Truth in Society

March 30, 1995

Prompt #65


Reading, responding and acknowledging

We've provided a dozen hard copies of each group's set of chapters. Take one at a time, read it, and return it to the counter at the front so someone else can use it. You should respond to all the chapters in the two sets your focus group is reading by 4:00 today.

Although the chapters on each focal episode are printed together, it will be most useful, as the mail message Tuesday said, if you treat each chapter as a separate item, and write your response on a separate document (an 8 1/2 by 11 page, or more if your response is longer). Each should have your name and the title of the chapter at the top, so that it can be easily identified. It can be in Q: as well, but the main thing is that it should be something you can hand, separately, to the author/editors of the specific chapter.

In other words, don't respond to the whole set of chapters with one response, and don't put all your responses into one document. At the end of the day today, every chapter editor or editing group should have a sheaf of responses to their chapter, each identified with a name, to work with.

To repeat, in general, it will be most help if you address the following questions (use this as a guide):

You can, of course, add any other comments you think would be helpful to your sheet.

By 4:00 you should have a set of responses, clearly marked with the chapter they're responses to and your name. Bring them back to EC120 and we'll have a short meeting to get them distributed so that the authors of the chapters can begin working with them.

It's important that you respond, and as helpfully as you can, to all the chapters. One thing we're going to ask each person (or small group) to do between today and Tuesday is to send us a list of all the people from whom they received responses; another is to identify the eight or ten most useful responses.

Please bear in mind that the reading and responding we're doing this time is to be focused on large issues -- matters of substance, like whether ideas and people are explained fully enough, and so forth -- and not small ones like spelling and grammar (even though you may find it distracting that someone didn't run a spell checker or doesn't seem to have thought about identifying sources, this is not the occasion to make that point -- that's part of why we're not asking for marginal comments this time).


Previous prompt

Next prompt