I ALWAYS come away with so many potential academic collaborations and this time two possible edited monographs ( I'm not stupid, I can't write the whole two books with a PhD to pull in).
And as usual my 'enthusiastic' or 'performative'style of presentation angered at least one attendee. How can one actually prove one's contentions in a 15 minute slot, when the actual paper is to be 5,000 and blind refereed for publication subsequent to the actual presentation, which I see as a 'taster'or forward promote as is used in the media industry.
It also serves no-one any good dominating a Q & A from the floor excluding the voices of other academic women wanting gto engage. When the offer to continue the debate in a social space (over lunch break or dinner) was offered it is gentlemanly and professional to accept, but I fear the bulging red veins in neck and flush of anger on the face, frightened me that I may have to call upon my level 2 first aide training and summon up CPR or even defibrillation!
As a Phder, I have always been told not to cite references older than 5 years UNLESS completely necessary and of remaining pertinence. It should not surprise me therefore that once the ERA points game established itself and TEXT was correctly awarded an A, suddenly I imagine there was an increase in submissions and from cross-discipliners. This in itself is a very wqelcome thing, however... and for me there is always a however... as you know... to selectively engage with a special issue from 2003 and then not even acknowledge that the debate has morphed, shifted and moved well beyond binaries in the inervening seven years is poor academic form, and I would have expected the referees to have made that suggestion.
So to my dear Professor from SA, here is my contribution to our academic discourse and after this link, you can imagine I have more to say on the issue. See you in Byron Bay or at least in print. May our pens be sharp and drawn ready for the debate.
Yours
CAC