Online Publishing and the Tenure Question

Jason Mittell's picture
A number of recent blog posts here have been discussing the issue of what blogging and other forms of online publishing "count" for in the academic system of rewards. I'm personally quite invested in these questions, as I am under review for tenure this fall - as an active blogger and member of the MediaCommons community, how will such online work matter in my tenure review?  Of course, such decisions are not easy to parcel out by portion - I've published a book, numerous print essays in journals & anthologies, and have another book under contract, all of which provide evidence of traditional scholarly productivity that (hopefully!) warrants promotion & tenure. But I do want to foreground my digital publication record and make a case for its legitimacy, if not for my own case then to help establish precedents for future candidates. So I've excerpted below the portions from my self-evaluation where I discuss these matters - in the spirit of peer-to-peer review, what do people think about these statements? Any recommendations for revising before submitting my portfolio?
While I am certainly invested in traditional scholarship published as monographs, book chapters, and refereed journal essays, I believe strongly in writing for a variety of audiences using multiple modes of address.... I am invested in publishing online through a range of venues. I have published a refereed article for the online journal Particip@tions, and was a columnist for the influential and widely cited media studies website I believe strongly that scholarship should be made accessible to a wide audience via online dissemination, and that scholarly writing about topics of broad interest like contemporary television should be written to invite readers into sophisticated arguments, not alienate them through overly-obscure language or barriers in accessing hard-to-find scholarly publications. Since November 2006, I have been writing a blog called Just TV , which features commentary about contemporary developments in media, as well as drafts and works-in-progress for my more formal writing. The blog has been a great avenue to network with a broader community of readers, averaging almost 100 pageviews a day and generating links from a number of prominent academic bloggers—this mode of engagement is certainly not meant to replace traditional scholarly publishing, but to supplement it as a way to develop a network of readers and generate feedback and investment in my research and ideas. My scholarly work has led to a number of editorial opportunities... Last year I was invited to be a founding member of the editorial board of MediaCommons, an emerging scholarly network and publishing venue supported by the Institute for the Future of the Book and the MacArthur Foundation—through MediaCommons we are trying to envision how scholars can publish and communicate via “digital native” techniques, taking advantage of online media to rethink the processes of peer review, interactive commentary, alternative forms of rhetoric, and the temporal nature of scholarly publishing. I am also serving as the co-editor of a MediaCommons project developing a series of Casefiles as digitally published “serialized anthologies” focused on single popular culture series, including television series, comic books, genre fiction, and film franchises—in the coming year, I plan on proposing to edit a Casefile focused on an ongoing television series, as well as pursuing pre-publishing my narrative project through MediaCommons. I believe that as scholarship develops to adapt to the practices of online publishing, scholars will find that nontraditional models of academic presentation will become more valued and central to our profession—I am hoping to be an active participant in helping to shape these developments, providing a model of how to engage with a broad range of scholarly practices.


Clancy Ratliff's picture

This: "this mode of


“this mode of engagement is certainly not meant to replace traditional scholarly publishing, but to supplement it”

How about rewording it slightly — unless your institution is especially hostile toward online publication? Right now it sounds like you’re apologizing for your work.