Comments on: Promising signs http://homecookedtheory.com/archives/2006/03/22/promising-signs/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:51:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: melgregg http://homecookedtheory.com/archives/2006/03/22/promising-signs/comment-page-1/#comment-29831 melgregg Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:28:04 +0000 http://homecookedtheory.com/archives/2006/03/22/promising-signs/#comment-29831 Yeah, and fair enough too. I feel like launching into an anecdote about the 'Is History Fiction?' forum last Saturday, but really, I don't want to waste any more time thinking about it. I can't resist a teaser, though: When I asked a question about how the writers respond to the Government's recent stance on teaching history by rote learning, one panellist said they would have to think about it and talk to me afterwards. Another answered: 'But you're talking about 'history' history!' as if I was from another planet. I had merely asked that they consider how their work translates to a non-tertiary audience, which was what I had expected a public forum to consider. Weird. Yeah, and fair enough too. I feel like launching into an anecdote about the ‘Is History Fiction?’ forum last Saturday, but really, I don’t want to waste any more time thinking about it. I can’t resist a teaser, though: When I asked a question about how the writers respond to the Government’s recent stance on teaching history by rote learning, one panellist said they would have to think about it and talk to me afterwards. Another answered: ‘But you’re talking about ‘history’ history!’ as if I was from another planet. I had merely asked that they consider how their work translates to a non-tertiary audience, which was what I had expected a public forum to consider. Weird.

]]> By: John http://homecookedtheory.com/archives/2006/03/22/promising-signs/comment-page-1/#comment-29809 John Thu, 23 Mar 2006 03:33:22 +0000 http://homecookedtheory.com/archives/2006/03/22/promising-signs/#comment-29809 The subtext (pointed out by someone we both know who has much experience with both the ARC and the federal government) is that the onus is still on researchers to ensure that they do not arrogantly believe that they should not have to explain their research to non-specialists, and to "accept that it is not unreasonable for those paying for our research to ask to have it explained to them." But all-in-all, a very positive statement for the sector. As you say, woo! The subtext (pointed out by someone we both know who has much experience with both the ARC and the federal government) is that the onus is still on researchers to ensure that they do not arrogantly believe that they should not have to explain their research to non-specialists, and to “accept that it is not unreasonable for those paying for our research to ask to have it explained to them.”

But all-in-all, a very positive statement for the sector. As you say, woo!

]]>