Web 2.0 and the "academy"
Though this is a bit of a tangent from some other topics here, I am thinking about the issues with working with Web 2.0 and the tenure process. Though I write and publish here, this is not refereed, not peer reviewed, and does not represent the traditional publishing practice. However, Web 2.0 challenges all of those ideas too. How does the new medium shape and drive the scholarship of it?
There seems to be a tension between putting time and effort into developing ideas and work with Web 2.0 in a collaborative, open-source, non-secretive manner and the traditional rules for tenure at many universities. If I am not the first one to work with an idea, if it is published in a blog rather than a journal, if it is created through a wiki, will it be valued as much? Does the value of the work come from the work itself or from who sanctions it and deems it to be important (i.e. an important journal)? Actually, this sounds quite a bit about arguments about what constitutes a work of art.
Comments
With regards to publishing, professors and tenure, etc...
I had a related thought the other night as I was posting on a discussion board for another class. I wondered about the use of a Wiki for truly collaborative work on articles and books. I have heard the stories of some of my professors about the hours spent chatting and emailing about writings. I was thinking that a password protected Wiki would allow much faster and truly collaborative writing. It would eliminate the need to email, open and copy and paste or post. Colleagues could go right to the Wiki and enter their chapter or portion. Links to online citations would provide instant access and review for all involved parties. However, it would probably mean a shift in the way professors think of academic property. Many questions come to mind: How would you be able to claim that an article was exclusively "your" work when you wrote it/edited it with others? Would you trust your co-authors to delete and modify your hypotheses and conclusions? This means your intellectual and artistic property is moldable by others. I would think that would be a pretty big shift to make.
Would this impair or improve your chances for publishing? Is there an electronic forum available for publishing in blog form? Just a couple of cents worth.
Posted by: Jan | September 19, 2007 10:41 PM
It's interesting how the technology seems to be ahead of the tenure process here. I've been asking if this blog can "count" as part of my research work.
I don't know what it would be like to use a wiki as a collaborative writing platform. As you describe, the majority of my co-writing has been in the form of drafts emailed back and forth. that can get very time comsuming and difficult.
Do you see any corollaries to work that happens at the K-12 level? Does it matter in a public school setting if the work is not exclusively from one student? How could this challenge our existing ideas about grading and assessment? Would this be good for our field or just send us off on a tangent?
Posted by: Melanie | September 23, 2007 9:16 PM
i could certainly see this blog as publishable content...why not have a peer review or edit work for an upcoming print journal...right here...or on a wiki attached to this blog?
I would think the mail back and forth would get old after a while.
I think there are actually more possibilities in the K-12 realm right now, because of the mind set. This level of collaboration will mean a serious shift in ways of learning and assessing. Not sure it is THE best manner right now with all the value placed on SOL's right now, but it does have possibilities. Assessment does pose some issues, but I think there are ways to set up a wiki to see who contributes and when. That would at least somewhat allow a teacher to track individual work.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 5:14 PM
Blogging is like having a very one-sided conversation in a way. And we don't get "credit" in academia just for talking to each other...too bad really! I think that this is a new dilemma in some ways because before the only way to get your work out there and get professional "credit" was to submit to peer reviewed journals. Now that blogging is an important part of scholarly communication and information exchange, perhaps the rules for what does and does not count for tenure should be reconsidered. Is that just a departmental decision? A University decsion? Part of the problem is that while one person might be blogging about research, another might be blogging about their cat so there's no rigor. Maybe the solution is to take from what you're blogging here and use it for articles for journals. Meaning, maybe this is a test spot, a place to flesh out ideas and let them evolve before taking them into another forum. But that doesn't solve the problem of this being hard work that should count for something, I understand.
Posted by: katie | September 26, 2007 4:07 AM
One of the other silly (imho - see i'm learning the text lingo!) things about tenure is the need to count citations. It seems to be premised on the idea that if others use you as a reference than, what you have to say is more worthy. Though I personally have some issues with it, it is a nice way for universities to quantify how important certain research is to a field.
Blogging about a cat may be akin to self-publishing. Though blogging itself is a form of self-publishing. I wonder if analyzing RSS feeds is similar enough to looking at citations to merit that being "counted" in the way that "counts!"
Posted by: Melanie | September 28, 2007 10:51 PM
It's a great suggestion that counting the number of feeds set up for your blog is akin to counting citations. Definitely something to bring up if given the opportunity. You go girl!
Posted by: katie | October 6, 2007 4:59 PM
Web 2.0 is interactie and will change the face of the web
Posted by: sell my house fast | October 22, 2007 6:22 AM
Will change?
Web 2.0 has changed, and is changing the face of the web fast.
Posted by: katie | October 23, 2007 10:41 AM