(Co)Labored Li(v)es; Or, Love's Labors Queered

PMLA ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. 631-637
Author(s):  
Susan J. Leonardi ◽  
Rebecca A. Pope

We felt the first stirrings of collaborative desire fifteen years ago. since then, we have published one book (and some miscellaneous pieces) together and have finished another. They are very different, though related, books, and while producing them we have had different, though related, thoughts about our collaborative authorship. One thing that collaboration teaches you is that there is no last word on anything. Someone looking over your shoulder or over your draft is going to find a better word or cross out your word entirely.A story of origins: We began to talk about writing a book together while trying to finish our dissertations. It was helpful to fantasize such a project—it presumed that the dissertations would get finished and that when they did, we would be alive and well and still writing. But the fantasy of collaboration addressed other anxieties, especially over the word original in the demand that the dissertation be a “significant and original contribution to scholarship.” Each of us knew how much her work depended on the scholarship she had read and how much the shape of her work had been affected by conversations, in reading groups or over coffee, with other graduate students, professors, friends, bartenders. Worse, in our theory classes we were being rewarded for pontificating about the demise of the very author we were working so hard to become. The notion of solitary authorship on which intellectual authority depends seemed a lie. At least in our cases. We certainly felt like frauds, but then as women in programs in which the students and professors were no longer exclusively but still predominantly male, we were perhaps predisposed to feeling like frauds. To write a book that had two signatures, we mused, would formally acknowledge that authors depend on other authors and would as well trouble the notions of original and originary. Intellectual honesty seemed to require the candid dismantling of the solitary author, of the original and originary genius.

PMLA ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. 631-637
Author(s):  
Susan J. Leonardi ◽  
Rebecca A. Pope

We felt the first stirrings of collaborative desire fifteen years ago. since then, we have published one book (and some miscellaneous pieces) together and have finished another. They are very different, though related, books, and while producing them we have had different, though related, thoughts about our collaborative authorship. One thing that collaboration teaches you is that there is no last word on anything. Someone looking over your shoulder or over your draft is going to find a better word or cross out your word entirely.A story of origins: We began to talk about writing a book together while trying to finish our dissertations. It was helpful to fantasize such a project—it presumed that the dissertations would get finished and that when they did, we would be alive and well and still writing. But the fantasy of collaboration addressed other anxieties, especially over the word original in the demand that the dissertation be a “significant and original contribution to scholarship.” Each of us knew how much her work depended on the scholarship she had read and how much the shape of her work had been affected by conversations, in reading groups or over coffee, with other graduate students, professors, friends, bartenders. Worse, in our theory classes we were being rewarded for pontificating about the demise of the very author we were working so hard to become. The notion of solitary authorship on which intellectual authority depends seemed a lie. At least in our cases. We certainly felt like frauds, but then as women in programs in which the students and professors were no longer exclusively but still predominantly male, we were perhaps predisposed to feeling like frauds. To write a book that had two signatures, we mused, would formally acknowledge that authors depend on other authors and would as well trouble the notions of original and originary. Intellectual honesty seemed to require the candid dismantling of the solitary author, of the original and originary genius.


The study of the language-emotion interface has so far mainly concentrated on the conceptual dimension of emotions as expressed via language. This volume is the first to exclusively focus on the exploration of the formal linguistic expressions of emotions at different linguistic complexity levels—and it does so by integrating work from different linguistic frameworks: generative syntax, functional and usage-based linguistics, formal semantics/pragmatics, and experimental phonology. This collection is both a timely and an original contribution to the growing field of research on the interaction between linguistic expressions and the so-called ‘expressive dimension’ of language. The contributions to this volume are thus of interest to researchers and graduate students who would like to learn more about state-of-the-art approaches to the language-emotion interface.


Locke Studies ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 213-222
Author(s):  
E. J. Lowe

This is a very welcome addition to the currently burgeoning stock of multi-authored works on Locke’s philosophy in general, distinguished by its concentration on the Essay Concerning Human Understanding in particular. Readers will find in it a remarkably full range of themes and issues explored by some leading Locke scholars. According to the book’s cover, it is ‘pitched to advanced undergraduates and graduate students’. Some of the chapters would certainly be suitable items for undergraduate reading lists, but others are probably rather too demanding and will appeal mainly to other Locke scholars. All of the essays are new compositions and many of them present interesting new interpretations of Locke’s views. Locke’s works, and the Essay in particular, are fertile ground for such interpretive exercises—not because he wrote at all obscurely, but because his views, and preferred manner of expressing them, underwent continual change and development over the course of successive rewritings, partly as a result of his own critical reflection on them and partly in response to his engagement with other thinkers, in both correspondence and conversation. There is perhaps too much effort by some of his modern commentators to present definitive and consistent interpretations of Locke’s positions on various matters, almost as though to concede that Locke might often have been unsettled and conflicted in his opinions would be impugning his ability or importance as a philosopher—when in fact it is only lesser philosophers who resolutely stick to their guns in their dealings with the deepest questions of philosophy. Part of the excitement of reading Locke’s own words lies in sensing his continual struggle with the problems that he discusses—a struggle that is a testament to his intellectual honesty and open-mindedness. Sometimes, when reading the close dissections of his work by modern commentators, with their frequent cross-references and carefully selected quotations, one suspects that Locke himself, were he to be presented with their lengthy musings and minute analyses, would throw up his hands in either despair or irritation at exercises that he might deem excessively scholastic in their nicety and refinement. I do not mean to reproach any of the contributors to the present volume in this regard, all of whose essays inspire one to return to the Essay itself with renewed curiosity and sometimes with unsettling doubts about one’s own previous understanding of it.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 356-362
Author(s):  
Jennifer W. Means ◽  
Casey McCaffrey

Purpose The use of real-time recording technology for clinical instruction allows student clinicians to more easily collect data, self-reflect, and move toward independence as supervisors continue to provide continuation of supportive methods. This article discusses how the use of high-definition real-time recording, Bluetooth technology, and embedded annotation may enhance the supervisory process. It also reports results of graduate students' perception of the benefits and satisfaction with the types of technology used. Method Survey data were collected from graduate students about their use and perceived benefits of advanced technology to support supervision during their 1st clinical experience. Results Survey results indicate that students found the use of their video recordings useful for self-evaluation, data collection, and therapy preparation. The students also perceived an increase in self-confidence through the use of the Bluetooth headsets as their supervisors could provide guidance and encouragement without interrupting the flow of their therapy sessions by entering the room to redirect them. Conclusions The use of video recording technology can provide opportunities for students to review: videos of prospective clients they will be treating, their treatment videos for self-assessment purposes, and for additional data collection. Bluetooth technology provides immediate communication between the clinical educator and the student. Students reported that the result of that communication can improve their self-confidence, perceived performance, and subsequent shift toward independence.


2004 ◽  
Vol 31 (Fall) ◽  
pp. 205-214
Author(s):  
Mary Aguila-Vinson ◽  
Jennifer Lister ◽  
Theresa Hnath-Chisolm ◽  
Patricia Blake-Rahter

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-60
Author(s):  
Anu Subramanian

ASHA's focus on evidence-based practice (EBP) includes the family/stakeholder perspective as an important tenet in clinical decision making. The common factors model for treatment effectiveness postulates that clinician-client alliance positively impacts therapeutic outcomes and may be the most important factor for success. One strategy to improve alliance between a client and clinician is the use of outcome questionnaires. In the current study, eight parents of toddlers who attended therapy sessions at a university clinic responded to a session outcome questionnaire that included both rating scale and descriptive questions. Six graduate students completed a survey that included a question about the utility of the questionnaire. Results indicated that the descriptive questions added value and information compared to using only the rating scale. The students were varied in their responses regarding the effectiveness of the questionnaire to increase their comfort with parents. Information gathered from the questionnaire allowed for specific feedback to graduate students to change behaviors and created opportunities for general discussions regarding effective therapy techniques. In addition, the responses generated conversations between the client and clinician focused on clients' concerns. Involving the stakeholder in identifying both effective and ineffective aspects of therapy has advantages for clinical practice and education.


Author(s):  
Jacqueline A. Towson ◽  
Matthew S. Taylor ◽  
Diana L. Abarca ◽  
Claire Donehower Paul ◽  
Faith Ezekiel-Wilder

Purpose Communication between allied health professionals, teachers, and family members is a critical skill when addressing and providing for the individual needs of patients. Graduate students in speech-language pathology programs often have limited opportunities to practice these skills prior to or during externship placements. The purpose of this study was to research a mixed reality simulator as a viable option for speech-language pathology graduate students to practice interprofessional communication (IPC) skills delivering diagnostic information to different stakeholders compared to traditional role-play scenarios. Method Eighty graduate students ( N = 80) completing their third semester in one speech-language pathology program were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: mixed-reality simulation with and without coaching or role play with and without coaching. Data were collected on students' self-efficacy, IPC skills pre- and postintervention, and perceptions of the intervention. Results The students in the two coaching groups scored significantly higher than the students in the noncoaching groups on observed IPC skills. There were no significant differences in students' self-efficacy. Students' responses on social validity measures showed both interventions, including coaching, were acceptable and feasible. Conclusions Findings indicated that coaching paired with either mixed-reality simulation or role play are viable methods to target improvement of IPC skills for graduate students in speech-language pathology. These findings are particularly relevant given the recent approval for students to obtain clinical hours in simulated environments.


2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (Fall) ◽  
pp. 116-137
Author(s):  
Ashleigh J. Callahan ◽  
Andrea B. Yost ◽  
Kimberly L. Richards ◽  
Amy L. Rogers

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document