Category: exam readings

Categories
exam readings rhetoric science communication

Exam readings: how scientists see reporters, online persuasion

No extra commentary today: I’m powering through a bunch of papers.

First paper: Peters, Brossard, de Cheveigné, Dunwoody, Kallfass, Miller and Tsuchida. “Science-Media Interface: It’s Time to Reconsider.” 2008.

Summary: This paper is a further analysis of the authors’ recent survey on attitude of scientists to reporters, in response to criticism; the major finding that was controversial was that most scientists’ recent experience with journalists were positive. Scientists’ assessments of media coverage of science overall were neutral and there were concerns with the process of science journalism, but they rated their personal experiences positively. While past scientist-journalist studies had reported greater problems, the sci-media relationship has been addressed (e.g., workshops) for several years, but there is still the primary issue that meanings of messages change when they go from the scientific to journalistic spheres. Another source of tension might not be recognizing changing sci-media relationships (e.g., professionalization of sci journalism, media strategies of scientists have changed.) They point out that scientists might be more willing to discuss research with journalists (and more trained to communicate with media), but that there is a need for journalists not to be led astray my media-savvy scientists (ecpecting them to be non-savvy.)

Comments: The authors address some of the negatives in the increasing media orientation (medialization) of science research. This includes the possibility that funding/research decisions will be made with publicity in mind, or that PR-related goals are becoming more emphasized than accuracy when scientists talk to reporters (or press releases are created.) Both issues tie into the politics of scientific institutions, and are areas for concern.

Links to: Bucchi (bypassing levels of communication)

__

Second article: Minol, Spelsberg, Schulte, and Morris. “Portals, Blogs and Co.: the Role of the Internet as a Medium of Science Communication.” 2007.

Summary: The authors describe an effort to disseminate research about GM crops widely to the public, and influence public attitudes, via the Internet. They point out that it is difficult to evaluate the credibility of online content (anonymity removes consequences.) While Web 2.0 tools have changed the Internet from an info storage medium to a communication medium, even crowdsourced sites (like Wikipedia) can be disproportionately influenced by a small group with inaccurate views. They suggest creating portal sites to provide accurate scientific info. They report about their portal, which is designed to influence public attitudes toward biotechnology in Germany. Their goals are to provide access to info, contextualize risk in scientific terms, promote transparency, and build trust. Their approach has four parts: provide accurate info on testing procedures for GM crops, online “marketing” of the site (search engine optimization), satisfying first time users (usability, aesthetics), and creating user affinity (creating a discussion community.) The portal is accompanied by a mass-media campaign to make scientific viewpoints more well-represented in public discussions of GM crops.

Comments: It sounds like the described portal is a good example of an approach to communication that includes some aspects of dialogue, but is primarily designed for one-way persuasion (even though persuasion is to take into account social valies & not just factual information.)

Links to: Einseidel (forms of public dialogue); Irwin (risk & broader societal impacts of science)

Categories
exam readings research methods/philosophy science studies

Exam reading: “Science and anti-science”

In contrast to yesterday’s reading, Gerald Holton’s “Science and Anti-Science” falls on the opposite side of the empiricist-subjectivist spectrum. It’s a collection of essays written during different periods, and a fair amount of knowledge of the philosophy of science is assumed (particularly in the first two essays.)

Summary: A collection of essays on philosophy of science, beginning with the rise of positivism in the early 20th cen. and the work of Ernst Mach and the Vienna Circle. Positivism is based on rejecting metaphysics and hierarchy, in favor of relying on empirically-derived data; explanations should be purely descriptive (not religious, metaphysical, mechanistic.) Three main concepts: no supernatural protectors, so need to help ourselves; we have the capability to improve life for individuals and society; and in order we act we need knowledge- the sci. method is the best way to get knowledge, so science is one of the most valuable tools to improve life. While positivism was the basis of modernism, the increasing importance of relativity and probability theory introduced some philosophical elements to science; these were resisted by some researchers. Holton discusses rhetoric of scientific papers: reliance on demonstration; dual rhetorics of assertion (of one’s own ideas) and appropriation or rejection (of others’ ideas) in communication; describes sci. papers as a dialogue between multiple actors (e.g., author & previous researchers). He defines three types of scientific praxis: Newtonian (“basic”/seeking omniscience), Baconian (“applied”/seeking omnipotence), and Jeffersonian (combined mode of basic research addressing a specific social problem/seeking to improve human life through understanding). Discusses differences between cyclical and linear models of human progress and how these apply to science (e.g., “science carries seeds of own destruction” vs. asymptotically approaching ultimate knowledge.) Final essay discusses “anti-science”: scientism (e.g., Social Darwinism), pseudoscience, superstition (New Age), misguided science (Lysenkoism). Anti-science is a complete worldview, not just an incomplete understanding of scientific worldview. Reasons for acceptance include sci. illiteracy, concerns with technology and global stewardship, and skepticism of authority. Advocates “new humanism” of rationality, acceptance of uncertainty & pluralism, Jeffersonian model of science; discusses ways to counter “traditionalists” and “postmodernists.”

Comments: Holton’s “postmodernism” involves extreme social constructionism; many postmodernist scholars would be moderately happy with his Jeffersonian model of science (though the insistence on science as the best way of knowing about the world would not be popular.) Illustrates use of rhetoric both within science and as a means to foster a scientific worldview and counter “anti-science” in the public sphere.

Categories
exam readings research methods/philosophy science communication science studies

Exam reading: “Crafting science”

Here’s the thing. In philosophy, there is a spectrum of belief about the “reality” of the observable world. This ranges from extreme empiricism (we can only know that which we can measure with our senses, therefore science is the only way to know the world) to extreme postmodern relativism (all perception is subjective, therefore scientific observations are only as accurate as religious or philosophical notions about the world).

Debate among adherents of both philosophies (as well as those who fall somewhere in between) has occasionally been bitter (and has crept into the political realm.) I fall closer to the empirical end of the scale, though I do believe that there is room for discussion of social construction around scientific models and science as an institution.

Joan Fujimura’s “Crafting Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and ‘Translation'” comes from a decided social constructionist perspective (for example, a footnote at the beginning assures the reader that she does not consider “facts” to “represent reality.”) That said, she does present an interesting way of looking at they ways in which scientific concepts are transferred among different fields (though I suspect my watered down view of the role of social negotiation in science would seem inadequate to her.) Here is my summary:

Summary: From a social constructionist perspective, scientific knowledge is produced not by consensus or by referring to objective nature, but by negotiation and argument. Fujimura combines Latour’s “boundary objects” with Star & Griesner’s focus on collective negotiation in constructing scientific “facts.” Fujimura suggests that “standardized packages” of both technologies and a theory (i.e., several related boundary objects) facilitate cooperative work by acting as interfaces between different social worlds. The packages allow cross-communication (via “translation”) and cooperation between disciplines, while still letting disciplines maintain the integrity of their viewpoints. Such packages are more rigid than just single boundary objects, because the different parts co-define one another. She uses the example of oncogenes as a recent conceptual framework for cancer research to illustrate how this process works. In this case, boundary objects include concepts (e.g., gene, cancer), databases (which create a standard language), and sequences (DNA & protein). The primary theory is “translated”/mapped onto existing problems in different fields, e.g., links retroviruses (virology) to oncogenes (genetics), then oncogene proteins to proto-oncogenes (developmental & evolutionary biology.) When used together, shared theories and standard tools can ensure “fact stabilization.”

Comments: Provides a framework for how ideas are communicated across disciplines or among interest groups. Can this be used in a less-extreme constructionist setting? If people can argue about multiple perceptions of a thing, then that suggests that there really is a “thing” out there to argue about (in other words, I believe in reality.)

Links to: Hellsten & Nehrlich (metaphors in sci. comm); Bucchi (metaphors for communication between disciplines)

Categories
exam readings research methods/philosophy science communication

Exam readings: Research into public understanding of science

In my final post of material from the Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, I’ll include info from two chapters on research on public understanding of science. First, Martin Bauer on public survey research:

Summary: Bauer discusses the history of research into PUoS, and outlines three eras of research paradigms. From the 1960s-80s, focus was on “science literacy:” basic literacy and civic competence (facts & methods, appreciation, rejecting superstition). Research assumed a public deficit & measured knowledge and attitudes. Critiques centered around lack of emphasis on trust issues; definition of “superstition;” is literacy a continuum or threshold level; and focus on facts/process rather than knowledge in context. During the mid-80s-mid 90s, “PUoS:” foregrounded public attitude deficit and assumed more knowledge would lead to more positive attitudes toward science. Research was based on one of two assumptions: “rationalist” (people need knowledge and training & will evaluate sci. issues rationally) or “realist” (people decide emotionally, so market-based research.) Critiques: relationships among interest, attitude, and knowledge not clear; and positive attitudes are not correlated with knowledge. From the mid-90s to the present, focus has been on “science in society:” the public’s lack of trust in scientific experts. This research focuses on science as a single sector of society, assumed that decline in public trust leads to a skeptical but informed public, urges more public policy involvement, and generally takes an interventionist stance. Critique of this research paradigm centers on time-consuming nature of focus groups and ethnographies; the creation of a new professional class of evaluators; and suggests a need to return to PUoS measures anyway to see if focus groups actually have any effect on participants.

Comments: Bauer frames these three research paradigms as discourses surrounding research, not as complete shifts in research methods (e.g., old methods still have relevance.) Though field as a whole has shifted, different methods are probably still useful in certain circumstances. An alternative PUoS “successor” is “public participation in science,” which aims to include people directly in research, rather than focus on P.R./trust issues.

Links to: Cornell Lab papers (public participation, as alternative to trust-focused research)

And last,  Federico Neresini and Giuseppe Pellegrini on evaluating communication efforts:

Summary: The authors lay out what seems to be a common-sense approach to evaluating results of research efforts, including the need to clearly state objectives at the outset and evaluate on that basis, usefulness of both quantitative and qualitative methods, and the need to plan for evaluation. They acknowledge that when evaluation becomes structured and formal, there is a political aspect to it. Another thing to do is match methods to the communication model you’re operating under (e.g., deficit model-evaluate public; dialogue model-evaluate all actors in dialogue.) They cover different types of evaluation during project phases (assessing ability to complete objectives, formative eval., summative eval.) For communication, the idea is to establish the extent and nature of change in the audience (or audience + communicators + other actors in discussion.) Changes can occur in knowledge, attitude, mental models, and behavior; different methods are appropriate to measure different types of change. They discuss experimental design issues: problems of correlation vs. cause/effect relationships, pre/post survey biasing of participants, deference to interviewers, and short-term vs. long-term effects.

Comments: Evaluation of communication results is apparently a controversial subject in this field (according to the authors), but their discussion of methods and things to be aware of seems reasonable to me. Fair review of this type of material.

Categories
exam readings museums science communication science studies

Exam reading: Science museums, the Internet, and uncertainty

More from the Handbook of Public Communication of Science & Technology. First, a look at science museums by Bernard Schiele:

Summary: Discusses the historical development of rationales and forms of science museums, as well as consistent purpose (preservation & education) and philosophy (reality is independent of our representations, reality is independent of language, truth is the precise representation of reality, and knowledge is objective.) 16th cen.: beginnings of collections; focus on the correspondence between man and nature; “cabinets of curiosity” & geographic collections. 18th–19th cen.: natural sci. museums with focus on classification (began to organize by non-geographic themes); museums as research centers (tied to growth in collections & development of sciences in 19th cen.); dioramas as spectacle. 19th-20th cen.: science & technology museums; experiment displays (physics & chemistry); achievements of industrial revolution, educational/democratic spirit; showcase “pure” science (sci. thinking & discovery.) 20th cen.: science centers; shift in focus to community (raise interest in sci. literacy & mediate between sci. institutions and the public), interactivity (active learning), and evaluation (of exhibits by pedagogic models); visitor at center of design (use all possible media); new emphasis on risk & uncertainty with progress; focus on science spinoffs, not “pure” science. Ends by discussing the emphasis of the public as museum actors, rather than the museum as a science showcase: broad changes in participation (talks, exhibits, animation) and community relationships (public questions decisions (Enola Gay), reflects broader social questioning of institutions).

Comments: Though Schiele emphasizes continued focus on modernist standards for interpretation & objective knowledge, I have heard of cases where museums offer a more social constructionist/all interpretations are subjective slant to exhibits. Also, recent cases where political/funding decisions may have (at least in the eyes of the public) influenced interpretive materials (Smithsonian (?) Arctic exhibit; Koch-funded Hall of Human Origins).

Links to: Holton (science/anti-science)

Next, how the Internet is changing science communication, by Brian Trench:

Summary: The Internet makes professional and public communication more “porous” and facilitates public access to scientific information; many professional activities are also mediated by the Internet, which facilitates both cooperation and fragmentation/specialization. Public impacts include diffusion of information beyond scientific communities (via news, PR, discussion groups) and new access to previously “hidden” professional processes (professional organization communications, pre-publications, professionals’ discussions, etc.) One major development is the journal open access movement (“revolt” against journal costs, desire to have publicly-funded research results freely available); there are questions about maintaining peer review quality and possible public misinterpretation of non-vetted results. Another development is research institutions hiring science writers, which can lead to journalists being left out of sci. comm. efforts. A third development is communications by individual scientists: blogs, podcasts, etc.- there are various motivations for these efforts, including social commentary, “coffee room chatter.” A primary problem for the public is differentiating between sources of information. For professionals, the questions are how much public scrutiny to invite and how much vetting of new information to do (e.g., developing standards that help people make decisions about source credibility.) Finally, the public is interested in areas of high uncertainty, and explaining that this is a normal part of science is a challenge.

Comments: Trench writes that few institutions with an online presence take advantage of the interactive possibilities of the Internet; this situation seems to be changing to some extent (though numbers are still probably small.)

And last, Alan Irwin tackles the problem of communicating about risk and uncertainty:

Summary: Begins by discussing three (coexisting, not stepped) models of thinking about science: “1st-order” (deficit model), “2nd-order” (engagement/dialogue), and “3rd-order” (the relationship between the first two.) With respect to risk communication, the current trend from deficit communications to dialogue represents a critique of past practices (e.g., the BSE/mad cow example in Great Britain.) The BSE example points to a need for openness to foster trust, recognition of uncertainty, and trust in the public’s ability to respond rationally to scientific problems. The three orders are related to general cultural philosophies. 1st-order focus is on the government’s role in minimizing uncertainty and bringing rationality to society (culture of modernity). 2nd-order thinking involves the need to revitalize institutions in light of risk-related challenges, the need for transparency and mutual trust, and the idea that some interest groups have valuable things to add to discussion. 3rd-order thinking is about considering effects of societal science and technology-related decisions; basically, putting issues into a wider social context and critically evaluating current approaches to communication.

Comments: Irwin points out that scientific progress and transparency aren’t mutually exclusive; this relationship is one of the things that 3rd-order thinking should address. Public engagement shouldn’t be an end unto itself, but should be part of that broader discussion of social implications.

Categories
environment exam readings rhetoric science communication

Exam readings: metaphors and NGOs in science communication

More chapters from the Handbook of Public Communication of Science & Technology. First, Iina Hellsten and Brigitte Nehrlich discuss how metaphors are used to frame new or changing ideas in science:

Summary: Discussion of metaphors as framing devices. In life/medical science, they identify 2 important frames: “breakthrough/key to cure disease” and “playing god/Pandora’s box;” both grounded in a narrative of linear progress (journey or creating a map.) Function of metaphors is to create boundary objects between two or more domains either within science (between disciplines, novel models) or in popularization (help understand complexities, evoke emotion, concretize concepts.) Metaphors are both flexible enough and robust enough to remain identifiable across domains. They approach metaphors as “discourse metaphors:” they evolve within disciplines, but can become fixed and create stable (sometimes limiting) structures. They end with an analysis of the metaphors used in the Human Genome Project: metaphors changed as goals changed (e.g., “language of life” and “mapping” to “blueprint” as unexpectedly few genes discovered), and outdated metaphors are still in use (“book of life” predates idea that genetic info has multiple layers, but attempts to include complexity haven’t caught on, e.g., “orchestra,” “ecology”.) Metaphors also have ethical implications: e.g., journey/race metaphors might possibly exacerbate competition & lead to breaches in research ethics.

Comments: Key concepts: metaphors as boundary objects, metaphors providing internal structure within disciplines, metaphors competing for insight in different contexts. Selection of metaphors is a key popularization issue, esp. in areas of science with large social/political implications.

Next, Steven Yearley discusses a related topic with his chapter on the role of NGOs (specifically environmental NGOs) in science communication:

Summary: Environmental groups and other NGOs rely to a large extent on empirical data to back up their claims, so have a unique need to balance powerful imagery with accuracy. First case study on climate change, in which the primary skeptical position is to cast doubt on research; NGOs find themselves in the (unusual) position of urging the public to accept government/institutional claims, as well as point out the vested interests of denialist groups. This position makes it harder for NGOs to counter “official” views in other situations (a key reason being that, given the wide scope of the IPCC, it’s hard to find peer reviewers that are both informed and disinterested). Second case study on GMOs, in which NGOs have argued that regulation is insufficient compared to the possible magnitude of adverse impacts. The strategy here has been to align with other pressure groups, and basically throw every objection possible at the issue; the more professional NGOs have tried to mobilize public engagement with the issue and have been less successful at drawing public into dialogue than generally riling them up. NGOs are generally wary of stepping out of their role as mediators of public action/lobbying for policy decisions, because they fear govt./business manipulation of public and the unpopularity of the best environmental choices (becomes a case of touting public wisdom when it aligns with their goals).

Comments: Some groups generate their own data; these tend to have a more data- than emotion-based persuasive strategy. This chapter is more useful in an applied context, and not central to the direction my research has been going recently…

Categories
exam readings science communication science studies

Exam readings: Public communication of science & dialogue

Here are summaries for two more chapters from the Handbook of Public Communication of Science & Technology. First, Massimiano Bucchi’s overview of science communication theory provides a good framework for this book, and is something I’ll definitely revisit for my exam:

Summary: Discusses several models of sci. comm., which has arisen as a specialist field as science has become institutionalized and specialized. Bucchi presents a 4-level model for diffusion of ideas (continuity model), and then discusses three models for communication. In his continuity model, texts or ideas go through 4 levels (within a discipline, between disciplines, pedagogic, then popular), though they can jump levels (sometimes deliberately, to “shortcut” the usual process as new metaphors at the popular level are introduced to influence other scientists) or move in the opposite direction (again, metaphors @ popular level). At each step, uncertainty is removed & ideas become facts.

From http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v8n3/hessenbruch.html

Bucchi dislikes idea of comm. as transfer between contexts (b/c of selective perception, non-linearity of comm., active transformation of ideas affecting sci. process); prefers idea of comm. as dialogue between specialist & popular discourses (with models & metaphors as “boundary objects”). (1) The traditional “deficit” model is 1-way and views media as an imperfect channel and public as passive (but able to understand once ideas are “translated”). The role of the scientist is to channel info to media (through press releases, celebrity scientists, prestigious journals). Public has an assumed deficit of knowledge b/c of scientific illiteracy (ability to reason scientifically; concept is countered by “different ways of knowing” idea (science=facts; lay=facts + values, trust, practical applications)). (2) “Dialogue” model includes citizen involvement as a way to enrich discussion (e.g., medicine.) (3) “Participation/co-production” model involves fora to set policy (involve multiple constituencies); this model links to broader discussion of science in society, e.g., non-academic institutions (NGOs, corporations) generating knowledge, open access vs. owned knowledge.

Comments: Continuity model will probably be useful. Another key concept is that different models could be applicable in different situations (deficit model the default in areas of low public interest); depends on level of public salience & mobilization, institutional/expert credibility, and the perceived level of controversy among scientists. Opening “black box” for public discussion leads to conflict and doesn’t fit into rhetoric of knowledge economy, so may be resisted by govt.; but public is not going to want to participate in drawn-out process in many cases. Modeling is fluid (e.g., public needs may change with new info or connection to new controversy) not static.

Connected to this is Edna Einsiedel’s chapter on public participation and dialogue:

Summary: Einsiedel focuses on the recent “participation explosion” in policy decision-making (esp. environment & health stakeholder participation). Public engagement can serve as quality control and create greater/more authentic democracy, but requires access to information, meaningful participation in decision-making, and access to judicial redress in case of problems. For her, a “deficit vs. dialogue” model is too simple- it’s a continuum including public feedback, participation, determining solutions, etc. Historical motivations include limits to expertise, controversies, social movements, and greater recognition of uncertainty. She identifies 4 trends: formalized forms of engagement (e.g., expert panels), increasing frequency of dialogue/participation planning, timing occurring throughout process (not just at end), and content of discussions expanding to include a broad range of values. There are a few main theoretical/normative frameworks for participation: deliberative democracy, technology assessment, deconstruction of “expertise,” and institutional contexts. One key problem is evaluating the process (what type of assessments to use); Einsiedel suggests including both “interested” (e.g., envtl. groups) and “disinterested” (e.g., unaffiliated citizens) parties in order to make sure that a range of views is expressed.

Comments: It seems that dialogue models are highly touted, but Einsiedel suggests that (like usability testing in tech design) organization of these fora can be driven by the need to legitimate decisions that have already been made or pay lip service to public airing of views. This is probably another reason to include organized pressure groups.

Categories
exam readings genres science studies

Exam readings: Popular science books and journalism

I’m starting in on my next list of readings, on science communication (for exam 2). Yes, I’m still prepping for exam 1. So yep, I’m busy…

The next few summaries will all be chapters from Handbook of Public Communication of Science & Technology, which is overall a fairly thorough overview of the field. I’ll be posting them a few at a time, starting with some material on genres of science communication.

First, “Popular Science Books” by Jon Turney:

Summary: Turney describes the historical development of the genre of popular science books, which he defines as books “intended to convey non-fiction truths” to non-specialists; the level of technicality can vary widely in this genre. According to Turney, books are versatile, cheap, allow extended exposition, and have cultural cachet. The book form is a cultural constant, and has developed over time, having evolved from specialist journals within scientific disciplines. Early attempts at popularization were highly technical (e.g., Newton’s Principia). A few books have been both technically important and popular (Origin of Species), but there has been a divergence between straightforward science and exposition in the genre. Widespread higher education starting in the 1970s has led to a boom in the field. Both scientists and non-scientists are popularizers. The study of popularization has several foci: political impacts of pop sci books, how they depict science, and the rhetoric/explanation of complex concepts. Recently, there has been more consciousness within the scientific community of how popularizations are received; this has led to both increased critique of these books and more scientists writing their own books.

Comments: While Turney is (over?) optimistic about the future of the book (from the perspective of a humanities program), it seems to be the case that there’s a renaissance in pop sci publishing right now. The book format lends itself to narrative development, suggesting that it’s good for storytelling about discoveries and people.

Next, “Science Journalism” by Sharon Dunwoody:

Summary: Dunwoody focuses on mass media, as the main post-formal education sources of science information (especially the Internet.) She outlines the history of science journalism: in the late 19th century, magazines, when popularization was part of the job of scientist; in the 20th century specialization and professionalization led to negative opinions of popularizers form professional societies; by the 1980s, began to see specialized science writers/journalists, esp. in space race and environment (though only ~2% of stories about science issues.) Today, the science writing field is print-oriented (including online media), with the majority of stories about biomedical issues (“news you can use”). Coverage on TV reinforces themes of certainty and “sacredness” of science. Journalistic norms: episodic (hard to discuss process), news pegs, mainstream ideas presented (either scientific or editorial establishment), and scientists as “white knights”/problem-solvers. She also identifies several trends in the field: the shift to the Internet requires new skills (timeliness, multimedia, competing narratives), scientists with media training can influence journalists, and need to be responsive to audience desires in face of declining readership and shifting media use. Another issue is appropriate training: both formal sci. journalism training and years on the job make journalists effective.

Comments: Identifies key problem areas from science perspective; these are areas of discussion among scientist media commentators. First, objectivity and balance: when reporters can’t judge competing science claims, the default is to offer more than one viewpoint (thus giving both viewpoints validity- e.g., global warming). Second, accuracy, which is typically related to level of detail and omission of detail: while scientists read articles as scientists & focus on what’s missing, the public actually does tend to pick up on the main messages.

Categories
exam readings information representation politics research methods/philosophy

Exam reading: “Intermediation and its malcontents”

My last core reading- and an appropriate one to end on. Robert Jensen’s “Intermediation and its Malcontents” is about the importance of (not-for-profit) publishers in the academic publication ecosystem. It’s appropriate because it provides me a segue into the material on my next reading list, which is about the public communication of science. One of the big PUoS issues is: how much intermediation should there be between scientists and the public about scientific issues? And one of the key services that Jensen claims that publishers provide is intermediation.

Now, Jensen’s paper is about humanities publishing, but some of the ideas are the same in scientific fields. And while he’s obviously trying to argue the case that publishing houses (like his) provide essential services as intermediaries, there’s a wide range of opinion on the proper place of intermediation in science communication. But more on that later…

Summary: Jensen focuses on the value that’s added to academic publishing by publishers (small-run non-profit presses), mainly: validation, coordination, authority, and promotion. When adding e-publishing to a press, things to consider are cost-sharing (for editing & staff to be cost-effective, he claims you need to be running at least 6-8 journals), the need to choose an appropriate platform, and planning to track electronic copies and paper inventories. Jensen feels that traditional print-based models of writing are best for many scholarly works, and this is unlikely to change. He discusses several cost-recovery models: subscription, print on demand, timed access, free archives/pay for new issues, and free new issues/pay for archive access. He advocates a “sustainable” scholarly publication infrastructure it intermediate between scholars and the public. As support, he outlines several ways in which publishers add value in a less-intermediated world: specialists are efficient, they can tailor works for specific audiences, and vetted material is better than non-vetted. He suggests that close interaction between academic groups interested in e-publishing is vital. These include librarians, techies, publishers, departments, and individual scholars.

Comments: Claims that volunteerism for e-journals is reaching its limit- not sure how this claim has held up. Gives long anecdote about the effects of the fall of Communism on Czech presses as a cautionary tale to compare to the e-publishing “revolution”- this is more of a metaphor than a direct parallel, but many of his concerns are probably justified re: radical changes without a plan. Almost as an aside, he ends with a discussion of the stifling nature of current copyright law, and urges non-profit publishers to stop siding with for-profits in lobbying efforts.

Links to: Bolter (decline of authority in online publishing); Liu (similar tone of justification for humanities disciplines in a digital world); Lessig (copyright wars)

Categories
exam readings information representation research methods/philosophy

Exam reading: “Digital History”

Only two more readings to go on my core list! I suspect I’m not going to be as long-winded in my summaries when I move on to the next two lists, but we’ll see… These last few readings are all online texts. I will confess- I really dislike reading long works online. I don’t really have time to cite and elucidate why, but I don’t like doing it. Maybe that’s a topic for an actual post, when I have time.

Ever wanted to start your own amateur history website? (Memories of the Cape Coral Burrowing Owls? People who went to that one Phish concert that changed their lives? Those who mourn Geocities?) In “Digital History,” Cohen and Rosenzweig tell you how. I can see how this would be a very good resource for those wanting to start research or archival websites, and certainly not just for history:

Summary: The authors believe that electronic technologies can enhance historical work in several ways; this book is essentially a how-to manual for those wanting to start an online project. For example, large storage capacity allows us to expand the criteria for preservation of works (though extreme ephemerality of storage media & systems may mean that the possibility of preserving everything won’t be practical.) Online archives and sites expand access both to researchers and the public, sites can facilitate community participation (e.g., a community archive of the history of Town X), and database structures allow many different types of information to be linked & presented simultaneously. Some of the problems with online works include issues of quality and authenticity, durability, readability, corporate control of the medium, and the possibility that websites foster passivity in users (“interactivity” often boils down to “click through out TV-show tie-in site and then click here to buy”.) They offer suggestions for dealing with most of these issues. One of the main things they address is long-term preservation and archiving, the importance of using at least comment tags and update records, though preferably professional archive standards, and finding a permanent home for the site. They also address the importance of finding a good scope for the project, attracting visitors, and encouraging repeat visits. Another important issue is copyright- they advocate a Creative Commons approach (limited copyright on your work), and documenting attempts to secure rights if you’re not using public domain works.

Comments: A few chapters on technical considerations that I’m eliding, e.g., database vs. XML, digitization & data loss, design for usability by typical (i.e., commercial) WWW standards can oversimplify presentation. Considering archival issues is obviously a crucial issue for not just historians, though obviously they have a strong interest in this.

Links to: Lessig (Byzantine copyright laws); Burnard et al. (XML); McGann (example of online archive)