Post Img January 31st , 2018 at 6:27pm

Cosmopolitan FYE: Making Space for Dialogue

Post Img March 13th , 2018 at 8:16am

Making Space for Dialogue: Cosmopolitan FYE as a Model for College First-Year Experiences

Equal Collaboration


Thank you for the opportunity to read this revised work-in-progress. It’s coming along excellently. I agree with Kurt that you’ve done a good job of revising your introduction, especially where this concerns organizing how you frame the topic for intellectual coherence as well as accessibility and relevance for your particular audience. The distinction between cosmopolitanism and education banking and socialization models has been nicely revised for clarity and succinctness. 

Below are some suggestions, most of which relate to accessibility (as requested). 

  1. With Kurt, I suggest including some specific examples from your FYE course to help contextualize the values of CFYE. 
  2. Page 2, paragraph 3: You might add a sentence or two to clarify further the relevance of pointing out the “unfinished” nature of humans for the main intention of your paper. 
  3. Page 2, last paragraph: For accessibility, consider unpacking the phrase “a common canon of cultural knowledge” before turning over to Hansen’s remarks. 
  4. Page 3, last paragraph: I'd love to see a brief explanation of how you, perhaps with Skipper, define “diversity."
  5. The term “programmatic” requires brief unpacking, such as on page 3.
  6. Page 4: “There is also the question of institutional priority and resources provided for FYE programs.” This seems rather quickly introduced and left. I suggest adding a sentence or two to explain what you’re referring to specifically. Though this can be deduced, it may be helpful to readers if you tell exactly what you mean by "priority and resources" and what "the question" is. 
Again, really good work, Katina. I enjoyed reading this and look forward to more. 

View Comment
Post Img March 16th , 2018 at 8:32am

Scaling the Ivory Tower: Encouraging Dialogue between the Public and Universities

Equal Collaboration


It was a pleasure to read your revised work. Your writing style is excellent; it’s clear you’re focused on making your thoughts as accessible as possible without losing their scholarly richness. Below are some suggestions, which largely apply to accessibility per your request. 

  1. Your agreed upon definition (with NCCPE) of “public engagement” is very nicely articulated. I’m glad to see the emphasis on accountability, trust, relevance, and public impact straightaway. 
  2. I know you’ve received feedback with concerns about using the term “the public” or “the general public” to refer to folks engaged beyond university settings. My concern about this is dampened by your drawing on Greif (on page 2) to address the dissonance there mentioned, as well as on page 6 where you emphasize most strongly that “‘public intellectuals’ aren’t separated from the ‘public.’” It’s still a tricky problem, one I’d enjoy seeing addressed on page 1 when you first make use of the terms. We’ll set some time aside in our next meeting to discuss the problem more generally, as a group. (As a side note, in that passage on page 2, I recommend making your stance clear; i.e., do you fully embrace Greif’s claim?)
  3. Page 2: You might consider briefly defining “moral responsibility." Briefly unpacking the terms “outputs” and “empirical" also seems desirable.
  4. Page 2: I find myself wanting to hear a little bit more about the VAK model and why it is a “prime example” of the above. Perhaps you’d consider adding a sentence for explanation and, if possible, also a hyperlink.
  5. Page 4: For accessibility, might you give a concrete example of an “I-It” relation? 
  6. Page 5: This relates to the suggestion above. I suggest further unpacking ideas like “objectification” as you iterate the “I-It” relation and “technical dialogue.”
  7. Page 6: I suggest unpacking the terms or clarifying the ideas represented by the terms “paternalism,” “subjectivation.” 
  8. Page 6: I recommend also providing a more concrete example or two of “genuine dialogue” (within your specific contexts). 
  9. I love how on the last page (6) you connect the work thus far back to its title. 

Great job all around, Claire! 

View Comment
Post Img March 9th , 2018 at 7:59pm

PPJ Community Ethics Statement

Equal Collaboration

For reviewers:


"Where are you?"

We regard this statement to be in a mid to late stage of development. Drafted by the editorial team, it has since been revised in light of initial feedback from Kathleen Fitzpatrick and Nancy Maron. 

"What do you need?"

1. Are there any terms or passages in need of revision for improving on accessibility? 

2. What expectations, policies, or procedures might you like to see added or revised in section two ("Code of Ethics")? 

3. Given that this is a new requirement, we seek your feedback on the engaged scholarship statement as described in section three. For example, how would you respond to this requirement if you were submitting original content for Formative Peer Review? What particular sort of information might you, as a composer, specify in an engaged scholarship statement? Do you perceive any major disadvantages to requiring composers to tender these statements? 

4. For accessibility, we'd like to keep the statement at a brief length. With that said, we seek your thoughts on its relation to the PPJ's scholarly dialogue criterion. Specifically, and bearing in mind that the statement purposes to inform colleagues about the PPJ's understanding of what constitutes, and the PPJ's expectations for, ethical community engagement, do you find it would benefit from engaging in dialogue with additional scholarly works? 

"Engaged scholarship statement"

As a learning resource, this statement is concerned with connecting the PPJ's core values and ethical standards with the PPJ mission more broadly. To that end, it draws on Christopher Long's writings on thick collegiality - where this concept significantly informs the PPJ mission - and it directs readers to pertinent passages on the PPJ website that contextualize and expand on its content. These passages include information about Formative Peer Review, the Current, and the PPJ's style criteria and submission guidelines, all of which in various ways speak to the PPJ's commitment to nurturing a culture of care and inclusivity within academic institutions and broader public life. 

View Comment