Comments on: Thinking Differently, Thinking the Same

By: Three Steps Forward, Two Steps Back?

Three Steps Forward, Two Steps Back? — Mon, 04 May 2009 13:15:45 +0000

[...] Thinking Differently, Thinking the Same [...]

By: Cait C

Cait C — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:33:43 +0000

Taylor’s whole article is pretty bananas. It’s also pretty easy to critique a system that has already rewarded you. (Taylor is a tenured department-chair with some twenty-three books to his name.) Also, if you want to provide a proper manifesto for change, it needs to be something a bit more than an op-ed.

As for traditional pubs, again: you’ve got to play by the rules before you can break them. Not to mention the old standby of, “Not gonna happen unless Harvard does it first.”

My very cynical $0.02.

By: StevenB

StevenB — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:39:35 +0000

There have been a good number of reactions to Taylor’s NYT op-ed on higher education. I think one of the better ones was written by Dean Dad at Inside Higher Ed. He raises some of the same issues that Barbara does. I recommend it to you
http://tinyurl.com/czhkbd

By: Marilyn R. Pukkila

Marilyn R. Pukkila — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:33:49 +0000

In re blogs, I think we need a “big name” blogger with respect across disciplines to demonstrate the usefulness of blogs as one component of a scholarly life. The big-name journals for tenure problem is just that: a problem. I also think that it will be a long time changing, since tenure is so variable even between departments on the same campus (we all have our horror stories on that, I’m sure!).

This may shift as the generational shift occurs. I also think that it varies between the disciplines; my impression is that the sciences are ahead of the social sciences and particularly of the humanities because the sciences are much more comfortable with a collaborative model for work, whereas the humanities in particular emphasizes the “solo scholar” model (or so it was explained recently by humanities faculty at a discussion about college initiatives which were favoring sciences/social sciences and disadvantaging the humanities).

By: Barbara Fister

Barbara Fister — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:21:57 +0000

I’m all for thinking outside the box about tenure and promotion and the future of scholarly discourse – but the idea of abolishing academic departments in favor of constantly changing interest groups seemed bananas to me. That (coupled with abolishing both the responsibilities and the protection of tenure) suggest to me that a new class of administrators would have to be developed to do the work of departments – evaluating junior faculty, creating class schedules, monitoring budgets, overseeing majors, advising students etc. etc. For me the whole package as he presented it was not at all compelling.

By: Monday’s reads at alstevens.org

Monday’s reads at alstevens.org — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:52:18 +0000

[...] Scott Walter amplifies the Tayler article and argues that it’s time to change the current reward system. [...]

By: Maura Smale

Maura Smale — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:50:32 +0000

Like I'm sure many do, I agree with Laurie: participation in newer forms of publication shouldn't replace traditional outlets, but supplement them. It's not an example from a library department, but earlier this month the New Media Department at the University of Maine published a set of tenure and promotion guidelines that includes contributions to blogs, wikis, listservs, etc. Here's hoping that this is the start of a trend.

By: Laurie the Librarian

Laurie the Librarian — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:39:13 +0000

Thank you for commenting on this issue!!

I’ve been rather shocked to discover how many academics in library schools have old-fashioned, limited viewpoints of the publishing industry. What happened to the role that academics were supposed to play in pushing the envelope of what’s possible?

Trying to get into a PhD program has taught me a great deal about what academics think constitutes “valuable” scholarship and it was a great disappointment.

One unnamed professor went so far as to tell me in no uncertain terms that blogging was juvenile and a sign that I was not prepared for advanced scholarship. She said that I had to stop blogging altogether to be taken seriously.

Yes, that’s how traditional the establishment can be!

I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need to change the framework! We need to see the value in open access publishing, different ways to communicate ideas, and alternative forms of publishing.

What ACRL can do to promote these new ways of thinking is publish a position paper on this issue explaining the role these new media play. Re-assure the establishment that the old ways are not being abandoned, it’s that new possibilities are being added.

After all, no one is saying that publishing forums like blogs replace peer-reviewed, print-based publications. But they can be seen as evidence of ongoing reflection, for example, which has just as much value for ‘thinking professionals’ as the traditional publishing forums.

This position paper should 1) outline what these formats look like, 2) discuss what role they play in academic scholarship, and 3) explain how they can be evaluated since older approaches, such as Impact Factor, have no meaning for these new forums.

I think a publication like this would go a long way in guiding people on the way forward.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:25:24 +0000

I remember well the effort it took to get guidelines for tenure and promotion the rewarded not traditional publications through when Scott and I worked at Washington State University. I expect that they are still the exception rather than the rule.

As a profession we should really model the new environment for scholarly communication for the rest of the academy rather than just talking about it.