Comments on: Review (pt. II): Technological Ecologies & Sustainability http://ryantrauman.com/blog/2009/06/05/review-technological-ecologies-sustainability-pt-ii/ Trauman's Blog: Writing. Reading. Technology. Book History. Book Future. Digital Scholarship. Blogging. Teaching. Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:14:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Trauman http://ryantrauman.com/blog/2009/06/05/review-technological-ecologies-sustainability-pt-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-4051 Trauman Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:39:42 +0000 http://ryantrauman.com/blog/?p=435#comment-4051 Absolutely. That's such an important part of this project. So many people in academia won't give something a sniff unless it's associated with a university press. This is such a coup for you to be associated with a highly respected press like USUP. Thanks for responding! Absolutely. That’s such an important part of this project. So many people in academia won’t give something a sniff unless it’s associated with a university press. This is such a coup for you to be associated with a highly respected press like USUP. Thanks for responding!

]]> By: Cindy http://ryantrauman.com/blog/2009/06/05/review-technological-ecologies-sustainability-pt-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-4044 Cindy Mon, 08 Jun 2009 03:08:28 +0000 http://ryantrauman.com/blog/?p=435#comment-4044 Trauman-- What a marvelously thoughtful review! And I love that you've emphasized the theoretical, historical, and technological contexts of TES as a publishing project. We couldn't have said it better ourselves! I would also note that all publications of the CCDP--including TES--also have the imprint of CCDP's partner, Utah State University Press Many junior and senior scholars work in departments where academic presses still reign supreme, so we see this imprint as an important feature of the CCDP and its publications. Trauman–

What a marvelously thoughtful review! And I love that you’ve emphasized the theoretical, historical, and technological contexts of TES as a publishing project. We couldn’t have said it better ourselves!

I would also note that all publications of the CCDP–including TES–also have the imprint of CCDP’s partner, Utah State University Press Many junior and senior scholars work in departments where academic presses still reign supreme, so we see this imprint as an important feature of the CCDP and its publications.

]]> By: jason http://ryantrauman.com/blog/2009/06/05/review-technological-ecologies-sustainability-pt-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-4039 jason Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:54:29 +0000 http://ryantrauman.com/blog/?p=435#comment-4039 Yeah, I do think TES holds together more as a collection (though that might just be because, like you, I'm more personally invested as as scholar in the issues it raises). In many ways, I think the frame of ecology and sustainability really calls us to draw connections among the articles. In a way, each article is but one node in a larger theoretical network about sustainging technological ecologies. Yeah, I do think TES holds together more as a collection (though that might just be because, like you, I’m more personally invested as as scholar in the issues it raises). In many ways, I think the frame of ecology and sustainability really calls us to draw connections among the articles. In a way, each article is but one node in a larger theoretical network about sustainging technological ecologies.

]]> By: Trauman http://ryantrauman.com/blog/2009/06/05/review-technological-ecologies-sustainability-pt-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-4031 Trauman Sun, 07 Jun 2009 10:39:17 +0000 http://ryantrauman.com/blog/?p=435#comment-4031 Hey, Jason. Thanks for the post. I agree. The _Writing Selves, Writing Societies_ text published and distributed by the WAC Clearinghouse is definitely a relevant precursor to TES. I didn't think of it, though, because of its focus on activity theory. Because I'm not very well read in activity theory, that book doesn't hold together in the same way that TES does. It's just my sense, though. I'm sure it's a solid book, but without that particular interest, each of the articles become relevant to their particular context, rather than the theory they have in common. That's really useful, but it can create (for people like me and you, I guess) a sense of autonomy for each of the articles. I think the opposite can be said for this TES. The chapters hold together because of the common perspective they bring to their contexts, but the methodologies and intent vary more widely than in the Bazerman, Russe text. What do you think? Hey, Jason. Thanks for the post. I agree. The _Writing Selves, Writing Societies_ text published and distributed by the WAC Clearinghouse is definitely a relevant precursor to TES. I didn’t think of it, though, because of its focus on activity theory. Because I’m not very well read in activity theory, that book doesn’t hold together in the same way that TES does. It’s just my sense, though. I’m sure it’s a solid book, but without that particular interest, each of the articles become relevant to their particular context, rather than the theory they have in common. That’s really useful, but it can create (for people like me and you, I guess) a sense of autonomy for each of the articles. I think the opposite can be said for this TES. The chapters hold together because of the common perspective they bring to their contexts, but the methodologies and intent vary more widely than in the Bazerman, Russe text. What do you think?

]]> By: Jason Palmeri http://ryantrauman.com/blog/2009/06/05/review-technological-ecologies-sustainability-pt-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-4017 Jason Palmeri Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:12:51 +0000 http://ryantrauman.com/blog/?p=435#comment-4017 Didn't mean to be anonymous with that last comment :) Didn’t mean to be anonymous with that last comment :)

]]> By: Anonymous http://ryantrauman.com/blog/2009/06/05/review-technological-ecologies-sustainability-pt-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-4016 Anonymous Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:11:47 +0000 http://ryantrauman.com/blog/?p=435#comment-4016 I'm looking forward to installment three! In the mean time, I would also add WAC clearinghouse to the history of digital publishing in the field since they have published on-line edited collections that take a somewhat similar form to TES: http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves_societies/ When I think about that collection, I find myself really considering the portability of having multiple downloadable PDFs. I regularly cite the prior and shipka article from that collection (and have it downloaded to my computer in a folder), but I've never read the introduction or any of the other articles. Of course, this can happen with print collections too, but somehow the on-line format encouraged me to just focus on the one article out of context (like I might do in downloading articles from JSTOR). Of course, I've read several of the articles (and the intro) to TES but I have a different relation to that project! Anyway, you've got me thinking about the difference between printed and digital collections...hmmm. I’m looking forward to installment three! In the mean time, I would also add WAC clearinghouse to the history of digital publishing in the field since they have published on-line edited collections that take a somewhat similar form to TES: http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves_societies/

When I think about that collection, I find myself really considering the portability of having multiple downloadable PDFs. I regularly cite the prior and shipka article from that collection (and have it downloaded to my computer in a folder), but I’ve never read the introduction or any of the other articles. Of course, this can happen with print collections too, but somehow the on-line format encouraged me to just focus on the one article out of context (like I might do in downloading articles from JSTOR). Of course, I’ve read several of the articles (and the intro) to TES but I have a different relation to that project! Anyway, you’ve got me thinking about the difference between printed and digital collections…hmmm.

]]>