Movement II · Week 8
What Do I Know and Who Helps Me Know It?
Exam List
Workshop
WEEK 8  ·  CRDM 790  ·  Spring 2027
Primary text: Your exam list draft — the reading is you
Activity: Structured peer review in pairs, then full group
Milestone due: Draft Exam List — 25% of final grade
UDL COMPLIANT
CRDM 790 · Spring 2027 Week 8 · Movement II
Session Map

Today's Arc

📋 No New Primary Text

Your exam list draft is the reading this week. Structured peer review in pairs, then full-group discussion. The goal: understand the intellectual logic your list is already making — and where it breaks down.

◆ Milestone Due
  • Draft Exam List — upload to Moodle or bring to class
  • One-paragraph rationale explaining organizing logic
  • Worth 25% of final grade
✦ Peer Review Structure
  • Pairs assigned by instructor
  • Exchange lists + rationale paragraphs
  • Written response protocol — 15 min per list
  • Paired discussion — 10 min each
💬 Full Group Debrief

What patterns are emerging across this cohort's lists? Where do they overlap or diverge in surprising ways? What does the collective shape of these lists reveal about where CRDM is going?

CRDM 790 · Spring 2027 Week 8 · Milestone Due
◆ Milestone 2

Draft Exam List

Draft Exam List
25% of Final Grade
Due Before This Session
SUBMIT VIA MOODLE UPLOAD OR BRING TO CLASS

A working draft of your comprehensive exam reading list with a one-paragraph rationale explaining the organizing logic of the list.


It does not need to be final. It needs to be real.


The rationale paragraph should answer: Why these texts, in this configuration, for this project? Not "these are important texts" — but what argument about your field does the list already make?

Your Canon Audit from Week 6 and your haunting from Week 7 are the first draft of this rationale. Use them. The list and the logic are not separate — they are the same intellectual act.

CRDM 790 · Spring 2027 Week 8 · Guiding Questions for Peer Review
Into Each Other's Lists

Questions for Peer Review

1
What is the intellectual logic holding this list together? Is it organized by theme, method, genealogy, intervention — or something else?Does the organizing logic serve the project, or has the list grown beyond its own argument?
2
Where are the temporal, geographic, or demographic gaps? What fields or traditions are absent — and does their absence feel intentional or accidental?
3
Does the list reflect what the field values, what you value, or what your committee values? Are those the same?This is a real question, not a rhetorical one. The three may genuinely differ.
4
Is there a text on this list you haven't actually read yet? What would it mean to build a list you're genuinely excited about — not just one that passes muster?
5
Haraway asks: from where are you claiming to know? Does this list's structure reveal an answer? What does the list's positionality look like from the outside?
Click card or press Enter to reveal
CRDM 790 · Spring 2027 Week 8 · Structured Peer Review
✦ Activity — Structured Peer Review

The Protocol

1
Exchange Lists

Swap your Draft Exam List and rationale paragraph with your assigned partner. Read in silence — 10 minutes. No commentary yet.

2
The organizing logic I see:

Write one sentence: What argument does this list already make? Not what you think it should argue — what it does argue, as currently configured.

3
A gap I notice:

Name one temporal, geographic, methodological, or demographic gap. Be specific — not "more diversity" but "no work from the Global South on this question."

4
A text I'd add and why:

Suggest one text not currently on the list — and explain in 1–2 sentences why it belongs and what it would do for the list's argument.

5
The most interesting tension:

Find two texts on the list that pull in different directions. What is the tension? Does the list resolve it, or leave it productive and open?

6
Partners share + discuss

Share your written responses. 10 minutes each — the author listens before speaking. What surprises you about how your partner read your list?

Step 1 of 6
CRDM 790 · Spring 2027 Week 8 · Full Group Discussion
After Pair Review

Group Debrief

What we're looking for together
  • What patterns are we seeing across this cohort's lists?
  • Where do the lists overlap in surprising ways?
  • Where do they diverge — and what does that reveal?
  • What does this cohort's collective intellectual project look like?
The stakes of this moment

The exam list is not just a hoop. It is a portrait of your intellectual genealogy — who you've been reading, who formed you, and who you are in conversation with as you begin your dissertation. Build it like it matters, because it does.

Next steps after today

Revise your list using today's feedback. Bring it to your Week 10 individual meeting. The list will continue to evolve — but it now has a real argument behind it.

Writing Seed

"The thing I learned about my list today that I didn't know before was ___."

The Most Important Revision

Write one sentence: the single most important change you will make to your list based on today's feedback. This becomes your working task for the next two weeks.

CRDM 790 · Spring 2027 Week 8 · Supplementary Reading
If This Week Opened Something

Haraway on Situated Knowledges

📖 Donna Haraway — "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective"

Haraway's essay is the methodological backbone for thinking about why the positionality of your list matters — not just what you've read, but from where you are claiming to know. Her concept of "situated knowledges" argues that there is no view from nowhere: all knowledge claims are made from specific, embodied positions, and the pretense of objectivity is itself a political act.

The question it asks your list

From where is your exam list claiming to know? What is the "god's eye view" assumption built into the list's standard disciplinary shape — and where can you disrupt it?

Also worth reading
  • Haraway, Staying with the Trouble — extends situated knowledges into feminist science studies; useful for method chapters
  • Sandra Harding, "Strong Objectivity" — the feminist standpoint epistemology argument that Haraway is in dialogue with
CRDM 790 · Spring 2027 Week 8 → Week 9
Before You Leave

Looking Ahead

🤝
Week 9 · Committee as Intellectual Community

The practical and relational work of building a committee: who you need, why, and how to ask. Guest speaker — a recently advanced student or faculty member speaking candidly. Committee status check-ins with instructor.

✏️
Pre-Class for Week 9

Committee map: draw or write out your ideal committee. Name each position (chair, readers, outside member) and write 2–3 sentences about why each person. Also: draft the email you will send to your first committee contact. We will workshop it in class.

◆
Milestone 3 Coming — Week 10

Committee Confirmation is due Week 10 (15% of final grade). Email confirmation from your chair, or a written plan with named faculty + timeline. Use Weeks 9–10 to make that first contact.

"Your committee is not just a bureaucratic requirement. It is your intellectual community. Build it with intention."

CRDM 790 · Movement II · Week 8 · Milestone 2 Due

Week 8: Exam List Workshop

The reading this week is your list. Structured peer review in pairs, then full group.

No new primary text — your draft is the text Activity: Structured peer review ◆ Milestone 2 due before class

Session Map

Today’s Arc
Open
Pairs assigned — exchange lists and rationale paragraphs
Read in silence first. No commentary yet. 10 minutes to read before beginning the written protocol.
Pairs
Structured peer review
Written response protocol (15 min per list), then paired discussion (10 min each). The author listens before speaking.
Full group
Group debrief
What patterns are emerging across the cohort’s lists? Where do they overlap or diverge? What does the collective shape reveal about where CRDM is going?
Close
Haraway & positionality
Brief reading from Haraway on situated knowledge. From where are you claiming to know? Does your list’s structure reveal an answer?

◆ Milestone 2 Due Today

◆ Due Before This Session — 25% of Final Grade
Draft Comprehensive Exam List

Moodle, email, Google Drive (M2 folder), or bring to class (plus a copy for your partner). See full submission details →

What to submit — two parts
  • Part 1 — Draft Exam List: Working draft with full citations, organized by your own intellectual logic (theme, method, genealogy, period, or combination). Lists in CRDM typically run 50–80 texts across all areas at final stage. The organizing structure matters more than total number now.
  • Part 2 — Rationale Paragraph: One substantive paragraph arguing why these texts, in this configuration, are the right preparation for this project. Not a description — an argument. Your Canon Audit (W6) and haunting (W7) are the raw material for this.

It does not need to be final. It needs to be real. The list and the logic are not separate — they are the same intellectual act.

Peer Review Questions

Into Each Other’s Lists
1
What is the intellectual logic holding this list together? Is it organized by theme, method, genealogy, intervention — or something else? Does the organizing logic serve the project, or has the list grown beyond its own argument?
2
Where are the temporal, geographic, or demographic gaps? What fields or traditions are absent — and does their absence feel intentional or accidental?
3
Does the list reflect what the field values, what you value, or what your committee values? Are those the same? This is a real question, not a rhetorical one. The three may genuinely differ.
4
Is there a text on this list you haven’t actually read yet? What would it mean to build a list you’re genuinely excited about — not just one that passes muster?
5
Haraway asks: from where are you claiming to know? Does this list’s structure reveal an answer? What does the list’s positionality look like from the outside?

Structured Peer Review Protocol

The steps — written responses before discussion
1
Exchange lists (Read in silence — 10 min)
Swap your Draft Exam List and rationale paragraph with your assigned partner. Read in silence. No commentary yet.
2
The organizing logic I see:
Write one sentence: What argument does this list already make? Not what you think it should argue — what it does argue, as currently configured.
3
A gap I notice:
Name one temporal, geographic, methodological, or demographic gap. Be specific — not “more diversity” but “no work from the Global South on this question.”
4
A text I’d add and why:
Suggest one text not currently on the list — and explain in 1–2 sentences why it belongs and what it would do for the list’s argument.
5
The most interesting tension:
Find two texts on the list that pull in different directions. What is the tension? Does the list resolve it, or leave it productive and open?
6
Partners share + discuss (10 min each)
Share your written responses. 10 minutes each — the author listens before speaking. Then the author responds, clarifies, pushes back.

Group Debrief

Debrief questions

What patterns are emerging across the cohort’s lists? Where do they overlap? Where do they diverge in surprising ways? What does the collective shape of these lists reveal about where CRDM is going as a field?

What the workshop is for

The goal: understand the intellectual logic your list is already making — and where it breaks down. Revision is expected before Week 10. A rough draft is fine. Submitting nothing is not — the workshop cannot work without your list.

Closing: Haraway on Situated Knowledge

Situating the Lists

Haraway argues that all knowledge claims are situated — made from somewhere, not from everywhere. The “god trick” of claiming a view from nowhere is itself a position, and a dangerous one. Your exam list is a knowledge claim. From where are you claiming to know? Does the list’s structure reveal an answer?

Closing Prompt
“The argument my exam list is already making, whether I intended it or not, is ___. Build it with intention.”

Looking Ahead

Week 9 — Committee as Intellectual Community
  • Reading on committee formation and intellectual relationships TBD — check Moodle
  • Come prepared to talk about your committee formation: who you’ve asked, who you’re considering, what conversations you’ve had
◆ Milestone 2 — Revise Before Week 10
Revised Exam List

Based on today’s workshop. Revision deadline agreed upon individually with Kirsti.

◆ Milestone 3 Due — Week 10
Committee Confirmation

See full details → · Option A: email from chair. Option B: written plan with named faculty.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Next slide→ Space
Prev slide←
Reveal question (slide 4)Enter
Protocol step (slide 5)A
First / Last slideHome End
Reading modeM
This help?
Close ✕