Sunday, January 15, 2006
Who's afraid of the internet?
As at all ed tech conferences, there was lots of talk about leveraging the internet for education the Mid-Atlantic Regional Educause Conference. My own talk was a discussion of the use by Michelle Francl and others of podcasting and screencasting technology. The conference is made up of people across all sections of a typical IT deparment--educators, technologists, administrators, network engineers and more. Everyone has their own particular concerns. Mine is thinking about the best, easiest and most effective ways to use technology to make learning better. And, for me, the internet is one of the best tools to achieve many learning goals. However, there are others who are clearly concerned, worried, even afraid of the internet.
This fear came across in questions such as
Putting your work online is risky, but as Steve Lawrence thoroughly explains, freely available articles get cited more often. Part of the problem in putting work online lies in copyright law where people aren't always sure how to protect their work and what recourse they might have if they find they've been plagiarized (see Creative Commons for some options). But a bigger part of the problem might be the requirements for promotion and tenure. This year, the MLA made a resolution that English departments should should stop considering the monograph to be the main requirement for tenure. There are good economic reasons for this and it's good to see the organization moving in what I think is the right direction. A scenario that connects their resolution to online publication might go as follows. A young tenure-track faculty member decides to keep a research blog for work on her monograph that will, hopefully, get her tenure. Someone stumbles upon the blog, co-opts her ideas and publishes a book before the young professor gets a chance to. Sure, the professor might have a court case, but she has lost her tenure run.
Then there's the student side of the equation. People are afraid to put them out into the world. Instead, they want to keep them in course management systems or other protected sites where the only people they're interacting with are their classmates and their professor. All this does is replicate the physical classroom. Putting their work online--publicly--takes them beyond that protective environment. And they can learn from that in ways they can't learn from just their classmates. They can see how real people react to their ideas. They can be forced to contend with those reactions. And yes, there are risks in doing that. But there are ways of still protecting the students. You can use pseudonyms. And you, as the professor, should always be there as a guide to help them learn from the experience.
Why put any work out there in the first place, whether yours or your students'? Fundamentally, it's to connect to real human beings. It's not about the technology, though the technology enables the connections to be made. We all want to hear from people, whether it's to argue with us or to agree with us. Part of the academic endeavor is to investigate, question, throw some ideas out there to see what people think. If you're an academic who attends conferences, publishes papers and books, you get that opportunity all the time. The internet enables your students and regular folk, like me, to have that opportunity as well. And it's well worth the risks.
My message to those asking the questions that express a certain fear: what are you really afraid of? An inability to control learning? The unwashed masses who might sneer at your work, or worse, steal it? Instead of blaming the internet for your fear, figure out how to prevent what you fear from happening. The answer isn't to stay away from the internet, but to figure out how to use it to your benefit.
This fear came across in questions such as
- "What if someone steals your materials?" in response to my presentation
- "Why would anyone want to make their work public?" in response to a discussion of eportfolios
- "How do you handle students who may write things they're not proud of?" in a hallway discussion about class blogging
Putting your work online is risky, but as Steve Lawrence thoroughly explains, freely available articles get cited more often. Part of the problem in putting work online lies in copyright law where people aren't always sure how to protect their work and what recourse they might have if they find they've been plagiarized (see Creative Commons for some options). But a bigger part of the problem might be the requirements for promotion and tenure. This year, the MLA made a resolution that English departments should should stop considering the monograph to be the main requirement for tenure. There are good economic reasons for this and it's good to see the organization moving in what I think is the right direction. A scenario that connects their resolution to online publication might go as follows. A young tenure-track faculty member decides to keep a research blog for work on her monograph that will, hopefully, get her tenure. Someone stumbles upon the blog, co-opts her ideas and publishes a book before the young professor gets a chance to. Sure, the professor might have a court case, but she has lost her tenure run.
Then there's the student side of the equation. People are afraid to put them out into the world. Instead, they want to keep them in course management systems or other protected sites where the only people they're interacting with are their classmates and their professor. All this does is replicate the physical classroom. Putting their work online--publicly--takes them beyond that protective environment. And they can learn from that in ways they can't learn from just their classmates. They can see how real people react to their ideas. They can be forced to contend with those reactions. And yes, there are risks in doing that. But there are ways of still protecting the students. You can use pseudonyms. And you, as the professor, should always be there as a guide to help them learn from the experience.
Why put any work out there in the first place, whether yours or your students'? Fundamentally, it's to connect to real human beings. It's not about the technology, though the technology enables the connections to be made. We all want to hear from people, whether it's to argue with us or to agree with us. Part of the academic endeavor is to investigate, question, throw some ideas out there to see what people think. If you're an academic who attends conferences, publishes papers and books, you get that opportunity all the time. The internet enables your students and regular folk, like me, to have that opportunity as well. And it's well worth the risks.
My message to those asking the questions that express a certain fear: what are you really afraid of? An inability to control learning? The unwashed masses who might sneer at your work, or worse, steal it? Instead of blaming the internet for your fear, figure out how to prevent what you fear from happening. The answer isn't to stay away from the internet, but to figure out how to use it to your benefit.
Comments:
<< Home
Hopefully, the internet will break the archaic and restrictive bounds of the academic environment we currently suffer endure, forever.
A good university should employ the best researchers and teachers (who may or may not be the same people) regardless of the publications list on their CV.
My field is primarily bibliography. I switched from English Literature when the bizarre theory and the inane jargon became too much to endure.
And because I had discovered that bibliographical scholarship underpins all textual study.
The academic world doesn't agree, and views bibliography with distate. A bibliography is hard core scholarship, but it isn't quick.
That's why you don't see many Departments of Bibliographical Research.
A happy univ. administrator or funding authority likes to see a lot of regular publications on a CV. They can be inane, superficial, or contribute nothing to the sum total of human knowledge. That doesn't matter. What matters, is that they are there, and (hopefully) have been issued by pukka univ. presses.
This is completely mad.
The academic world is churning out bookshelf-miles of rubbish to sustain this state of affairs.
I quit. I walked away (despite at one point having one book contract and 2 in the offing). I swore I would never publish on paper merely for the sake of it and I haven't. My bibliographies appear as I create them, free to access, online, under copyleft.
You can do this too, dear reader. And if we all refuse to play, the system will have to change. Academics will have to be employed on the basis of ability. This is harder to gauge, but not impossible. We may yet attain a system whereby universities fight for the best researchers and teachers. And if they then produce one published work in 20 years, and its freely available online, and it is a milestone in their field, then it is worth a thousand monographs.
If we cannot employ upon the basis of a meritocracy in the academic world, and we cannot publish upon the basis of quality, rather than quantity, we have truly lost our way.
The internet may well save the academic world from the ugly 'industrialisation' of the academic environment in the twentieth century.
Scholarship may finally triumph.
Post a Comment
A good university should employ the best researchers and teachers (who may or may not be the same people) regardless of the publications list on their CV.
My field is primarily bibliography. I switched from English Literature when the bizarre theory and the inane jargon became too much to endure.
And because I had discovered that bibliographical scholarship underpins all textual study.
The academic world doesn't agree, and views bibliography with distate. A bibliography is hard core scholarship, but it isn't quick.
That's why you don't see many Departments of Bibliographical Research.
A happy univ. administrator or funding authority likes to see a lot of regular publications on a CV. They can be inane, superficial, or contribute nothing to the sum total of human knowledge. That doesn't matter. What matters, is that they are there, and (hopefully) have been issued by pukka univ. presses.
This is completely mad.
The academic world is churning out bookshelf-miles of rubbish to sustain this state of affairs.
I quit. I walked away (despite at one point having one book contract and 2 in the offing). I swore I would never publish on paper merely for the sake of it and I haven't. My bibliographies appear as I create them, free to access, online, under copyleft.
You can do this too, dear reader. And if we all refuse to play, the system will have to change. Academics will have to be employed on the basis of ability. This is harder to gauge, but not impossible. We may yet attain a system whereby universities fight for the best researchers and teachers. And if they then produce one published work in 20 years, and its freely available online, and it is a milestone in their field, then it is worth a thousand monographs.
If we cannot employ upon the basis of a meritocracy in the academic world, and we cannot publish upon the basis of quality, rather than quantity, we have truly lost our way.
The internet may well save the academic world from the ugly 'industrialisation' of the academic environment in the twentieth century.
Scholarship may finally triumph.
<< Home

