I am looking forward to this discussion. We're getting into parts of early Cold War history that I find very interesting not just for the events but because of the strategic issues involved. In this era we really get into how a series of important thinkers were grappling with the problem posed by nuclear weapons for traditional notions of strategy.What role did nuclear weapons play in Soviet–American relations in the 1950s and 1960s?
I was fairly pleased with how the last unit's discussion went, although one of you has mused, ruefully it seemed to me, on whether Group 1 (we need a group name!) dominance of the discussion board was threatened as Group 2 and 3 had posted more. Having thuoght about it I think number of posts is a crude and misleading measure of the effectiveness of a discussion. For better or worse our group has a tendency to long and quite detailed interventions. I am pleased about this; in fact, I think the tendency to think more deliberately and compose one's thuoghts more calculatedly is a strength of this medium of education. Having said that, I would like to repeat a point I made after the first discussion: short, pithy comments are also effective. Basically, we're after quality rather than quantity.
A related point: last time around I suggested that some posts which seemed a bit tangential--albeit interesting--be moved to Blogs. My intention was, and remains, to keep the unit discussions quite focussed for good pedagogical reasons as well as with a view to keeping people's workload under control. This does not mean I don't want you to go off on to tangents. I do! That's often where people show their real brilliance.
But there's not been a lot of activity on Blogs lately--some but not a lot--which makes me wonder if I've put the brakes on too hard. Let me know your thuoghts in comments if you have any. Advice is always gratefully received (if not always followed).
I suppose at root what I mean to say is that from an academic perspective I am relatively comfortable with how things are going. In both previous units we covered more ground and in more detail than I'd ever dare hope accomplishing in a 2 hour face-to-face seminar. What I'm hoping is that you're having fun with it too.
1 comment:
I have read your message on my blog about the UN et al. I shall respond to that separately on my own blog, once I have cracked most of the reading in this module. Suffice to say that the UN (and its future - for surely there will be a future for it) is an area of great interest for me.
With regard to the current module, I agree with your "quality" and "quantity" argument although I remember when we were facing the Soviets we always joked about "quantity having a quality of its own" vis a vis the relative comparison of forces!
I must say that I prefer to write (and also read) the longer posts. They do seem (not only mine) to have been more thoroughly thought through and mine act as my own mind clearing exercise on the topic in question as well as providing an answer to the poor unfortunates who are leading the discussion I(my turn will come all too quickly). That said, some of the shorter (not that there have been that many) posts in the discussions are of great use especially if they point out an inaccurate fact, etc.
A group name? Now there's a thought. I always remember the strap, "Army be the Best" (British - of course - back to quantity and quantity!). Why not something along the lines of "Group 1 be the BETZ"!
Must go read....!
Post a Comment