July+12,+2011

August 12, 2011 3:30 pm – 4:30 pm

i. Does this create a problem because we are not including a perspective from the sciences? ii. Let’s use the conference presentation to help us to determine what disciplines/discourses we need to consider including that we haven’t – we need to be explicit about our use of the presentation to seek this feedback. i. “Lots” of white space J ii. Accessible language iii. Bulleted
 * 1) Began by discussing how feasible our prep plan is
 * 2) Sarah asked what we are all doing – see WikiSpaces for summary under ‘meetings’ and ‘June 13, 2011’
 * 3) We each listed our chunks of work
 * 4) Kathleen asks, do we need to circulate a summary of genealogy prior to us summarizing the literature reviews for our chunks.
 * 5) No, we should continue being in the literature in our “chunks” and Kathleen will post a few choice articles about the method to dropbox.
 * 6) Genealogical method is very organic – there is no recipe for how to use that method – we’re already doing it.
 * 7) We’re not just looking for “how” field x defined reciprocity, but we also want to look for “why” they defined it that way. This means that our work is different from reading 6 articles from psyche and summarizing. We may need to think more carefully about the underlying assumptions of the field we are reviewing.
 * 8) Genealogy is a deconstruction process. The way we make partial truth is problematic in that we create as allowable or legitimate discourses simultaneously silences or delegitimizes other discourses. The fundamental practices of a discipline restrict what sort of truth can be discussed, thought about, or acknowledged.
 * 9) Our practice of using genealogy will help us to capture the currently “un-thought” definitions and descriptions of reciprocity within engagement – it’s helping us to push our epistemological understanding by opening us to the way that other disciplines “think” the definitions and descriptions of reciprocity.
 * 10) This leads us to believe that we will look at sources for “how” and “why” reciprocity is begin defined and utilized in some ways in the various epistemologies.
 * 11) Lina introduced the writing she did on the purpose of pursuing a concept review of reciprocity – acknowledged that she didn’t consider the implications of the genealogical influence.
 * 12) See email: Lina is seeking feedback from the group on this.
 * 13) Patti reminds us that what we need to do for November (presentation) can be less intense than our article project – we don’t need a “why” for every “how.”
 * 14) Sarah directs our attention to the summary of findings within the engagement literature in the dropbox. Asks, is their work (on the engagement literature) supposed to be in the frame of a genealogical review? Or, will their review be used to set up our concept review.
 * 15) We decided that the work that Sarah and Barbara have done sets up our need for a review.
 * 16) Brandon points out that if we look at the way reciprocity has been defined over time within those engagement journals, that could be a different piece (a spin-off article).
 * 17) Patti suggests we do some of both: give a landscape of how reciprocity is being used in engagement literature (acknowledging a few examples that reference reciprocity but haven’t given it a ton of thought) and then take it further: “BUT, THERE HAS BEEN SOME WORK TO GROUND THE CONCEPT OF RECIPROCITY INTENTIONALLY, such as x, y, z” and acknowledge that we’ve done a little of this in the field but not widespread and that’s why we’re doing this review.
 * 18) Patti suggests that we can use our time in one of two ways for the purpose of this conference:
 * 19) we should do the “how and why” the best we can for 2 – 3 disciplines a piece. Create the 1page overviews. Yields 10+ reviews
 * 20) Or, cover less disciplines, and go deeper with the one we are most familiar with.
 * 21) What is the right number of examples that our audience would need to get value from the session?
 * 22) Not all of us are reviewing more than 1 discipline.
 * 23) We have 8 groups. Patti has 3 of those (Psychology and Evo Biology and Leadership). Brandon has 2 (Political Science and Philosophy/Game Theory). Kathleen has 2 (Feminist and Non-western/Western). Barbara has 2 (MJCSL/Advances and Non-western/Western). Lina has 1 (Leadership).
 * 24) We suggest that we pare down the reviews. Sarah is willing to take Psychology. Kathleen may find that one of her two are not feasible and that her review might be broadened to critical theory.
 * 25) Some of these are disciplines and some of them are ways of knowing – perhaps we need to acknowledge that in our presentation. So, that leaves us with 4 __disciplines__ and 2 __discourses__ (critical discourse, non-western discourse).
 * 26) Note: we’ve broadened the area of the feminist work to be critical discourse.
 * 27) Patti has decided to broaden her work to be “sciences discourses” and also support Sarah and Barbara on the intentionality of engagement literature.
 * 1) The product that should be developed for September 15: a one-sheet overview of our own discipline or discourse areas:
 * 1) Brandon and Patti worked on the opening activity. It’s posted on dropbox. Please review for next time.