Summer Newsletter 2016
L to R: CPES Past President Douglas Simpson; CPES Past President and 2016 Distinguished Service Award winner Michelle Forrest; 2013 Distinguished Service Award winner Sandra Bruneau; 2002 Distinguished Service Award winner Don Cochrane; CSSE Past President Yvonne Hébert.
Claudia Ruitenberg, President, University of British Columbia ([email protected]
) David P. Burns, Secretary-Treasurer, Kwantlen Polytechnic University ([email protected]
) Donald Kerr, Past President, Lakehead University ([email protected]
Message from the CPES President Greetings from Salt Spring Island! I hope that this message finds you well, winding down from the academic year or at least counting down to when you might be able to indulge in some summer relaxation. This is my first “Message from the President” after being handed the (imaginary) gavel by our Past President, Don Kerr. I am grateful for his leadership over the past two years, and certain I will have to rely on his wise counsel as questions arise in the next two years. Thankfully our Secretary-Treasurer, David Burns, will also be able to provide support, continuity, and tech savvy—in addition to advice from the Stoics. Lauren Bialystok did a marvellous job for the 2016 conference, both in managing the adjudication process and in putting the program together, so we are delighted she has volunteered to continue this job for the 2017 conference. The Call for Proposals for the 2017 CPES Annual Conference is included in this Newsletter. Please read it carefully and pay special attention to the deadline for proposals, which is October 1st, quite a bit earlier than it has been in previous years. Remember that CPES is what its members want it to be. This means you should (a) renew your membership, and (b) feel free to email me with any questions or suggestions. Did you know, for example, that the CPES Constitution explicitly mentions the possibility of local CPES chapters? Let us know what initiatives you would like to undertake, or what you would like CPES to do more centrally. As you rest and refresh your mind over the summer, think not only of what paper, symposium, or other session you might like to propose for the next CPES conference, but also of what paper you might be able to submit to Philosophical Inquiry in Education, the official CPES journal. No, “Maxwell, McDonough & Waddington” is not a law firm, but rather our fully Quebec-based editorial team that has produced two excellent issues already, and eagerly awaits your submissions. With my very best wishes, Claudia Ruitenberg, [email protected]
PS: Did I mention the deadline for CPES proposal submissions is October 1st?
3 Message from Lauren Bialystok, CPES Program Chair 2017
As Program Chair, I am pleased to invite proposals for the 2017 meeting of the Canadian Philosophy of Education Society (CPES), a branch of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education (CSSE), which will be held during the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences from May 28 to May 31, at Ryerson University in downtown Toronto. Preliminary information can be found at http://www.csse-scee.ca/csse/
QUICK INFO: • Congress in Toronto, May 28-May 31, 2017 • Deadline for proposals: OCTOBER 1, 2016 (early!) • 3-page summary (blind) and 200-word abstract • Submit online at http://www.csse-scee.ca/conference/ • Specify CPES when you upload submission
I am particularly excited to chair the CPES conference in my own city (albeit not at my own university), and to share some of the wealth of Toronto’s academic and cultural communities with you. In addition to our exciting roster of presentations, plans are underway for a CPES Blue Jays baseball game, a walking tour of Toronto, special guest speakers, and more. Congress Information The Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences is an annual gathering of dozens of Canadian academic organizations at one university. In addition to individual disciplinary conferences, there are open programs, headline speakers, and opportunities to network with scholars from around the country and beyond. The 2017 conference theme, coinciding with Canada’s 150th anniversary, is “From Far and Wide: The Next 150.” The Congress organizers explain: “We believe this theme is inclusive and hope it will inspire our colleagues from all disciplines represented by the Federation. As the year in which we will celebrate Canada’s 150th anniversary, the 2017 Congress is particularly significant. Our rapid growth, changing demographics and maturing economy have brought significant challenges and impressive achievements. Canadians have looked to the humanities and social sciences to understand these historical and contemporary issues and to find innovative and viable solutions. Given the significance of the year, the theme celebrates achievements, promotes a sense of pride, and fosters new beginnings for a nation
shaped by the ideas of the Federation’s 85,000 plus scholars, educators, and students across Canada. Canada The Next 150: From Far and Wide also acknowledges our unique location as an urban-campus university, seamlessly interwoven with the bustling metropolis that surrounds us. The city as an extension of our campus, harnessing its energy, making use of distinct venues as scholarly meeting places and engaging directly with the community to demonstrate the many ways the humanities and social sciences contribute to our society.” CPES Information Philosophy of Education can contribute important perspectives to this year’s theme, but CPES also welcomes proposals not directly related to the theme. Philosophers of education have a tradition of providing fresh, critically important, and disciplined perspectives on current and recurring issues in education and schooling. We therefore encourage and welcome contributions from diverse philosophical approaches, including (but not limited to) conceptual analysis, epistemology, normative theory, Continental thought, and applied philosophy. Since an increasing number of scholars are working from an interdisciplinary perspective, we also look forward to receiving submissions that draw from cultural studies, women’s studies, political theory, postcolonial critique, disability studies, and all other approaches that include philosophical methods or sources. We ask that only non-empirical proposals be submitted to CPES, however, as most of the rest of CSSE is devoted to empirical research. Philosophers of education often use empirical examples, but the main focus of the proposal should be a philosophical argument, analysis, or critique, rather than a presentation of the results of an empirical study. Our sessions are usually single- and multi-authored papers (identified as “multiple single paper sessions” in the CSSE proposal primer), as well as topical panels or symposia. Please note: • A “multiple single paper session” is usually a 75-minute block with two or more presentations of equal length. Each presentation may have one or more authors, but it should be a single presentation, not a series of presentations. You do not need to concern yourself with finding other presentations that match yours. As program chair, I will match accepted presentations after they have gone through the review process. • A “panel or symposium” is usually a 60-minute block devoted to one topic, consisting of a series of shorter individual presentations. If you submit a proposal of this type, you identify the theme and propose the whole session with multiple
papers by predetermined co-presenters, as well as a chair and (sometimes) discussant. If you would like to propose an alternative format, such as a book launch or a working session for instructors of philosophy of education courses, please don’t hesitate to contact me. All proposals will be blind peer-reviewed. Please also note that, as per CSSE regulations, each author can be lead author on only one submission. This means that if you are contributing a paper to a panel or symposium session, you cannot also submit a single-authored paper. You may, however, serve as discussant in a different session. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to contact me. Graduate students are especially encouraged to submit proposals. This conference is an ideal place to make professional connections and to receive friendly, constructive feedback on your work. On this note, CPES members are reminded to encourage graduate students at any stage of their program to submit to CPES and/or to the CSSE graduate students’ round table sessions. The regulations regarding first authorship are different for graduate students, so please consult the CSSE call for proposals for details. How to Submit a Proposal All proposals must be submitted through the central CSSE on-line submission system at http://www.csse-scee.ca/conference/ Please see the right side bar on the CSSE site for links to the official call for proposals and submission instructions. The deadline for proposal submissions is October 1, 2016. This is at least a month earlier than it has been in previous years. Since CPES is a special interest group of the Canadian Association for Foundations of Education (CAFE), which is in turn a division of CSSE, please clearly mark your submission “CPES,” and make sure you check “CPES” in the on-line membership and submission process. (Otherwise, the submission will be sent to CAFE.) In order to make sure that no proposal is missed, please also email me ([email protected]
) when you have uploaded your proposal to the CSSE system. Please note that all authors of accepted presentations must be CSSE members in good standing for the year of the conference. For more information please visit their website at http://www.csse-scee.ca/conference/.
All proposals to the CPES conference will undergo blind review by at least two faculty members or post-doctoral fellows in a related area. I have included the review sheet below outlining the criteria for acceptance. Please note that proposals require both an abstract (maximum 200 words) and a blinded 3-page (double-spaced) summary of the paper/panel, as well as a list of references. The summary need not follow the social sciences format (question, methods, findings, etc.) but it should clearly explain the topic for consideration and describe the approach you will take, including relevant literature. Submissions that deviate substantially from the length and format described on the CSSE website may be rejected without review. Please observe the submission guidelines in order to ensure your proposal is eligible for consideration. Note: to “blind” your submission in a Word document on a PC, click on “File,” then “Check for Issues,” then “Inspect Document.” If you follow the prompts, it will remove all identifying information that may be hidden in the file’s data. To “blind” your submission in a Word document on a Mac, click on “Word,” “Preferences,” “Security,” then “Remove personal information from this file on save.” Once decisions have been made about which proposals will be accepted and which ones rejected (hopefully by the end of January), I will email all submitters with their respective decisions and brief comments from the reviewers. Please note that, because of the complexity of CSSE programming, the decisions of reviewers and the program chair are final. Also, by submitting a proposal, you are indicating that you intend to attend Congress if accepted and will only withdraw your presentation under extenuating circumstances. Last, but not least, since our membership base determines the number of program sessions we are allotted, please be sure to renew your CPES membership! The more members we have, the more sessions we can enjoy in Toronto. I look forward to meeting all new and returning CPES members at Ryerson. Sincerely, Lauren Bialystok Program Chair, CPES 2017 [email protected]
CPES 2017 Proposal Review Sheet Paper No. _______ Instructions to reviewers: Please indicate the extent to which the proposal meets the following criteria: 1. The proposal addresses a problem or topic that is of interest to CPES members. Of little or no interest 1
Of significant interest
2. The proposal draws on relevant literature in the field of philosophy of education. Irrelevant 1
3. The proposal is coherent and well organized. Not coherent and/or well organized 1
Very coherent and well organized
4. The proposed question/argument is original. Not original 1
5. The proposed paper/panel shows potential for making a contribution to the field of philosophy of education. Little or weak contribution 1
Significant contribution 3
Overall Recommendation (please put an “X” in the appropriate box) Definitely accept
Outgoing President’s Report to the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Philosophy of Education Society - 1st June 2016
This has been another strong year for Philosophy of Education in Canada. The continued success of our discipline can be seen in such things as the number of excellent nominations for our Thesis and Dissertation Awards, the general quality of work many graduate students are doing in the area across the country, and the reach and impact of many of our members’ scholarship. As one example of this continued success, we recognized our 2016 Doctoral Dissertation Award winner, Dr. James Bigari, at our annual philosopher’s dinner on Monday evening. Dr. Bigari’s work was commended for its “clarity and precision, [and] careful development of ideas.” Congratulations again to Dr. Bigari. On the same evening we also recognized the service over the years to both our society and to our discipline by our colleague Dr. Michelle Forrest, with the Distinguished Service Award. This recognition for your hard work and success is well deserved, Michelle. There are some personal achievements over the course of this past year I would like to recognize: Graham McDonough was awarded tenure and a promotion at the University of Victoria this past year, and Darron Kelly was hired into a tenure-track position in Educational Foundations and Leadership at Memorial University. Congratulations to both, and also to Dianne Gereluk, Trevor Norris, Chris Martin and Bruce Maxwell on the publication of their new text. I am sure there are other achievements deserving of our recognition that I have missed. The Society owes a debt of gratitude to a number of people who have been working hard— mostly behind the scenes—over the year, to ensure the success of this conference, and the continued activities of the Society. On the very good news front, our journal put out its first two issues under its new name, Philosophical Inquiries in Education. Thanks—and congratulations—to our editorial team of David Waddington, Bruce Maxwell and Kevin McDonough. Our thanks also to Graham McDonough and Chris Martin for their fine work as Co-Chairs of our Doctoral Dissertation committee. We are sorry to lose Graham’s expertise on this committee this morning. I’d also like to thank Lauren Bialystok for her terrific work as program chair. This is a big role, and for Lauren this past year it was a new role, and we are all aware that she handled it with great success. David Burns has also been working very hard as Secretary-Treasurer this past year, (with a number of discussions with Ann for help). We owe you our thanks, David.
As you all know, the luck of this Society is the extreme congeniality of its membership, and the support and hard work of everyone, and the general willingness of its members to step into roles and take them on. So of course it has been another extremely easy and pleasant year for myself working with all these people. Also, a personal thanks to all of you who have allowed me to reach out to you over the course of the past year, for your advice and suggestions on various issues. Thank you for your help; my actions were always better informed for the consideration many of you gave at different times. Finally, it gives me great pleasure to thank, on behalf of all of us, our friend Doug Simpson, who, as well as his many years’ commitment to philosophy and to this Society, has given much of his time over the past four years in the roles of President and Past-President. I have often depended on his calm and sage and encouraging advice. This meeting is my final duty as President of this Society. So I will close with a couple of words of reflection. I do have one regret over my tenure as this Society’s President, and that is that I haven’t done more over the last couple of years to try to encourage new members to join our activities and our Society. The Society is currently healthy, and strong within CAFE and CSSE. But going forward I do believe we will need to do more to encourage new members, and bring new numbers—and as always fresh ideas and approaches—into our fold. I have been re-reminded over the last couple of days, and perhaps particularly over dinner the last couple of nights, what a great Society we have, and how personally as well as professionally rewarding attending our annual general meetings always is. I emailed my partner last night that I always feel professionally refreshed after a few days of talking among this group of people, listening to some stimulating presentations, debating, and so on. We are lucky to be a member of this Society. And so it has certainly been a great privilege and honour to have served as its President over the last two years. Thank you. Donald Kerr 2016 Philosophical Inquiry in Education Annual Report
Achievements A number of significant achievements and milestones have happened this year. Perhaps most importantly, the launch issue of the renamed PIE was a big success, attracting the participation of prominent scholars from around the world, including our own Trevor Norris and Claudia Ruitenberg. Page views increased significantly during this time--since the journal was renamed, they are up over 80% (see attached report for full results). The editors worked to promote the journal through e-mail and social media channels, and several editors were present at both PES and AERA to build the profile of the journal (see attached PES slide presentation for more info). Submissions are also up significantly, and we can say with some certainty that the quality has increased, perhaps as a result of all of this promotional activity. Currently, there are over 15 submissions of various types (articles, dialogue, book reviews, etc.) in the reviewing queue. Promising emerging scholars in Canada are continuing to choosing the journal as an outlet for their work (e.g. the recent publications by Colgan and Fletcher, respectively), and the geographical distribution of submissions is now significantly more global. Another bright spot is the digitization of the Paideusis archives, which took center stage in the most recent May 2016 issue release. Ann Chinnery and the library staff at SFU are responsible for this achievement, and we are very pleased to have these articles available. To promote this new/old content, we have launched a From the Archives… section which, in each issue, will highlight some of the great work published in the journal over the past 25 years. If any of our long-standing members have suggestions for content for the From the Archives... section, we would love to hear them. On the book review front, Lauren Bialystok has continued to do a fantastic job of running this section, and she has plenty of new reviews lined up for future issues. There are several essaylength reviews in the new issue, including one dedicated to new books on Foundations of education in Canada. Challenges Although PIE is in very good shape in terms of the number of submissions in the hopper, there are some ongoing problems that we are addressing. We spent a lot of time working out numerous bumps in the OJS system, which is not always as intuitive as one might wish. This has led to some errors in the publication and review process (e.g. abstracts not updated for the final edition, difficulty with automated emails and reminders) that could have had a negative impact on reader perceptions. We are also continuing to refine our copy-editing and layout processes in an effort to figure out how to deliver helpful feedback to authors efficiently and to provide quality control checks that capture common layout problems. Getting reviews in on time is another ongoing challenge that is likely endemic to most academic journals.
We are working to build the journal’s profile through indexing, but this is taking some time. Lauren Bialystok is currently in discussions with both the Philosopher’s Index and ERIC, and we are optimistic that these processes will eventually yield a good result. Another ongoing challenge is funding. While the journal’s bank account continues to be fairly healthy, the modest costs of production of about $2000 per year are not currently being covered. A relatively less munificent funding context in Quebec universities plays a role here, but the fact remains that the journal needs new money. Possibilities for new money include funding through Quebec FRQSC team grants, upcoming SSHRC journal funding competitions, support from private foundations, or increased support from readers. Over the course of the next year, it will be our top priority to find some new sources of money for the journal. This will not only take some of the strain off the editorial team, but it will also provide some good experience for students. Future Possibilities Things to think about for the future include the possibility of adding a third issue to deal with the large amount of quality content that we are currently receiving. At the moment, our funding level makes this rather difficult, but it is something worth considering in the event that we are able to line up more resources. An additional possibility is adding more French content. Bruce Maxwell’s connections in Frenchspeaking Quebec universities are helpful here, and we already have a French-language symposium lined up for a future issue. This addition, we suspect, may be quite helpful in securing SSHRC funding in the future. A final task for the coming year is to build a more meaningful role for our Editorial Review Board--we are currently working on some ideas for gathering suggestions from these scholars to influence future directions of the journal. Acknowledgements We would like to thank all of the members of CPES who served as reviewers this year, as well as all of those who chose to submit articles, discussion pieces, or reviews. Your contributions were invaluable. Particular thanks are also due to David Burns and Don Kerr for their help with administration, to Jon Summers for his copyediting work, to Kevin Stranack for ongoing technical assistance, and finally to Ann Chinnery for her efforts to digitize the Paideusis archives. Editorial Board, Philosophical Inquiry in Education
Report of CPES Program Chair 2016 Description of the blind review process We received 31 submissions, of which we had space to accept 18. One accepted presenter was not able to attend Congress. Reviewers were recruited using a combination of the list of volunteers from last year’s AGM, an older list of CPES members and their areas of research, and my own knowledge of people in the field. Not everyone who volunteered was invited to be a reviewer. There were 19 reviewers, all of them faculty or post-docs at Canadian institutions and members of CPES. Some of the reviewers had also submitted work to be considered for Congress. Each reviewer was given three submissions to review (in a few cases, two or four). I matched the submissions to the reviewers carefully by considering the reviewers’ areas of expertise and ensuring there was no conflict of interest (even though the process was blind), such as the reviewer and the author being from the same institution or known friends. I researched the reviewers’ academic profiles if I was unsure. After the 19 reviewers were matched with submissions, I still had one or two submissions for whom I couldn’t find enough qualified reviewers within the existing pool. In those cases I reached out to targeted faculty members outside the pool who had expertise in the area. In total, then, there were about 21 reviewers. Once they agreed to review, reviewers were given blind links to the submissions I assigned to them through the CSSE website. They had 6-8 weeks to complete the reviews. In the initial email, I gave them the CPES review sheet as an attachment, which is different from the CSSE review sheet. I asked the reviewers to upload the CPES sheet when they submitted their reviews (or to email it to me separately). Most did, but some ended up using the CSSE review sheet. Each submission was assessed by two reviewers. Most received comments, but some did not. Where there was any ambivalence about whether a submission should be accepted, I followed up with the reviewers to ask if they had any comments. Once I had all the reviews, I divided the submissions into “definitely accept,” “definitely reject,” and “maybe.” I read all of the abstracts and many of the submissions myself to be sure that the reviews were reasonable. Of the two reviews per submission, there was rarely any significant disparity in the reviewers’ assessments. Once I received preliminary program information from CSSE, I started slotting accepted submissions into the program. Among the factors that affected whether a “maybe” ended up being accepted was whether it fit coherently into the developing program. I tried to find themes to link the two papers in each time slot. I also tried to prioritize graduate student participation and work on emerging topics in the philosophy of education. Decisions were sent out only once the whole program had been drafted and approved by CSSE. Some submissions were accepted with a request to heed the reviewers’ suggested revisions, although there is no mechanism for re-submission and re-review. Assessment of the review process Putting together a conference program is inescapably subjective on some level, but I feel confident that appropriate steps were taken to ensure the integrity of the blind review process. I would like to make a few suggestions (hopes) for next year and point to a few issues arising.
Suggestions: 1) The reason that some reviewers used the social science-based CSSE review sheet as opposed to the CPES review sheet is that the former is automatically programmed into the CSSE submission website. With the tech support of CSSE, I hope that next year we can have our own review sheet programmed into the portion of the website that CPES reviewers use, so that no additional uploads are necessary. 2) The distinction between “multiple paper sessions” and “symposia/roundtables” could be better explained and enforced. I ended up treating almost all submissions as multiple paper sessions, mostly because a symposium or roundtable requires an entire timeslot to itself, while papers are usually two per 75-minute timeslot. I have already noticed that this causes papers with multiple presenters to have to rush. We could reserve the 60-minute timeslots (we have two this year) for symposia but we might have to be more selective. I recommend communicating the criteria for symposia more clearly to submitters and reviewers, emphasizing the difference between one paper that is presented by multiple people, which could still be considered as half of a 75-minute session, and multiple papers on a common theme, which would be its own session. 3) There were many qualified reviewers involved in this process, but out of concern to not overburden any reviewer with service, I limited each person’s work to three submissions. The result was that each submission was reviewed twice. It would be ideal to get three reviews per submission. This could be accomplished either by sending more submissions to each reviewer or recruiting more reviewers. However, seeing as 21 reviewers (all faculty, two post-docs) is a good pool for a small organization, I’m more inclined to the latter solution.
Issues arising: 1) The scope of CPES is not well defined. This is in part deliberate: we are pluralistic about what counts as philosophy of education and we encourage innovative work. Yet in a couple of cases I felt that a submission was not properly within the scope of CPES. For example, empirical work that has no explicit philosophical component, but may touch on some areas that philosophers also study, strikes me as unworthy of the few spots allotted specifically to the humanities in this giant organization, whatever its other merits. Apparently CPES has accepted more empirical work in the past, and this unstated change of practice may be unfair to potential submitters. I think it would be beneficial to discuss these types of cases as an organization and then to clarify the scope of submissions we will consider for Congress. 2) There has been talk about whether the format of submissions (three-page summary plus abstract) is the best one for assessing a potential presentation. The format may privilege submissions that are summaries of more advanced work and disadvantage submissions based on work that is just at its beginning stages. It may also not provide enough information to get a sense of the submission’s quality. 3) There were one or two technical mistakes over the course of the process that arose, I think, because of my total removal from CSSE business and website management. CPES is a branch of CAFÉ, which in turn is one of over a dozen organizations within CSSE. At the program meeting in February, CPES was represented by the chair of CAFÉ. I was in regular email contact with a variety of people whom I’d never met and whose roles in the organization were rather unclear to me. Although everyone was friendly and hard-working, it is difficult to put together a
16 program with so many layers of management. I don’t know how this could be changed, but at the very least having more control over our portion of the website (see 1 above) would help.
Chairing Once the program was complete, I assigned a chair to each session. I chose the chair by looking for a CPES member who was likely to be on campus at the time, due to being a presenter in the immediately preceding or subsequent session, for instance. I contacted all the chairs to make sure they were willing and available in the assigned time slots. I wrote up chairing guidelines and sent them to all the chairs a couple of weeks before Congress. The guidelines were influenced by things I had seen go wrong at past meetings, such as the first presentation taking more than half the session time, as well as the tips for inclusive chairing recently adopted by the British Philosophical Association and the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain. These guidelines suggest ways of preventing the most senior conference participants from dominating discussion and excluding junior scholars, women and minorities. I welcome any feedback on these guidelines or suggestions for adapting them in the future. Respectfully submitted, Lauren Bialystok [email protected]
Financial Report – 2015/2016 This year the Society has changed its accounting practice. In the past this report was compiled based on a mixture of credits, debits, projected credits, and projected debits. This means that the balance given for each fiscal year was arrived at by combining actual credits/debits with estimations of transactions in process. Certain lines were listed in 2014, for example, that actually left the account in 2015. To ensure the Society receives precise information of all transacted financial activity, I have therefore prepared this report using only that activity (that is, I have included costs transacted or expected to be transacted outside of fiscal 2015/2016). This change will create 2 temporary points of confusion. First, comparing last year’s report to this year’s will yield repeated line items (those that were listed last year but that actually took place this year). This confusion will occur only this year. Second, during this transition there are credits to the C.P.E.S. account that are expected, but that are not reflected in the 2015/2016 fiscal year. The dues from CSSE/CAFE have not been settled, and thus are not included in this year’s report. A transfer of $801.00 from the P.I.E. account to the C.P.E.S. account (to reimburse costs taken from the latter) was transacted in May, and thus did not take place during fiscal 2015/2016. This will, starting next year, increase the clarity and accuracy of our accounting (on the grounds that we are including only numbers of which we are certain). To further increase the transparency of our accounting, to keep our accounting practices clear during transitions between Treasurers, I would further advise that the Society shift its fiscal year to a date in the Winter (perhaps the calendar year). The end of our fiscal year coincides with one of the busier periods of the year in terms of our expenditure, so we are bound to have costs set in one year that are not accounted for until the next. All the best, David P. Burns, Ph.D. Secretary Treasurer, CPES
C.P.E.S. Account Balance on
10-May-15 P.I.E. Account Transfer for CALJ Membership
10-May-15 P.I.E. Account Transfer for Web Consulting Fees
11-Jun-15 Domain Name and Hosting (previous provider)
12-Jun-15 Copy Editing for Paideusis
18-Jun-15 Early Career Invited Lecturer Honorarium
22-Jun-15 2015 Master's Thesis Award
22-Jun-15 Review Copies for P.I.E. 12-Aug-15 CPES 2015 Association Fees
01-Sep-15 2014 AGM Catering
21-Sep-15 Distinguished Service Award Dinner
16-Nov-15 Domain and Hosting (new provider, 2 years)
29-Dec-15 Copy Editing for P.I.E. 03-Sep-15 P.I.E. Account Transfer for Review Copies for P.I.E.
03-Sep-15 P.I.E. Account Transfer for Copy Editing for Paideusis Interest
Interest from escalator term deposit #2
Balance on Escalator Term Deposit
20 P.I.E Account
Balance on 1 May 2015
12-Aug-15 CSSE Subscription Fees
10-May-15 Transfer for C.P.E.S. account for CALJ membership
03-Sep-15 Transfer for C.P.E.S. account for copyediting
10-May-15 Transfer for C.P.E.S. account for web consulting
03-Sep-15 Transfer for C.P.E.S. account for book review copies
Membership fees to be paid to CPES during fiscal 2016/2017 CPES/SCPÉ (S33)
Reg/Titl Stu/Étu Ret Sal Int
43 44 3 6 0 96
13.15 769.87 Balance on 1 May 2016
10.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 10.00
430.00 220.00 15.00 30.00 0.00 695.00
*A payment of $400 from CAFE is expected early in the new fiscal year, and a back payment of a further $400 (a payment in 2012 was missed by CAFE) is expected shortly.
Minutes of the CPES AGM, June 1, 2016 Present: Shadi Afshar, Lauren Bialystok, Sandra Bruneau, Ann Chinnery, Don Cochrane, Mario Di Paolantonio, Claudia Eppert, Michelle Forrest, Dianne Gereluk, Lyndze Harvey, Don Kerr, Christopher Martin, Bruce Maxwell, Graham McDonough, Claudia Ruitenberg, Doron YosefHassidim Regrets: David Burns, David Waddington, Douglas Simpson 1. Approval of the agenda Motion to approve the agenda: Michelle Forrest; seconded: Ann Chinnery. •
Don Kerr notes that the report of Thesis and Dissertation Award Committee has been moved up on the agenda because Graham has to leave early. He will report on the CAFE AGM under New Business. Carried.
2. Approval of the minutes of the 2015 AGM Motion to approve the minutes: Lauren Bialystok; seconded: Doron Yosef-Hassidim; carried. (Spelling of “DesRoches” corrected.) 3. Business arising from the minutes No business arising. 4.4 Report from the Thesis and Dissertation Award Committee Read at the meeting and included as written report; names of co-supervisors of Dissertation Award winner added (Drs. Daniel Vokey and Claudia Ruitenberg). 4.1 Report from the President Read at the meeting and included as written report. • •
Lauren Bialystok thanks to Don Kerr for his service as President. Doron Yosef-Hassidim comments on the challenge of attracting new members; depending on where the conference is in a given year, we might approach specific colleagues in nearby areas of the US; e.g., next year with Congress at Ryerson, we can target the US North East; use PES newsletter to send out a general announcement and follow up with targeted emails to colleagues at universities in relevant locations. Graham McDonough commends the society for its collective memory, passing on relevant information and experience to new officers.
4.2 Report from the Secretary-Treasurer Presented by Don Kerr in David Burns’ absence. • •
A little bit of good news not shown: we are owed app. $800 from CAFE, which will be paid out this coming year. Claudia Ruitenberg: requests that we go back to the practice of not listing every transaction; a financial statement need not read like a bank statement
4.3 Report from the Program Chair Read as the meeting and included as written report. •
Michelle Forrest recalls a past motion that a past year’s program chair assists a new program chair; the written suggestions and guidelines Lauren has presented are very helpful. Michelle makes the comments listed under 6.1 on the agenda now. It was during Michelle’s presidency that CPES adopted the blind peer review process. A few years ago there was some controversy about a paper that was rejected and there were questions about whether or not the paper was reviewed by appropriate reviewers. Michelle is concerned about a future new program chair who may not know the process and available reviewers as well. She supports Lauren’s recommendations. Claudia Ruitenberg notes that the CPES membership has responsibility for ensuring that they elect a Program Chair who has sufficient knowledge of the field. Claudia also notes she supports maintaining the CSSE three-page submission format for CPES because there are other conferences in our field (PES and PESGB) that require full-paper submissions; agrees with Lauren that it is not too onerous to ask reviewers to review one or two more proposals to ensure proposals are reviewed by three reviewers; agrees it is legitimate for the Program Chair, if necessary in consultation with the Executive, to redirect a submission and not send a proposal that doesn’t fit in CPES out to reviewers. Adds that there were some technical glitches in anonymizing the proposals; clearly not all submitters use the “remove personal information” option in Word, so the Program Chair needs to check this before sending out to reviewers. Agrees that it would be helpful to clarify the distinction between multi-paper sessions and symposia in our own CPES call for papers. Lauren will also draft some language to clarify the distinction between applied philosophy and empirical work that has no clear connection to philosophy of education. Michelle Forrest notes that the Program Chair also has the task of putting together a program, so sometimes a proposal that has been reviewed positively may not fit in the program. Don Kerr thanks Lauren for her service.
4.5 Report from the PIE Editors Read by Bruce Maxwell at the meeting and included as written report, including statistics on website use. •
Don Cochrane: who does the copy-editing? Bruce: has been a graduate student at Concordia; will look for a new copy editor; will also need Francophone copy editor for Francophone special issue. Don wonders about adding French abstract to English articles and vice versa. Bruce thinks bilingual content more likely to turn people off. Lauren Bialystok suggests that adding French/English abstracts may work well for indexing. PIE has submitted applications for indexing to ERIC and Philosopher’s Index.
5.1 Election of 2017 Program Chair Lauren Bialystok has volunteered to serve as Program Chair for a second year. There are no other volunteers. Acclaimed. 5.2 Election of Co-Chair of Thesis and Awards Committee (2016-2018) Dianne Gereluk has volunteered to serve as Co-Chair of the Thesis and Dissertation Committee. Doron Yosef-Hassidim volunteers to serve as reviewer. Dianne is acclaimed. 5.3 Election of President (2016-2018)
Claudia Ruitenberg is nominated by Lauren Bialystok to serve as President; seconded by Claudia Eppert. Acclaimed. 6. New business Kurt Clausen is trying to change the funding formula for the CAFE SIGs. In the past all three SIGs received the fixed amount of $400, which in some years added up more than CAFE’s income. CAFE needed a new formula that is both fair and sustainable. There was some back and forth at the CAFE AGM about the final wording, but there was agreement in principle about a different funding formula that takes relative membership into account. Given current CPES membership, it looks like this will work out well for CPES. 7. 1 Announcement of next year’s conference Claudia Ruitenberg notes that there is some discussion at CSSE about setting the submission deadline for 2017 earlier, in October 2016. If this is decided we will have to send a number of reminders to members. 8. Closing comments Michelle Forrest thanks Don Kerr on behalf of Douglas Simpson, who has completed his twoyear term as Past Present.
Announcements Please see the below call for papers for the annual meeting of the (American) Philosophy of Education Society Philosophy of Education Society CALL FOR PAPERS
73rd Annual Meeting 2017 The 73rd Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society (PES) will take place from March 16-20, 2017 in Seattle, WA, at the Crowne Plaza Downtown Seattle: http://www.cphotelseattle.com The Program Committee invites papers to be submitted for presentation at the Annual Meeting and for subsequent publication in the PES yearbook, Philosophy of Education 2017. The Committee also invites two other types of proposals: (1) proposals for alternative sessions; (2) proposals for work-in-progress that bring participants together to collaborate on developing ideas that are not yet ready for the regular paper submission process. Papers and proposals that address the conference theme are encouraged, but all submissions will be considered. PES 2017 THEME: Making Sense of Humanity in a Posthumanist Age This year’s conference invites submissions on the theme, “Making Sense of Humanity in a Posthumanist Age.” The topic echoes Bernard Williams’ 1987 Stanford Lecture, “Making Sense of Humanity,” but pushes it further to ask what remains of ‘humanity’ or ‘the human’ some 30 years later, when artificial intelligence, sophisticated robotics, and radical shifts in scientific, social, legal, and political thought have blurred the boundary between the human and non-human. These developments, combined with the posthumanist turn in the academy, have given rise to new and exciting questions for philosophers of education. There are many possibilities for orienting submissions to the conference theme. For example, papers could address the ways in which new materialism emphasizes the agentic qualities of networks and non-human objects, or how advances in AI demand a re-examination of prevailing conceptions of the mind, free will, intelligence, moral agency, and so on. Within eco-philosophy of education, authors could take up how to educate for human flourishing in a way that takes seriously the non-human or morethan-human world. Yet another approach could be to explore the educational implications of the so-called crisis in the humanities. Submissions do not have to address the conference theme explicitly. We also encourage submissions that attend to gaps within the field, and which propose novel ways of thinking about perennial educational concerns. All papers will go through the normal review process. Papers not found acceptable on grounds of quality will not be accepted simply because they address the theme, and papers not addressing the theme will not be penalized for that reason. SUBMITTING PAPERS TO THE CONFERENCE The Program Committee will review only submissions made in accordance with the instructions below. Papers reviewed and accepted by the Program Committee, and invited responses to them, will be published online in the society’s annual yearbook, Philosophy of Education 2017. Past issues can be viewed here: http://ojs.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/pes
Program Committee members: Nick Burbules, Cristina Cammarano, Sarah des Roches, Mario di Paolantonio, Ariana Gonzales Stokas, Michael Gunzenhauser, Sophie Haroutounian-Gordon, Naomi Hodgson, Clarence Joldersma, Liz Jackson, Rob Kunzman, Tyson Lewis, Cris Mayo, Paula McAvoy, PJ Nelsen, Rebecca Taylor, Winston Thompson, Joris Vlieghe, and Bryan Warnick. (Thanks in advance to these colleagues for their service to the Society.) Graduate Assistant: Jacky Barreiro, Simon Fraser University Deadline: Papers and proposals must be submitted electronically to [email protected]
no later than November 1, 2016. Submission instructions appear below. Submission Formats Paper Submissions: Papers may not exceed 4,500 words, including footnotes, and must be written in proper PES form (see the Style Guide). The 4,500-word limit will be strictly enforced. Papers that modestly exceed the 4,500-word limit will be subject to editing. Papers that exceed this limit excessively will be subject to rejection without review or to not being published in the PESyearbook. Multiple reviewers will review papers blindly. Final decisions on manuscripts rest with the Program Chair. Criteria for review include quality of argument, links to philosophical and philosophy of education literature and to education policy and practice, quality of expression, and significance of the contribution. Please make sure that references to your name, institutional affiliation, or work (e.g., “As I have argued on many occasions…”) are omitted from the paper, including the notes. Your identifying information will not be available to reviewers. Alternative Presentation Submissions: Proposals may not exceed 1,000 words, including references. If the session being proposed involves multiple presenters, please specify the contribution of each presenter. Alternative presentation proposals take two general forms: • Alternative Sessions: Examples include roundtables, author meets critics panels, performances, interviews, and panel conversations on issues. Criteria for review include originality and clarity of motivating question or idea, potential interaction with session attendees, and relevance/ importance to educational philosophy and educational policy and practice. Alternative sessions may be scheduled concurrently with paper sessions or in separate time slots. • Work-in-Progress Sessions: These sessions will group scholars with work-in-progress in an informal collaborative setting. Proposals should detail the question or claim being investigated, relevant sources/ resources, likely direction, and mode(s) of analysis. Criteria for review include clarity and significance of the question/ claim, suitability of sources/ resources, suitability of mode(s) of analysis, and potential for thinking anew about issues in the field of educational philosophy. Submission Process Submit papers or proposals as a Word attachment to [email protected]
by November 1, 2016. In the body of your e-mail, please provide the following contact information: • Name • Institutional Affiliation • Email address
• Phone number • Mailing address Submissions will be accepted beginning September 15, 2016. An e-mail confirmation that your submission has been received will be sent within two business days. Note: If you do not receive an email confirmation within two business days of your submission, please contact Ann Chinnery at [email protected]
Respondents and Chairs
Members of PES who are interested in serving as session chairs or respondents are invited to contact the Program Chair, Ann Chinnery, at [email protected]
Please specify your areas of expertise and provide your full contact information (mailing address, email address, and phone number). For questions concerning the program, please contact Ann Chinnery at [email protected]
We look forward to receiving your submissions. A note on A/V: Due to prohibitive costs, PES is unable to provide data projectors, extension cords, or other A/V equipment. Presenters wishing to make use of PowerPoint or other presentation software must make their own arrangements at their own expense.