Reply to comment

In light of our extensive debate last week on the importance of locating oneself  when writing an essay, I couldn't help but notice the paragraph on page 2 of Dalke and McCormack's article in which they explain their academic and professional locale. One thing that did strike me was that neither of them locates themselves personally...i.e. how are they as people connected to this subject? What is it about their personal not just academic history that propels them towards such studies and may fuel certain perspectives? In addition, neither of them confront their personal womanhood/femininity and how it relates to their teaching/thinking. Why is this? It seems like Dalke wanted us to provide such self-reflection within our own papers, so why is it not present in hers? Would it be out of place? What purpose would it serve?

I really liked the inclusion of Megan Stegall's essay within the article, for I felt that it truly represented McIntosh's higher stages of curriculum. In including Stegall's work, the authors, both professors, acknowledge that much can be learned from the students- professors are not the ultimate knowledge "gods." This makes learning a cooperative effort, allowing students to be teachers and vice versa.

I like the way in which the article introduces a concept, like "synecdoche," provides an explanation for and theory behind it, and then moves away from abstractions to provide us with a concrete sense of the utilility behind theorizing such frameworks. In this case, the concept of "synecdoche" is directly connected to the authors' argument for trans-disciplinary work. Thus, the essay's analysis of "synecdoche" quickly becomes useful to the reader- we are able to easily answer the "so what" question.