The Future of Scholarship: A Second Iteration
This is the second entry in a working document that will form my portion of a panel discussion on the future of scholarship. Our division of topics has changed a bit so this version of my portion of the presentation is also a bit different.
Our panel discussion will take place on April 30 as a part of Alfred University’s Bergren Forum series. I will be joined by two of AU’s librarians–Ellen Bahr and Mark Smith. I am open to any comments and suggestions as we prepare our presentation.
How do we know what we know?
This question is a fundamental and complex one. More importantly, any answer correlates with the ways we exchange information and as such must be viewed dynamically since that process will be, at different times and to varying degrees, altered by changes in culture, governance, and technology. To some extent, our discussion will touch on all three of these areas but our primary focus will be on the potential impact of emerging channels of communication (e.g. online journals, scholarly networks, multimedia repositories etc.) and the ways that these channels are being adopted and used by scholars from various disciplines.
The Internet has affected all industries and organizations whose primary product is information. And for most, the impact has been unsettling to say the least. For example, the music industry has been forced to adapt by adopting new business models like iTunes. Traditional print newspapers are failing across the country and these failures threaten the continued existence of the very journalistic practices that found them. There is much that we can learn from the challenges that these popular media have encountered. So far, resistance to technological changes and the ways that these new technologies have been adopted and used seems futile. Instead, embracing and molding these technologies to the purposes that suit the larger enterprise seem like a surer paths to future successes.
Our approach to this discussion is oriented around three primary topic areas presented by three different people: (1) I will talk about the definition of scholarship and its associated practices; (2) Mark will discuss the challenges new scholarly forms present to traditional publishing practices and access; (3) Ellen will close our presentation by discussing the challenges that these new scholarly forms present to both peer review processes and the evaluations performed by promotion and tenure committees. We will conclude by opening the floor for a brief discussion.
In order to engage in a discussion about where we are, or should be, going we must begin by looking backward. I’d like to set the table for this conversation by talking to you about the history and definition of scholarship. The definition we apply to this term affects all who immerse themselves in academic communities.
Richard Kennedy and his colleagues at the University of Arkansas define scholarship as:
“The creation, discovery, advancement, or transformation of knowledge. The fruits of such efforts are evidenced only when that knowledge is assessed for quality by peer review and made public. Thus, the defining elements of scholarship are originality, creativity, peer review and communication.”
At Alfred, our definition of scholarship is not nearly as specific. The Faculty Handbook at AU defines scholarship as “a consistent, sustained, and successful record of peer-reviewed activity, as appropriate to their School, College, or Library.”
One element is common to both definitions and that is the association of scholarship with peer-review, or put differently, scholarship’s governing process. In this light, we must recognize that we cannot separate scholarly oversight from scholarly outcomes. This inability also means that any definition scholarship is confined by the accepted definition of peer review.
Wikipedia (the source of all knowledge) says:
“Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.”
This begs the question of how and when peer review processes actually occur. We usually think about the peer review process as a pre-publication practice even though peer review is really an evolutionary process involving pre-publication and post-publication stages. Historically promotion and tenure committees have focused on the pre-publication stage because capturing the post-publication commentary was highly selective and either impossible or extremely slow. However, today we can actually capture more of the post-publication level of review if we construct the channels in the proper ways (something we can readily accomplish) while maintaining the appropriate controls (a far stickier wicket).
Peer review has always been, and always will be, enveloped in a debate about control. On the one hand, it can be argued that high levels of control are necessary to maintain scholarly integrity. On the other, it can be argued that scholarly practice is, and should be, about spreading information widely and freely in order to provide a more diverse set of ideas for consideration and discussion. In the past, it has been easier to strike a balance between these two positions because the available channels for dissemination were fewer and more limited in terms of accessibility. As a result, these channels could be more easily controlled. But today, as you shall see, this is no longer the case.
A more accessible and open system begs the following question. What is the appropriate response to this degradation of channel control?
Mark recently attended a conference where the acceptability of new channels of scholarly communication was discussed. He recounted a statement made by a director of research at a major campus who said that he refuses to sit on editorial boards of online journals. The director says he fears that he will “lose the confidence and support and credibility of his faculty” if he goes down that road.
I’m not sold on the idea that refusing to acknowledge a channel of communication is the appropriate response. Refusals like this director’s are subversive efforts at maintaining control, but these responses will likely result in less control. As Ellen will mention later, one highly respected journal publisher–Nature–is embracing a tiered system of open access. By embracing some level of open access, Nature is more likely to maintain greater control of its information in the future. And, they will accomplish this by choosing to become part of the burgeoning system rather than lobbing criticisms from the sidelines or simply ignoring the changing technological landscape.
My main point is that all channels of communication possess scholarly potential and embracing these potentials is the surest way to institute the proper controls. Embrace, not disregard, will allow us preserve the most appropriate systemic components and processes that we have developed over time.
Do differences between channels mean that one channel is necessarily superior to another? The answer is simply no. What it does mean though is that every channel is different; therefore, contributors and readers need different skill sets to create and evaluate the messages that are contained within them.
Part of the problem in accepting an expansion of scholarly channels involves a predisposition to the printed and physically published word. Historically speaking, the printed word has a longer history and we tend to compare all new channels to established channels. Of course, books and journals provide some opportunities that audio and video do not, but the reverse is also true.
Steven Johnson explains our cultural bias toward the printed word by flipping the script and hypothetically wondering what we would say about books if videogames had come first. Johnson writes:
“Reading books chronically understimulates the senses. Unlike the longstanding tradition of gameplaying—which engages the child in a vivid, three-dimensional world filled with moving images and soundscapes, navigated and controlled with complex muscular movements—books are simply a barren string of words on the page. Only a small portion of the brain devoted to processing written language is activated during reading, while games engage the full range of the sensory and motor cortices…
Books are tragically isolating…
These new ‘libraries’ that have arisen in recent years to facilitate reading activities are a frightening sight: dozens of young children, normally so vivacious and socially interactive, sitting alone in cubicles, reading silently, oblivious to their peers…
But perhaps the most dangerous property of these books is the fact that they follow a fixed linear path…For those of us raised on interactive narratives, this property may seem astonishing.
This risks instilling a general passivity in our children, making them feel as though they’re powerless to change their circumstances. Reading is not an active, participatory process; it’s a submissive one.” (excerpted from Johnson’s Everything Bad is Good For You p. 19-20)
Please realize that Johnson is not saying that the book is a lesser form than the videogame. In fact, this passage initially was delivered in book form. Instead, Johnson simply says these channels are different and possess different benefits and detriments. “Bad” channels do not exist; only bad messages do.
Transition: With this in mind, lets take a look at Catherine Braun and Kenneth Gilbert’s video entitled “This is Scholarship.” This video illustrates a number of new scholarly activities and should provide a solid foundation for Mark’s discussion.
Tags: Academics, Peer Review, Scholarship, Steven Johnson, Technology, Web 2.0
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.