The Scholarly Pursuit
Sandra created a wonderful summation and reflection of the radio broadcast “From Papyrus to Cyberspace” (1999, Cambridge Forum, Harvard University). In an effort to not repeat her comments or sound redundant, I am going to focus of the conversation between the audience and Professors O’Donnell and Engell.
One comment in particular which was thought provoking was the idea of whether or not technology has changed the nature of the scholarly pursuit? Thinking of this in a 2015 context rather than the 1999 context, I think the majority would quickly respond….absolutely!! The speed in which we can gather information has increased exponentially. How we research potential books or articles has moved from the dewy decimal system (card indexes) to an Internet search within Google or within a library database. If scholarly research is required, we can use tools such as Survey Monkey, or Poll Everywhere to create fast surveys with quick responses. It is also important to note, similar to the professors’ comments in the broadcast, it is easier to self-publish without peer reviews via a blog or website. While these elements have changed the tools of the scholarly pursuit, I’m not sure if it changed the nature of the pursuit. Academics will continue to learn and search for new meanings and rethinking ideas, albeit at a greater rate of speed.
Another comment made in the radio broadcast was the idea of technology helping to re-establish communication or dialogue between people (the broadcast participants felt dialogue was a lost art). Fast forward to 2015 where we are immersed in instant messaging, texting and emails which undoubtably aid our connectivity. But do these communication technologies aid in a creation of dialogue? Is this dialogue rich and reflective in 140 characters or less? Are we seeing a movement away from conversations about “we” to “me?” I guess I’m left with more questions than answers about communication technology aiding in our increased dialogue.
Hi Ronaye!
Thank you for your comments and your focus on the audience. I think you are right, technology is reshaping scholarship, but I wonder how much of that change is form-related, and how much of it is content-related. What do you think?
I find particularly interesting the fact that we are started to stress the need of interdisciplinary scholarship quite recently, there are even commentators that somehow suggest that it is precisely now that the technology is giving us the affordances to engage in interdisciplinary discussions. On the other hand, we have now scholarly projects that seek to make research accessible by adopting genres like the “tweet”. Are these changes in form or content? none? both?
Best,
Hi Ronaya,
That’s an interesting question that was brought up in the discussion.
I agree that research has changed quite a bit. Card catalogs are almost used even if they are updated and almost every library has a database that can searched it seems. Likewise, online sources do seem to be really helpful for reference. How many times have you just went on Wikipedia to look up a term, concept or event.
Although I think we should distinguish between the depth of research being done. The more specific the topic, the fewer sources there are and the more closed off the discussion becomes. As such, academic communities are more useful than traditional research. For example, a friend of mine studies food and drink in Ancient Athens. His group of peers is rather limited and he just keeps up to date with their publications. Sometimes he reads outside of his niche but it usually doesn’t require searching the stacks in the library like most undergrads or graduate students might. How specific his studies are limit the need to do broader research.
In sciences I could see this being different though because there is more focus on interdisciplinary work. It seems, as Ernesto mentioned, that interdisciplinary research is made a lot more efficient through technology because a scholar might not know the other scholars in a field and therefore, without the technology, wouldn’t know where to begin. In some ways its like shopping for articles.
Using social media in academia I’m a little skeptical about. It seems like they provide clues on where to go but rarely provide material I would be inclined to cite. I think Ernesto’s point about form and content makes sense. Depth of discussion and nuance, key ideas of clear thinking, seem to be lost in 140 characters or less. Instead, it seems like a platform for catch-phrases or providing links to deeper content. Blogs seem to be a little bit better, but I often ask what the intention of the writer is. Are blogs forums for deep conversation, self-expression or advertisement. If we treat blogs as being the replacement for the newspaper, I suspect the later to be its goal and, therefore I would tend to doubt how complete the information is. That said, blogs take on many forms, so it doesn’t seem ideal to write them all off as suspect.
So I agree, it leaves us with many questions. Perhaps the best way to leave it is that the form of communication – tweet, blog, IM, webpage, etc – each convey a specific kind of information like newspapers, journals, books, and pamphlets. However, what content is attached to each form is still being worked out.
Fascinating topic,
Bryan
Hi Bryan and Ernesto,
You both raise some interesting points. To be perfectly honest, I’m not sure how much of this change in scholarship is form-related and content-related but my initial reaction is both are changed by technology.
Bryan, I think you make a very valid point that blogs are subject to the intention of the writer, just as newspapers take on the political ideologies of the owners. Everything we read is coloured by interpretation and personal filters.
Thank you for contributing to my thoughts.
-R.
Hi Ronaye et al;
I would say yes, technology has changed the nature of the scholarly pursuit. It has become process driven (form related) and in so doing has shone a brighter light on what information is made available at the same time to more people. Think of it as going into a dark cave with a pen light, each in the group would be in single file behind each other. But if you are using a brilliant flood light the members of the group could walk in two or three abreast and at a quicker pace. Each gets to experience any discovery first hand. The same may be said of interdisciplinary studies whereby the sharing of data multiplies the learned results exponentially.
“stud[ying] food and drink in Ancient Athens” may seem like fine details to concentrate on but there may be similarities to other developments in other locations around the world.
“…because a scholar might not know the other scholars in a field and therefore, without the technology, wouldn’t know where to begin.” or more importantly which new direction to push forward in. The scholar would have choices – repeat what has been started, or branch out in new territory.
I think I see some forms of social media such as tweets as being used as sign posts providing directions to larger resources. Without useful directions we could be going off track and not being efficient users of energy and time.
Terry
Hi Ronaye,
I would say technology is for human assisstance , invented by brilliant minds. It is an added component,that have become essential, to increase productivity and platform to approacch globally. Thanks for sharing thoughts.
Rakhshanda