. It makes sense
> to select the most excellent proposals
> for presentation, but could we also (I'm thinking of us retired
> folks here who have no children with head
> lice) create a professional writing incubator process to help our
> junior scholars to improve the quality of
> their writing? Seems to me that this would gradually raise the
> status of our field and our scholars if a
> greater proportion of our folks were sending out publishable quality
> ms because they'd already gone
> through presubmission critiques. Lots of our BW folks work at
> institutions where they may not have many
> other BW folks to get critiques from, and folks outside our field
> may be willing to help, but not very helpful
> because they're unaware of our expectations.
>
> Marcia
>
> From: cbw_exec-bounces at tamu-commerce.edu [cbw_exec-bounces at tamu-
> commerce.edu] On Behalf Of Gregory R Glau [Gregory.Glau at nau.edu]
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 1:20 PM
>
> To: Conference of Basic Writing Executive Board
> Subject: Re: [CBW_Exec] CBW 2011 Proposal Rankings & question
>
> I'm torn and can go either way but I think that Kelly makes a good
> point: fewer, longer discussions is probably better and more useful
> than briefer ones.
>
> thanks,
>
>
>
> gg
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Greg Glau
> Associate Professor and Director, University Writing Program
> Northern Arizona University
> PO Box 6032
> Flagstaff, AZ 86001-6032
> From: cbw_exec-bounces at tamu-commerce.edu [cbw_exec-bounces at tamu-
> commerce.edu] on behalf of Kelly Ritter [karitter at uncg.edu]
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 9:40 AM
> To: Conference of Basic Writing Executive Board
> Subject: Re: [CBW_Exec] CBW 2011 Proposal Rankings & question
>
> Hi Hannah:
>
> I will first admit that I did not read the proposals. Got a cat who
> needs a zillion day pill regimen and a kid with head lice. And some
> needy new TAs.
>
> Having said that, my opinion may not be super-valid. But I think
> fewer proposals that have more space and time for discussion might
> be better than including everyone. I say this having been frustrated
> in recent years by how many mediocre proposals get through the Cs
> review process, and hearing that from other attendees as well. We
> want to balance quality and inclusion; in the case of Cs in general,
> I think we may be leaning too far in the direction of inclusion.
>
> If we have 6 really good proposals, to turn the question around, is
> that enough to make for a good workshop? If so, I would probably
> vote to limit and perhaps encourage Norris to submit to BWe, making
> clear that while her proposal wasn't a great fit for this year's
> particular pre-conference activity, it *would* be a good submission
> for a print venue like BWe (or electronic print venue, if you will).
>
> Kelly
>
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Ashley, Hannah <HAshley at wcupa.edu>
> wrote:
> Hello CBW reviewers (everyone else is getting this, too, but feel
> free to ignore):
>
> So, based on people's rankings/responses, the following two items
> are clear; there is a question at #3 below.
>
> 1. The following six got consistent strongest rankings and we
> should accept them:
> Ianetta--DOE grant
> Rigolino--EOP coalition
> Hill--reading collaborative/physical plant/resistance
> Bryant--student support/eng 100 stretch
> Schreyer--adjunct faculty
> Olsen--survey results
>
> 2. The following proposal got consistent bottom rankings and we
> should reject it:
> Stevens-Piazza
>
> 3. Here is the question. The following four proposals got middle
> or mixed rankings:
>
> Sunderhaus
> McLaughlin
> Norris
> Webb-Sunderhaus
>
> Please let us know your thoughts on the following:
> a. Do we go for greater selectivity, with the idea being that we
> want to foster a sense that only the strongest proposals/work gets
> featured at our fabulous precon? Or do we go for greatest
> inclusivity, to bring more people into the conversation? Is there a
> middle ground, to do both? (e.g, ask the four above for posters but
> not presentations, or something?)
>
> b. Do we want to define the conference theme tightly, and reject
> proposals if they don't fit? As in, Norris's proposal, which
> several people have pointed out should go to BWe but perhaps does
> not belong in this year's precon?
>
>
>
> Hannah Ashley, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor of English, Composition & Rhetoric
> Director, Writing Zones 12.5 (www.writingzones.net)
> 543 Main Hall, West Chester University
> West Chester, PA 19383
> 610-436-2371
>
> "For years I pulled my own existence out of emptiness. Then one
> swoop, one swing of the arm, that work is over." Rumi
> ________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> CBW_Exec mailing list
> CBW_Exec at tamu-commerce.edu
> http://mailman.tamu-commerce.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbw_exec
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Kelly Ritter
> Associate Professor of English
> Director of Composition
> UNCG
> karitter at uncg.edu
> (336) 334-4689
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CBW_Exec mailing list
> CBW_Exec at tamu-commerce.edu
> http://mailman.tamu-commerce.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbw_exec
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Kelly Ritter
> Associate Professor of English
> Director of Composition
> UNCG
> karitter at uncg.edu
> (336) 334-4689
>
> _______________________________________________
> CBW_Exec mailing list
> CBW_Exec at tamu-commerce.edu
> http://mailman.tamu-commerce.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbw_exec
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.tamuc.edu/pipermail/cbw_exec/attachments/20100907/147ef54f/attachment.htm
More information about the CBW_Exec
mailing list