Comments on: overview

By: Colin Reynolds

Colin Reynolds — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:44:32 +0000

In your line, “We must collectively consider what new technologies have to offer not us, not just in terms of the cost of publishing or access to publications,” the first “not” might be a typo.

By: Steve Brier

Steve Brier — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:01:13 +0000

This is a smart insight on Michael Roy’s part (Hello, Michael!). We fight for tenure and promotion within a single institution, but the ramifications of any change in that process play out much more broadly and systemically. Framing the conclusion more broadly might help put this issue in front of upper level administrators, Dean/Provost level and above, who must be brought into this discussion if the overall framework governing university relations is to change. If we only speak to our fellow departmental faculty and/or our chairs, nothing much will change.

By: Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:30:17 +0000

Dear author,

We operate a Book of the Week program at the P2P Foundation blog, so if you’re interesed, we’d like to feature this book.

This usually involves a general presentation followed by 2 significant experts, for publication every other day during a particular week,

Thanks for letting me know in case of interest via michelsub2004 at gmail,

Michel

By: michaelroy

michaelroy — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:32:05 +0000

Although you may resist this idea, you should consider turning up the volume even further in this section, suggesting that the crisis is not just around scholarly communication, but more generally around higher education in general and liberal arts education in particular. By making this link, you are more apt to capture the attention of presidents and trustees who worry about such things, while not necessarily worrying so much about the details of the tenure system. But the problem is not something that a single college can solve all by itself; there is a way in which you need to differentiate between individual schools that are institutions, and the industry/institution of higher ed. The issues you are grappling with are industry issues that no school all by itself can come to grips with.

By: idealrealist

idealrealist — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:06:57 +0000

This reads like a manifesto for digital scholarship in the humanities-well done!

By: idealrealist

idealrealist — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:03:23 +0000

It is my impression that a great deal of “intellectual discussion in contemporary public life” (outside the academy) does indeed take place online, and it is disappointing that more academics in the humanities do not engage in public discussions online. Scholarly engagement online either through publishing or through lectures open to all, would be valuable in educating the world’s public. If an international group of public health experts can put their lectures online, why is it so difficult for the humanities or social sciences to follow suit?

By: idealrealist

idealrealist — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:44:45 +0000

You perhaps rightly state “what we accomplish, we accomplish alone” as far as most of academia is concerned. However, there are exceptions to the rule, I am pleased to say. During the past 4 years I have observed a group of scholars (primarily from the humanities) working together at a Centre for excellence. The results they’ve achieved thus far, which can only be described as path-breaking in their field, have been in the main a cooperative effort. So yours is not an utopian ideal:-)

By: Julie Levin Russo

Julie Levin Russo — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:36:42 +0000

Bravo!