| The first time I lived through the Harvard “Case Method” classroom experience, I was invigorated. An entire class where I could compete with my classmates to make the most insightful comment and win the attention (and maybe that TA gig next year). I was in paradise, but it didn’t last long… Lately, I’ve been realizing that my ability (and excitement) to “win” a discussion (whether in a class or otherwise) is not really my most effective skill. As it happens, people have a deep desire to be heard and accepted, and don’t really like having things explained to them, or being told all the ways their thoughts and feelings could have been better stated. Still working on that one, I guess; but I digress. When Sam sent me a link to an HBR article that might be the topic for our second recording session, I felt a little twinge in my left eye, but I told Sam I would read it, and I did. Debra Meyerson’s 2001 article is a bit dated, but has some core ideas and examples worth examining, I won’t go into it too much, it’s all on Episode 5 of the podcast: “Radical Change, the Harvard Way.” I don’t have anything against people who went to, go to, or love Harvard, per se. I’ve learned a ton from Ivy League and other elite academic publications and personalities. What I really dislike is the times I see us automatically structuring so many important discussions and decisions, framing them with implicit norms and conventions that were simply the preferences of so tiny a sliver of our collective American genius. I continue to read case studies and articles that I am confused by, and I continue to promote and shoutout people who make fugitive spaces in the academy for other narratives, epistimologies, and discourses. You know who you are. Keep working on that manuscript, and reach out so we can have you on the podcast! In the meantime, please comment on the blog–we are eager to hear your feedback and ideas! |