[ASC-list] feedback or criticism?

Nancy Longnecker nancy.longnecker at uwa.edu.au
Mon Nov 18 04:19:02 UTC 2013


Hello Susan and Lee,

You have both made many valid comments on this list. You call it member
feedback; some call it criticism.

Criticism is a perfectly valid contribution to the list as long as it is
constructive and posed with the intention of improving the organisation.
It seems that you both have issues with service provided by ASC and are
aiming to improve the organisation. There is nothing wrong with that, so
there is no need to reject the label of criticism.

Lee, you said: 
"What I, and the others who have commented, have gotten instead is a
disproportionate amount of issue dodging, changes of subject,
condescension, defensiveness and snark. Cut it out - it's not deserved,
appropriate or welcome."

You are right to point out there is no need for 'condescension,
defensiveness and snark'. It is indeed unprofessional and out of place on
the ASC list. I don't recall reading responses that I would put in this
category or call issue dodging. I have interpreted what I have read on the
list as explanation of why some things have been done the way they are.

Many people have devoted hours/ weeks/ months/ even years of their life to
building up the ASC. So it is not surprising that many of us are quite
proud of what we have accomplished. Have people in ASC ever applied for
grants and/ or sponsorship? Yes, of course. Can ASC be better? Certainly.
It's great to see the passion and appetite for positive action.

Susan: I am surprised that you feel completely isolated. You have stirred
great conversation on this list and are now known to everyone who reads
it. As to why you haven't heard who has nominated for President I have a
sneaking suspicion that is because there may not be (m)any nominations
yet. With the work that is entailed it has been difficult in the past to
get people to put their hands up and we should all be grateful to those
who have served in the past. I doubt there is any plot going on to keep us
in the dark.

Susan, you suggest: "Can we please make sure that all of our input is put
into an agenda for the next AGM, particularly those suggestions put in the
last email by Julian and Kali." That is a great idea. Perhaps you could
collate the input and submit it to the national secretary for inclusion as
an agenda item with an attachment to stimulate discussion. I believe that
is currently: Sarah Lau <SLau at chemcentre.wa.gov.au>.

Thank you both for stimulating such interesting discussion.



Cheers, Nancy

Professor Nancy Longnecker
Science Communication
School of Animal Biology, M092
The University of Western Australia
35 Stirling Highway
Crawley, WA   6009

ph: 61 8 6488 3926
nancy.longnecker at uwa.edu.au

www.animals.uwa.edu.au/research/science-communication
www.facebook.com/pages/UWA-Science-Communication/139535189461853
skype: nancylongnecker

CRICOS Provider No. 00126G
________________________________________




Professor Nancy Longnecker
Science Communication
School of Animal Biology, M092
The University of Western Australia
35 Stirling Highway
Crawley, WA   6009

ph: 61 8 6488 3926
nancy.longnecker at uwa.edu.au

www.animals.uwa.edu.au/research/science-communication
www.facebook.com/pages/UWA-Science-Communication/139535189461853
skype: nancylongnecker

CRICOS Provider No. 00126G
________________________________________






On 18/11/13 10:10 AM, "Susan Kirk" <skirk at iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>Just a couple of points.
>
>The executive, the branch coordinators, the people who attend the
>conference
>every year.  You're lucky.  You've developed relationships with your peers
>because you've had the opportunity to work together.  This, on its own,
>won't make an organisation prosper but its gives you a connection that
>probably means you will renew your membership every year.
>
>But for those members who may be financially or geographically challenged,
>this is not a reality. While technology will not replace face to face
>meetings, for those of us, like me, who can't get to branch meetings or
>AGM's we need different interactions.  We need forums, lists, SKYPE,
>video,
>and functioning websites, to help us feel a part of this organisation.  It
>doesn't really matter what venue or media is used to have our say.  It
>just
>matters that our input is valued. I too feel the same as lee:
>
>"I absolutely did not expect people to be okay with criticism - no one
>likes
>it, and we're all only human. But what I did expect was some actual
>rationality and professionalism. What I, and the others who have
>commented,
>have gotten instead is a disproportionate amount of issue dodging, changes
>of subject, condescension, defensiveness and snark. Cut it out - it's not
>deserved, appropriate or welcome."
>
>And I would add I'm disappointed that it was taken as criticism instead of
>member feedback.  
>
>You will never convince me on the business model for the conference but I
>guess I'm just going to have to agree to disagree here.  It seems a few
>things are set in stone.  Which brings me to funding.  AusSMC seems to be
>able to find a few nuggets in the government coffers to do some really
>exciting and interesting things for its publics, and I see some of our
>members also don't have any trouble finding a few themselves.  Why are we
>not doing some serious grant writing? Is this a way to fund the next
>conference? Sponsorship, what a novel ideal.  Yes that was sarcasm.
>Sorry.
>
>
>Can we please make sure that all of our input is put into an agenda for
>the
>next AGM, particularly those suggestions put in the last email by Julian
>and
>Kali.  Also the finalisation of the code of ethics.
>
>Can we also get this AGM live so that we can have a voice.  This is
>another
>area where I feel completely isolated.  Who is putting their hand up for
>presidency?  Do we know?
>
>
>S 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ASC-list mailing list
>list at asc.asn.au
>http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=
>115




More information about the ASC-list mailing list