Comments on: scholarly discourse networks http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/cpfinal New (Social) Structures for New (Networked) Texts Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:08:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Terje Hillesund http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/cpfinal/scholarly-discourse-networks/#comment-146 Terje Hillesund Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:42:18 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/commentpress/2007/10/11/scholarly-discourse-networks/#comment-146 Obviously, it is important to analyze the new digital and networked scholarly discourse using various models and concepts, such as “the coffee house model”, the library model” and “the model of a communication circuit”. The classic sender-oriented linear communication model is in many ways outdated and when Darnton bends the line of this model into a circuit (and populates it with authors, publishing firms, printers, booksellers and readers) he turns the attention to (the relation between) all participants in textual communication in different historical periods. It is my impression, however, that the circuit model tends to direct most of the attention to the circulation of the completed books and journals, that is, their distribution and dissemination. The much-used cycle or life cycle models (information cycle, document life cycle etc.) focuses on text forms (books, journals) and examines the different sequences or phases the texts within these forms go through, including their production, distribution and reception. In their model “The life cycle of scientific information” Tenopir and King bring in a dynamic aspect, stating that writing of scholarly papers is not a totally solitary activity, involving both reading and reference to other scholarly text, editing, peer-reviewing and proofreading. An interesting aspect of networked scholarly discourse is that within the text cycle the distinction between the previously rather separated phases of writing, distribution and reading is starting to get blurred, or to put it differently: the phases are about to be mixed or mingled, epitomised in Wiki-environments where the users are also the writers. I guess it is a similar community-based cooperative writing-commenting-rewriting process that is the ultimate goal of CommentPress’ efforts within scholarly publishing, in many way making the process of writing just as important as the final product, I have a strong feeling that the discussion about these new forms of peer-writing or peer-production is in need of a whole range of new models and concept in order for us and others to fully grasp the significance of the changes. I also fear on behalf of CommonPress advocates that the linear and circulation concepts are so deeply embedded in long-lasting institutional practises that any significant change in our understanding and behaviour will take a very long time. (I wonder, by the way, if this comment is too long?) Obviously, it is important to analyze the new digital and networked scholarly discourse using various models and concepts, such as “the coffee house model”, the library model” and “the model of a communication circuit”.
The classic sender-oriented linear communication model is in many ways outdated and when Darnton bends the line of this model into a circuit (and populates it with authors, publishing firms, printers, booksellers and readers) he turns the attention to (the relation between) all participants in textual communication in different historical periods. It is my impression, however, that the circuit model tends to direct most of the attention to the circulation of the completed books and journals, that is, their distribution and dissemination.

The much-used cycle or life cycle models (information cycle, document life cycle etc.) focuses on text forms (books, journals) and examines the different sequences or phases the texts within these forms go through, including their production, distribution and reception. In their model “The life cycle of scientific information” Tenopir and King bring in a dynamic aspect, stating that writing of scholarly papers is not a totally solitary activity, involving both reading and reference to other scholarly text, editing, peer-reviewing and proofreading.

An interesting aspect of networked scholarly discourse is that within the text cycle the distinction between the previously rather separated phases of writing, distribution and reading is starting to get blurred, or to put it differently: the phases are about to be mixed or mingled, epitomised in Wiki-environments where the users are also the writers. I guess it is a similar community-based cooperative writing-commenting-rewriting process that is the ultimate goal of CommentPress’ efforts within scholarly publishing, in many way making the process of writing just as important as the final product,

I have a strong feeling that the discussion about these new forms of peer-writing or peer-production is in need of a whole range of new models and concept in order for us and others to fully grasp the significance of the changes. I also fear on behalf of CommonPress advocates that the linear and circulation concepts are so deeply embedded in long-lasting institutional practises that any significant change in our understanding and behaviour will take a very long time.

(I wonder, by the way, if this comment is too long?)

]]> By: Chuck Tryon http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/cpfinal/scholarly-discourse-networks/#comment-145 Chuck Tryon Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:57:30 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/commentpress/2007/10/11/scholarly-discourse-networks/#comment-145 It might not be necessary to reinforce this argument with additional examples, but I’ve certainly found this to be true in maintaining my blog (on film and media studies) over the last few years. It’s worth adding that this “conference-without-walls” model also invites non-scholars to participate in this textual circulation. My research on internet film cultures has benefited considerably from my interaction with bloggers who are not academics. It might not be necessary to reinforce this argument with additional examples, but I’ve certainly found this to be true in maintaining my blog (on film and media studies) over the last few years.

It’s worth adding that this “conference-without-walls” model also invites non-scholars to participate in this textual circulation. My research on internet film cultures has benefited considerably from my interaction with bloggers who are not academics.

]]>