Thread by @BrooksDSimpson

I understand and applaud the call for more diverse panels and perspectives, which is a running theme in criticism of #SHEAR2020.

I also think it's important to specify what those voices would contribute. Presence is necessary but not sufficient.

It's useful to remember that what began as a deep dive into the ways people view Jackson today (with the usual nods to memory, media, remembering, forgetting, distorting) became something else and then something else again.

The session lost its way.

There are many valid criticisms and differing perspectives about what was said, but perhaps this was because it became a flawed seminar in historiography, where those voices needed to be heard. I don't think that was the original purpose of the session.

It's not the fault of the critics that the session lost its way. You find the fault in the original paper. It lost focus and purpose. The ensuing discussion didn't help. I came to wonder what was going on ... is this an exercise on why "they" always get it wrong?

In turn the ensuing discussion has become broader and concerned with issues of institutional structure, professional practice in scholarly organizations, and defining membership in conversations.

That's really useful. But a single session can't do everything.

I think the broader conversation is one worth having ... as is one over networking, access, use of technology, etc. For example, technology allows us to come together virtually when we want, so why just have a convention at one time and place? Multiple platforms? Various times?

Why not use this moment to discuss how to reenvision these ways of sharing and discussing our work? Technology erases the limitation of meeting rooms and the cost of attendance; the physical meeting can serve an number of purposes, but let's think broadly.