Thesis Evaluation:

Comments:
David's thesis is a study of the public process surrounding the efforts on the part of the city of Sarasota to engage the public (and build consensus around) a re-engineering of US 41 as it runs along the bay front near downtown. The downtown master plan (the so-called "Duany plan") had proposed a re-design of the bay front in order to re-connect the downtown with the amenities along the water, but this was one of the elements of the plan that was shot down by public objections. The city wanted to re-open the issue, and to build consensus by taking advantage of the "charrette" process.

The thesis is an ambitious piece of work that combines several components. First, he presents a detailed history of Sarasota's development, and lays out this history against the background of a more general history of American urban development (with a particular focus on the period of post WWII suburbanization, but also impressively comprehensive). He also presented a good explication of the basic principles and perspectives of the movement called "New Urbanism," the principles of which have guided the city in its efforts to revive the downtown. Second, the thesis presents a very detailed and perceptive account of the charrette itself, an event that took place over the course of several days and in which David participated as an 'participant observer.' In many respects, this is the strongest segment of the thesis. It turned out that David is a very insightful field researcher, and he did an excellent job of presenting his observations in the form of a coherent, compelling and illuminating narrative. If there had been time for another round or so of editing at a substantive level, he might have tightened up both of these sections a bit, bringing his arguments into a little sharper focus by organizing the exposition (perhaps) a little more analytically rather than sticking to the chronology so tightly.

The third component of the thesis is the development of a very creative and potentially very important theoretical argument: an application of 'actor-network' theory to the sociology of re-making cities. This was a piece that started with some initial insights that were rather loose and not clearly articulated, but I was impressed by the way his ideas developed and sharpened with each draft. I had my doubts about the intellectual ambitions of this part, but in the end I was convinced that he is not only on to something, but that he is well on the way to developing an innovative and potentially significant theoretical argument.

Overall, this turned out to be an outstanding thesis. There are ways in which the arguments might have been tightened up, perhaps presented in a more efficient and focused way. As is common in the thesis process, I think he began to get the clearest sense of his arguments toward the end. Even so, however, the writing is sharp and effective, and it is clear throughout that he has thought carefully, that he approached his material with good critical and analytical skills, and that he has followed through on an ambitious project in a manner that is original, creative and very interesting.

I own a garage door opener on my sun visor. I have another small remote that opens a useless guard gate into a community full of ex-marines, information technology administrators, starter families, and various other "young urban professionals." This is not something I would have planned: to live in a small gated community off of a major arterial with a bachelor's degree and ideals; but that doesn't make it undesirable.

I'm gunning for the Alumni Coordinator position. I talked to Claire about the position and it actually sounds more interesting than I had originally thought. An office with a door, at only 22? Very possible. With me as the hub of a far-left wing alumni network, and Katie working at Planned Parenthood, and James as the freelance student, I feel that our little town house behind the useless guard gate will make great sitcom material. One where I walk in through the front door and say something funny (an off-the-cuff witticism about aging hippies) and the audience will burst into canned laughter. We'll play trivial pursuit and argue about Foucaultian interpretations of Watchmen. (Pro tip: Its all about the historical perspective and perceptions of the body.)

I graduate in less than 4 weeks.

Drink
Drink
Drink
Coffee
Coffee
Coffee
Toast
Cleaning
Laundry
Coffee
WRITING
WRITING
WRITING
read
WRITING
WRITING
Coffee
Coffee
Coffee
Chamomile
Worry
Sleep
Sleep
COFFEE
Watch Glenn Beck
Watch Rachel Maddow
Read the news
Eat
write.

This draft has really come a long way. It is very nicely written, mostly clear (although the argument is a bit complicated and not all that easy to follow when you get in to the actor network theory). You’ve set a pretty challenging task for yourself, applying actor-network theory in this way, but I think it is working. There are a couple of places where some specific references to your “data” would be helpful. In general, I think your interpretations of the situation are interesting and insightful. It might help to include a simplified explanation of Callon’s analysis of the electric car as an example of the way the theory works, then use that explanation as a point of comparison. One of the things that isn’t clear in your discussion is the outcome of the charrette. You seem ready to call it a “failed” charrette, but I’m not sure that it is all that clear. There are some charrettes that end in a really clear failure-- the project can’t move forward. However, in spite of the persistent opposition from the ‘old coots,’ isn’t it the case that the city plans to go forward with their plans to transform 41? Perhaps the failure is that they didn’t get the “consensus” for which some were hoping, that the charrette didn’t resolve all the conflicts and end in a group hug, but I think there were maybe some unrealistic expectations for the charrette on the part of some in the city. Do you have any of the actors’ own assessments of the “success” of the charrette? I wonder if you couldn’t squeeze in a couple of interviews with city staffers and, say, LouAnn Palmer. “So, how do you think it went, in retrospect…?” Ordinarily I wouldn’t want you collecting more data at this point, but it seems like it would be really useful to have something like that on which to base some more specific statements regarding perceptions and assessments of the ‘success’ of the effort. So I need to get in contact with some people and do some quick and dirty phone interviews. But the end is in sight.

Hello everybody. I'm your tour guide, my name is David ForestChild and I'll be your spirt guide through your New College Experience.

I like to start these tours off with how New College differs from the other big state colleges in Florida. Unlike FU College, we don't have those 1,000-student teaching auditoriums that students live inside. All of our professors are English-speaking, unlike other big colleges where they speak funny languages and eat strange muffins. Our faculty are townies, but the good kind.

University of Florida College is too big to offer meaningful and drug-induced one-on-one academic advising that is so crucial in the liberal arts. Speaking of the liberal arts, I want to clear up the preconcieved notion that our areas of concentration aren't directly applicable to real-world problems. Our students focus their study in subjects that have just as much importance as sports management, tourism recreation, Golf and Sports Turf management, packaging science, and general theater.*

Now for our tour.

This is College Hall. We do everything in College Hall because its so pretty. Trust me when I say that our use of the historic mansions is in direct proportion to their appearance in our promotional literature. Next door is cook hall. I live there with five of my best friends. So can you!

Next is the Four Winds Cafe. Its completely student run and all of their menu is vegetarian. It always amazes me how cheap and reliable their menu offerings can be! I go here every day and have soul-touching conversations with all of my professors. All of them.

Here is the Heiser Building. It is a state-of-the-art facility that has found a way to fit an entire respectable college-level natural sciences facility into a single tiny building. Take my word for it, everything you need to learn about science is in that single building.

This is our library. Its collection is extensive, always up to date, and is at the bleeding edge of technology adoption. It also contains our thesis room: The most sacred space of the entire college. No matter what trials or tribulations the college endures, you can trust that this single symbol of our collective academic achievements will be the last thing standing. We hold our students' capstone projects as the end result of everything that goes on around here.

The east side of campus is our residential side. Our students never do drugs or drink alcohol. This is why we do not have any kind of consistant drug and alcohol policy that protects us from over-zealous state and federal prosecution or individual whims. This is Hamilton Center. It is my understanding that at other University Colleges, this is called a "student union." We don't call "Ham" a student union because it lacks students and it does not imbue a sense of union. But from what I've heard of FU, I understand that we differ in other ways. We do not have all of those fast food joints, Cheesecake Factories, or all-you-can-eat protien shake dispenseries. Ham also does not contain gun turrets, mind-washing lounges, or multple flat-screen televisions.

This is Pei. You will never live as well as you do in Pei. We recently built five new dorms across the campus. These dorms were built after conducting a very open community design process and then distilling their innovative thoughts into over-engineered key-card access boxes of air-conditioned sterility.

So, that concludes our tour. I hope you choose to attend New College before we become insolvent.

*These are all actual majors at UF. Check their web site.

I refuse to post my feelings on the internet.

I was worried about what Dr. Brain would say about my field work writing. I was afraid he'd tell me I had a very basic methodological flaw, or maybe I am not quoting enough, and there would be no way to get more insight into my subjects. But then I got this email:

Here are your drafts with some minor editorial suggestions.  Things like
"clean up your use of commas."  A few side comments on the fun stuff you
report, which you should probably ignore.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "framework of non-mutually-exclusive
labels."  

In general, I think you do a really nice job of recounting the process.
Your narrative is perceptive and illuminating, and also generally reads
well.  I'm a little worried that it might run on a bit long, if you do
this 12 pages for every day.  Eventually you might have to organize the
account in a more analytical or thematic fashion (maybe that's what you
mean?).  I think it is probably best to write your way through it as you
have been, and then think about how you might clump things differently.

Overall, nice job.  Really fun stuff for me to read, since I wasn't
there but have witnessed quite a lot of that sort of thing.  When you
are finished, I'm thinking I might recommend the account to some of my
NU friends.  There's a wry humor in your narrative that is also very
nice (if not perhaps strictly social scientific).  

DB

David attended class regularly and his participation in the course was particularly strong. David was not only prepared and thoughtful in class discussions he excelled in terms of providing sophisticated analysis in his additions to our conversations. The more engaged students were quite good at discussing the arguments or historical examples provided by the authors, but David was never satisfied with only repeating what he had read. He consistently provided analysis in his discussion of the texts often constructing elaborate and compelling arguments or interpretations. More only regret is that, as a class, I wish we could have devoted more time to more carefully unpacking and interrogating David’s arguments but because so many of the students were engaged in the discussions it was not always possible to give David’s ideas the consideration they deserved. I think he would be an amazing addition to any seminar given the thoroughness of his thinking.

David’s final paper (better than satisfactory) demonstrated his intellectual abilities--the paper was board in scope examining the use of the grid pattern (and the role public space) in the work of four of the authors from the course. Yet despite this breath, David was able to produce a controlled essay that allowed him to develop several sophisticated insights. I think the most significant of these insights occurred at the end of the paper when David interrogated the patterned organization of the city (and the contested social “structuration” through Mitchell) as “skeleton” upon which relationships of power are framed. I had only two minor criticisms. First, I thought that David actually wrote (or could have written) two different papers. Although I thought that his analysis of Upton and Jacobs, and his analysis of Upton and Mitchell were both very good, those two sections of the paper were not as explicitly drawn together in terms of his argument (they were drawn together in terms of the topic of patterns). I think David could have made either a stronger transition (a better explanation of the connection) OR I think that David could have (and perhaps should have) really focused the entire paper through his final section (the most completely argued) on Mitchell. Second, David could have done a better job of clearly signaling how his essay went outside of the syllabus.

OVERALL: David’s performance in the class exceeded the standards for a satisfactory evaluation. I think that at this point in his academic career his potential for intellectual inquiry is almost unlimited. He is already a very strong student, he reads and writes and thinks at a very high level. And as long as he continues to demonstrate the sort of dedication to his scholarship that he exhibited in this course, I think he will produce a compelling thesis and may well develop into an extraordinary student. My biggest suggestion for improvement would be that David expand his thinking by considering different approaches to the study of urban politics. Although I found David to be very open to new ideas (including challenges to the arguments he presented in class and in his writing), he seemed to be very focused on questions of urban design and the potential consequences of those policies. This is normal for experience students who are beginning to define their research agendas. But I think his work would be even more compelling if he were able to occasionally step back and explain his analysis in terms of ‘boarder’ intellectual debates about democracy and history, and ‘smaller’ debates about daily or cultural practice.

more details to follow....

I don't want to be one of those crazy people that site "Who Killed the Electric Car" as the obvious proof that our lack of electric cars is just a great conspiracy, but... it is.  It just fucking is.  Its so maddening it makes me end sentences in prepositions.

The EV1, the GM-built plug-in electric was leased to 3000 customers in California and Arizona as part of a pilot program.  In December of 1999 the cars were slowly released and by 2003 they were taken back by GM and destroyed.  GM stated that the cars would not sell well enough to be profitable.  Today, there isn't a single car on the road today, or in production by an auto company selling to American markets, for the foreseeable future.

EV1 Specs:

• Fuel Source:  Ovonic NiMH battery
• Charging Time: 8 hours
• Top speed:  80MPH (electronically governed)
• Range: 160 miles on a charge
  
• Body style: Two seat subcompact
• Price:  $33,995-$43,995 (But it was only leased, owners paid a $299 a month lease based on this price range.)
  

Now I'm reading this article:  http://news.cnet.com/2300-13833_3-6248179-8.html?tag=mncol

Its supposed to show all of the new and upcoming electric and hybrid car models.  Here are some of the specs for the amazing new future:

Chevy Volt (Due: 2011)

• Fuel Source:  Primary internal-combustion engine, Li-Ion battery
  
• Charging Time:  Charged by primary gas engine
• Top Speed: not posted
• Body Style:  four-door
• Range: 40 miles
• Price:  not announced

ThinkCity (Due 2010)

• Fuel Source:  Li-Ion Battery
• Charge Time:  8 hours
• Top Speed:  65MPH
• Body Style:  2 seat subcompact
• Range: 100 miles
• Price: $25,000

Miles Electric's Neighborhood Sedan

• Fuel Source:  Lead-acid battery
• Charge Time: (not found)
• Top speed: 25MPH (not kidding)
• Body style: 4-door
• Range: (not found)
• Price: (not found)
• They say they'll be coming out with an all-electric sedan in 2011 that will go 80MPH with a range of 120 miles, but that's a far leap from what they currently offer.

This is pathetic.  Really pathetic.  Where did all of that technology go?  Why is this so fucking difficult?  It can't be.  There's nothing hard about this.  If the problem is the battery, then stop assuming the power source needs to be in the car.  Or, more realistically, that the battery can't be swapped out for a new one as easily as filling up a gas tank?  Or ride a god damn train.

MSNBC: Find some good deals on last-minute gifts, watermain broke in Maryland. Travel delays in Chicago and Atlanta
FoxNews: Cheerleaders bullied a girl and the girl is suing the school because she didn't make the cheerleading squad. Something about a hickie on her breast. 9th Circut court is now allowing people to sue in their local courts, over being on the "no fly" list, will this endanger you and your family?
CNN: Santa Claus is in the studio, a kid is crying in front of him, and they can't find their parents. Lots of travel delays.

What would happen if an anchor said, "Nothing important is happening right now."

I have sporadically read "Pictures of Sad Children" and always giggled, but tonight --for no real reason-- I started from first comic and read forward. I realized the following:

Pictures of Sad Children : XKCD :: Social Science : Natural Science ∴ I think I really love that comic.

Like, a lot. Where XKCD is whimsical, smart, sarcastic, and hints at some kind of eternal search for companionship and the happiness that resides in the individual relationships one shares with only a precious few, Pictures of Sad Children is dry, self-referential, irreverent, and has not-so-subtle undertones of severe emotional truama.

I couldn't stop reading it, telling myself that I would stop at 50. Then 100. But I didn't even notice I passed 100, and decided to settle on page 128, a number that is only important to those who identify with XKCD. That ironic decision however, and my subsequent ackowledgement of the situation, is much more appropriate for Pictures of Sad Children.

I need to go to bed.

Haha, Fox News:

David wrote his paper on how evangelicals in the U.S. perpetuate a "minority myth" as a strategy to secure and maintain both political and social power. You use a range of historians, sociologists, and social theorists, including Noll, Marsden, Smith, and Foucault.

Your suggestion that the root of evangelical power is grounded in their ability to basically control the sub-cultural production of meaning is an interesting one. At least, that is how I am reading your argument. You never actually say "sub-cultural" and I think there is a tension between your use of Smith, who uses social movements theory and argues, as you know, that evangelicals are embattled and thriving in modernity - they create their own umbrellas of meaning or mini-sacred canopies. They are a subcultural movement. But that more Durkheimian approach, of religious institutions as sites of social formation (as culturally integrative) is at odds with your use of Foucault, who of course, emphasized power and control. The distinction is in their disparate understandings of subjectification. For Durkheim, it always begins with religion. For Foucault, not so much. Keep thinking about those differences and how you can synthesize various theoretical perspectives into your own approach.

Good work this semester.


C'mon Mink. You're the last one.

my grandpa just walked in my room, where I'm working and my cousin is sleeping, and he said "oh, I didn't know he was still sleeping... sleeping jesus over there!"

lol

old people...

8:46 AM
why did he call your cousin jesus?

"sleeping jesus"*
and I have no idea
probably the same reason he called my grandmother "maggy shitpants"

old people are mysterious

indeed

that is really special

yes
I hope to be just as old one day
and just as able to spew non-sequiturs

totally
I want to steal shit too

yes!
my cousin and I were talking about that recently
steal shit and speed

yup
die at 70, but from a major auto collision, not some coronary
or if it is a coronary, it will be brought on by rough sex

exactly
only I was hoping to die at 90, with medical science the way it's going

okay, something like that

I want to blow my life savings on an expensive car and flip it off a guard rail

just as long as 50 is the new 30 by then

and leave all my kids thinking "why didn't he give his money to us before he died!?"
well 43 is the new 30 now

yeah, fuck the children
even your own

so there's a good chance of that
definitely
fuck 'em

I sat'ed Sites of Power (Seales Class) no eval yet. Hope it doesn't stay that way.

Today I finished my holiday shopping. I feel good about everything I bought. Most of the gifts are books, because that's what I like giving. I think its because I'm vicariously teaching through them. By giving someone a book, (assuming they read it) they may gain some insight, learn something new, or --at the very least-- have some cocktail chatter. That's something more than a material possession.

I'm listening to Snow Crash as an audiobook. I'm at the point where YT and Hero decide to be "partners" and Hero has finished hacking some Chinese guy to bits (LOL, double meanings). A lot of my friends really liked the book, or found it thought-provoking. So far, I feel like its a sub-par 80s sci-fi thriller. I mean, dreadlocked dude in a leather kimono killing people over the internet using the "sword fighting" program that he created? I'm not enthralled. Those that have read it, have I just not gotten to the interesting parts yet? Please tell me it gets better.

Stu got his first Mac, and I can't wait to pimp it out when we get back to NCF. He's gonna love the shit I put on it.

I guess that's it.

My mom and step-dad just recently became a Neilson family. Last night, some technitians came in, and hooked up a bunch of black boxes with ominous blinking lights. I wasn' t here when it happened, but I see the aftermath. I put my demographics (22 year-old male, the only things that matter) into the little box and a little green light now stares back at me as some kind of avatar, a totalizing abstract manifestation of the popculture products that reside inside me. In 42 minutes, it'll start blinking, to make sure I'm still here, watching the televsion.

I never understood how private and meaningless my television choices have been. The choice doesn't matter, because the channel content is nonrival, it'll be there whether I watch it or not. But now, with this little green light staring back at me, it means my TV-watching habits are some sort of trivial political act. I am not a single 22-year-old American male living in 33024. I am the equivalent of 40,000 television watchers. I am a walking stadium of eyeballs, and I can decide who or what will be graced with my contribution to the marketing dollar equation.

That is why 40,000 22-year-old Floridian males are watching U.S. Energy Forecast 2030: Energy Information Administration powerpoint presentations and following Q&A on C-SPAN 2.

Sociology Senior Seminar:

COURSE DESCRIPTION

This seminar is designed for students in sociology who are working on a thesis this year. The purpose of the seminar is to help these students get their projects off the ground, and to provide a context in which thesis writers can share ideas and benefit from one another’s comments, reactions, and inspirations. The group discussed planning and organization of a sociology thesis, techniques and strategies of research, and the craft of writing itself, as well as substantive problems related to identifying an analytical framework and developing a coherent and well-supported argument. Students were required to participate in class discussions, to turn in written work on a weekly basis, to give one another feedback on both their written work and ideas brought up in class, and to give two formal presentations to the group on their research. They were required to submit two draft chapters by the end of the term.

EVALUATION

David attended the seminar regularly and he was one of the more consistent and thoughtful critics in the group, always providing useful and constructive feedback to his peers. His presentations were both carefully thought-out and interesting. His first presentation opened with a clever introduction, and the material was generally well-presented. He did a particularly good job of framing the various questions he hopes to address in the thesis, although it was clear that not everyone in the group understood all the questions. For the sake of effective presentation, he might have focused a bit more tightly, and worked a bit more on formulating the way the questions might fit together. His second presentation came right on the heels of his first big foray into the field—observing the city’s recent charrette (connecting downtown to the bayfront). In the presentation, he started with a very nice historical narrative as a way to set up problems, and hinted at a number of interesting insights in the light of his field work. It was a good teaser for what was to come, although it was also clear that he has a challenging set of problems ahead, when it comes to trying to corral all of his ideas into a single thesis.

At the end of the term, he submitted two major chunks of writing: a chunk that is focused on the history of Sarasota, in the context of the history of American urban development more generally, and a chunk focused on New Urbanism. Both pieces show the results of steady improvement and clarification of both his thinking and his writing as a result of the comments he received in the seminar.

He has made steady progress in the challenging effort to move from his somewhat loosely defined topic to a more clearly framed research project. Even his most recent drafts indicate that there remains work to be done bringing the arguments into clear focus and weaving all the pieces together in a coherent argument. He has given himself a challenging task integrating the disparate pieces of his project: the general history of urbanism and suburbanization in the US, the specific history of Sarasota’s development and recent planning initiatives intended to revive the fading downtown, a discussion of the general principles and issues associated with the New Urbanism, a theoretical interest in the sociology of professional knowledge and participatory planning, and an empirically-grounded case study of the recent effort to connect downtown to the bay front. He was able to submit an IRB application and get quick approval for observation and interviews related to the recent charrette, and his comments in the last class made clear that he came away from his field work with some fascinating observations and insights. The chapters he submitted don’t reflect any of this work yet (which is ok) but I encourage him to get right on trying to write up what he observed (while it is still relatively fresh). His current chapters include a general discussion of Sarasota’s history and a general discussion of the principles and history of new urbanism as a movement. There is still some work to be done in ironing out the presentation of these two complex stories, but I’m still very pleased with the progress, having watched the drafts slowly settle into a coherent way to tell the stories.

Overall, very good work this term. I encourage him to keep the momentum and keep moving forward with his writing. There are so many ideas, so many threads to weave together in his analysis, I think it is going to continue to require a lot of writing and editing to get it all worked out.