In Theory…
Kathleen Fitzpatrick - September 4th, 2007From the Chronicle of Higher Education today comes an announcement of a report conducted by the University of California’s Office of Scholarly Communication that indicates that, generally, scholars accept the notion of innovative modes of electronic publishing in theory, but remain resistant in actual practice. According to the Chron, the report concludes that “the UC faculty largely conform to conventional behavior regarding scholarly communication, such as publishing in traditional venues, but widely express a need for change in the current systems of scholarly communication.” Such resistance seems to stem from fears that new modes of publishing might undermine the quality or value of scholarship.
At the same time, however, the report suggests that the force for innovation is coming from what its authors consider to be some surprising locations: according to the Chron, “identifies ‘more appetite for change among faculty in arts and humanities than within the social sciences, life and medical sciences, or the physical sciences.’ And it concludes that senior professors are often ‘more open to innovation than younger faculty.’”
So, the perennial question: how do we bridge the theory-practice divide? How do we translate the recognition of a need for change into actual change? How do we get those open-minded senior professors to make clear to their departments and their administrations that such changes are positive, that the quality of scholarship can in fact improve if institutions are open to innovation? And, most importantly perhaps, how do we get those institutions to convey to junior faculty — and to stand by those assurances — that new modes of publishing are not just valid, but valued?
“And it concludes that senior professors are often ‘more open to innovation than younger faculty.’”
I wonder about how to read this (and since I don’t have a paid subscription to the Chronicle, I can’t read the rest). More open for themselves or for evaluating others, is my question. In other words, I’m not at all surprised that those with tenure who have a CV listing a bunch of top journal publications would now embrace other modes of and venues for publishing as a site for their own scholarship … but put the same people in a three year review or search committee meeting, for instance, where they’re evaluating a scholar with extensive blogging experience, online publications, and nothing in the big print journals, and I’d expect their “openness” to be challenged. And so, on the flip side, many young scholars just can’t afford to support “innovative” publishing, since that’s not what will get them the kick-ass job or confidence in their dept’s approval, and thus often, within the context of their given dept, young scholars are wise to be suspicious of how online publishing will affect their career chances.
As such, I worry that the shift in valuation won’t and can’t happen properly until review committees get filled with bloggers, etc.
Jonathan - about the shift - reviewers will need to know what blogging does to the author and reader in a disciplinary context as well - they should understand the criteria for evaluating a blog within a disciplinary context.
I am not sure that even the many who study blogs have the experience of blogging - not to mention those that dont even know what a blog is:)
How do we set up criteria for review under conditions of multiple layers of experiences of doing and reading?
I think it’s that transition that I’m after in my questions in the last paragraph. Clearly there’s some disconnect — to be charitable — that exists either between how those senior scholars feel about their own publishing opportunities and how they evaluate the publications of others, or between how those senior scholars feel about publishing opportunities in general and what they’re conveying to junior faculty. That is to say, either there is a real discrepancy between such innovations and the ways junior faculty are really evaluated, or there is a perceived discrepancy.
These are two different problems, which require two different solutions. The first is a problem, to be much less charitable, of hypocrisy; we need to set standards in the academy that apply to all, that aren’t just about a glorified form of hazing. The second is one of communication; senior scholars who are genuinely committed to innovation in publishing, and who are willing to back those commitments up with support for such experiments on the part of junior faculty, need to convey such support loudly and publicly to their colleagues, their administrations, and — most importantly — the junior faculty themselves, who need to know that, in fact, somebody’s got their back.
I wonder how much this differs by discipline too. Media studies, for instance, is cursed in many universities with being looked at with such deep and pervasive institutional distrust at higher levels. Thus, while, for instance, I’d trust that, since my dept chair and assoc. chair both have blogs, they would be impressed by and value blogging or contribution to MediaCommons, Flow, etc., one level up, I worry that they’d look at the guy who wrote a book on The Simpsons and essays on Lost, Lord of the Rings, or South Park as already someone they need to keep an eye on; add a blog, or moreso, *replace* any of those essays or the book with online publishing on the same, and I’m not so confident after all.
I know what you mean about glorified hazing, Kathleen:) - that I am afraid is the kind of power-play that finds a way in whatever criteria we set…. at least, based on how I’ve seen it play out in various contexts that’s what I come to believe…
As for the support and loud claimly - some of us are doing it and I agree that we too need to be cautious in HOW we do it. We need to be realistic in mentoring up and coming faculty to understand that blogging and so-called non-traditional publishing is one of several ways of putting our scholarship out their for evaluation by our peers. It cannot be the only way.
This is where the educating of ALL layers of faculty and administration on what is quality and how it is achieved is important (just as it is in the case of Media studies scholars).