Alternative Scholarly Recognition

Adapt or perish. 

Here we have a blog posting about The University of Maine's New Media Department actually drawing up a set of standards defining alternative forms of scholarly recognition. It may only be one department of one university, but it seems like a move in the right direction. Why are those at the forefront of intellectual thought in our country (college and university faculty nationwide) so often the slowest to recognize and adapt to a changing world?

Having just finished reading Chris Anderson's Free: The Future of a Radical Price, it occurs to me that in the current tenure and promotion system, faculty are being evaluated almost exclusively for their atomic contributions (books and printed journals) rather than their bit (digital) contributions. And yet there is a dichotomy between this contribution to a scarce resource environment (again, the printed word, in journals and books that may reach a very small audience) and the opportunity to contribute to the abundant marketplace of ideas. Anderson writes about the value of "reputation" in the digital world. Doesn't it make more sense, in terms of academic "reputation," for faculty members and their ideas to be put forth in the larger marketplace and to be truly tested and evaluated not just by a small subset of one's academic peers but by a much larger body? Or, is that the ugly truth of elitism in academia?

I'm reminded of a professor in Japan whose paper I was asked to edit. He was publishing in English and there was a particular short phrase that he was using that was clearly incorrect. When I (and another American colleague) pointed out this error to him, he said that he understood the error but that he couldn't change it. When we pressed him for a reason, he replied that the phrase was coined by a senior colleague in the field at a more prestigious Japanese university. He could not "correct" the phrase without appearing to insult the other professor publicly. 

Most U.S. professors with whom I've shared this story find it hard to believe and are confident that the U.S. system is not that way, and wouldn't tolerate such deference in the face of such a clear error. And yet, when I hear faculty say, "Yes, I know, but I can't change the [tenure and promotion] system. That's the way it always has been," it really is not all that different--a ritualized process is flawed and needs to be re-evaluated and adapted as necessary.

So, kudos to the faculty of the New Media Department at The University of Maine for having the courage to change!

Comments

[Joshua Kim]

Any blog post that can work in a challenge of tenure, a Japanese story, Free, and a real world academic example has my vote!

Wonder what Anderson would have to say about how our current P&T systems facilitate or discourage innovation?

Maybe we should figure out how to bring him to campus and ask him.