Skip to main content

Home/ fanfic forensics/ Group items tagged academia

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Nele Noppe

In Which Rolanni Flails About - 0 views

  • I'm just as firmly in the "oh, youbetcha academia is the enemy" side of the road.
  • What seems not to be understood is that academics don't study and write articles in order to Validate the object of their study. Academics study and write articles in order to Validate themselves. As more and more people become academics, they must look further and further afield for subjects, and lo! suddenly Science Fiction isn't genre trash anymore; it's a way to secure tenure.
  • The message that many take away from their English teachers is that the only Right Way to read is by the Analysis Method, and yanno? after a long day? Much too fatiguing. Wanna watch a Jackie Chan movie?
Nele Noppe

Ian Bogost - Against Aca-Fandom - 1 views

  • But for the academic critic, I think the stakes are higher. One can like or dislike something, but we scholars, particularly of popular media, have a special obligation to explain something new about the works we discuss. There are plenty of fans of The Wire and Mad Men and Halo and World of Warcraft out there. The world doesn't really need any more of them. What it does need is skeptics, and the scholarly role is fundamentally one of skepticism.
  • While media scholars do not solely write about what we like, the prevalence of books focused on "quality television" shows that appeal to academics like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Sopranos, and now Mad Men—especially when compared to the lack of similar volumes or essays about more lowbrow or mainstream programs—suggests that taste is often more of a motivating factor for our scholarship than we admit. We should own up to our own fannish (or anti-fannish) tendencies regarding our objects of study, not regarding fan practices as something wholly separate from our academic endeavors by acknowledging how taste structures what we choose to write about. I'd push it further: the media scholar ought to resist aca-fandom, even as he or she embraces it. The fact that something feels pleasurable or enjoyable or good (or bad) need not be rejected, of course, but it ought to issue an itch, a discomfort. As media scholars, we ought to have self-doubt about the quality and benefit of the work we study. We ought to perform that hesitance often and in public, in order to weave a more complex web around media—not just to praise or blame particular works.
  • In this regard, I disagree with Jason when he says that "humanities scholars don't typically brand ourselves as fans of our objects of research." I think this is just plain wrong, and not just for pop-culture scholars. More often than not, humanists in general get into what they do precisely because they are head-over-heels in love with it, whether "it" be television, videogames, Shakespeare, Martin Heidegger, the medieval chanson de geste, the Greek lyric poem, or whatever else. Specialty humanities conferences are just fan conventions with more strangely-dressed attendees. Humanists are doe-eyed romantics, even as they are also snarly grouches.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Embracing aca-fandom is a bad idea. Not because it's immoral or crude, but because it's too great a temptation. Those of us who make an enviable living being champions of media, particularly popular media, must also remain dissatisfied with them. We ought to challenge not only ourselves, our colleagues, and our students—but also the public and the creators of our chosen media. We ought not to be satisfied. That's the price of getting to make a living studying television, or videogames, or even Shakespeare.
Nele Noppe

Stuff Digital Humanists Like: Defining Digital Humanities by its Values - 1 views

  • there are different strains of digital humanities. Bethany might define those strains as “old” and “new.” I’d probably divide things along more disciplinary lines, looking to a tradition of digital humanities that comes out of literature and one that comes out of public history. If I had to place myself along these axes I’d probably land where the “new” and “history” strains meet. There are, of course, lots of other ways to slice the pie.
  • digital humanities starts to look a lot like a social network. Indeed, in some ways digital humanities increasingly is a social network built, for better or worse, on Twitter’s platform.
  • It takes its values from the Internet
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • The procrastination principle (or “end-to-end argument”) is a design principle that states that most features of a network should be left to users to invent and implement, that the network should should be as simple as possible and that complexity should be developed at its end points not at its core, that the network should be dumb and the terminals should be smart. This is precisely how the Internet works. T
  • There is an analogous value in digital humanities. Innovation in digital humanities frequently comes from the edges of the scholarly community rather than from its center—small institutions and even individual actors with few resources are able to make important innovations.
  • Digital humanities makes some similar assumptions in its commitments to open access, open source, and collaboration. As Bethany has said elsewhere, “how many other academic disciplines or interdisciplines work so hard to manifest as ‘a community of practice that is solidary, open, welcoming and freely accessible’ — a ‘collective experience,’ a ‘common good?’” We allow allow all comers, we assume that their contributions will be positive, and we expect that they will share their work for the benefit of the community at large.
  • It follows, therefore, that if digital humanities is a social network, then one of the things that will help us understand it better is looking at the things around which the network coalesces, the stuff digital humanists like
  • Like: Twitter / Don’t like: Facebook.
  • Like: Agile development / Dislike: long planning cycles
  • Like: DIY / Dislike: Outsourcing.
  • Like: PHP / Dislike: C++.
  • Like: Extramural funding / Dislike: Intramural funding.
Nele Noppe

Audre Lorde: The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House - 0 views

  • Advocating the mere tolerance of difference between women is the grossest reformism. IT is a total denial of the creative function of difference in our lives. For difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a dialectic.
  • It is learning how to take our differences and make them strengths. For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master’s house as their only source of support.
  • The failure of the academic feminists to recognize differences as a crucial stregnth is a failure to reach beyond the first patriarchal lesson. Divide and conquer, in our world, must become define and empower.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • I urge each one of us here to reach down into that deep place of knowledge inside herself and touch that terror and loathing of any difference that lives there. See whose face it wears. Then the personal as political can begin to illuminate all our choices.
  • Women of today are still being called upon to stretch across the gap of male ignorance, and to educate men as to our existence and our needs. This is an old and primary tool of all oppressors to keep the oppressed occupied with the master’s concerns.
Nele Noppe

Social Media for Scientists - Sciencebase Science Blog - 0 views

  •  
    Some great social initiatives centering on the 'hard' sciences. Where's the humanities version of these websites?
Nele Noppe

Exactly which 'academics' are getting which fandom riled up? - 0 views

  • As far as one can make out from the current squabble in other fandoms, it is not academics as such who are disregarded or disdained by other fen.  It is, almost exclusively, the Faculty of English Language and Literature who have made themselves unwelcome.  This seems to me significant.  It seems to me more significant still that it is, so far as I can determine, primarily American dons of Frenchified theoretical leanings who are making themselves unpopular with the mass of fandom.  I mean, if the academic fen in question were, say, Womersley of St Catz, Shrimpton of LMH, or Turner of Jesus, let alone Jenkyns of LMH, I shouldn’t expect the same quarrel to have arisen. My primary point is simply that this seems not to be a case in other fandoms of something I’ve never seen and don’t anticipate seeing in mine: of ‘the revolting peasants rising against their intellectual superiors’ or of ‘all academics sucking the soul out of fandom like so many Dementors’, which appear to be the two rallying cries here.  One simply doesn’t observe this sort of anger’s attaching to historians or those who read Law at university or even to wild-eyed, Balliol-Wadham-and-Grauniadista sociologists and anthropologists, at least not in my fandom.  Therefore, I submit that it is misleading and contrary to resolution of the quarrel to cast it in terms of all fen in all fandoms against all academics of all schools of thought.
Nele Noppe

Guestpost: Kristina Busse on academics, fans, and the fuzzy line between « Fa... - 0 views

  • In other words, being a good academic may be important to other academics but not necessarily to other fans.
  • We thus face a dilemma: how can we respect and encourage the academic aspects of fan writing while still maintain fan meta as a distinct and separate discourse.
Nele Noppe

Science 2.0: A Web Native Research Record - Applying the Best of the Web to the Lab Not... - 0 views

  • The links between things make the web go round I want to make science less like a great big monolithic document and make it more like a network of pieces of knowledge, wired together: Fragments of science Loosely coupled Tightly wired
  • What is a “fragment of science”? A paper is too big a piece, even if it is the "minimal publishable unit" A tweet is too small A blog post would be the right size
Nele Noppe

popblog: Researching Polish Fandom - 0 views

  • one is addicted to foreign studies.
  • t is really hard to tell something specifically about Polish fans without comparing them to American or British.
  • Polish fans do not have the past described by Coppa. During the communistic period it was very seldom for people to organize themselves like the fans from the other side of the Iron Curtain. Poles were not prohibited to be fans and fannish behaviors were not restricted and prosecuted. Polish audiences simply did not have the need of being fans.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • In People’s Republic of Poland popular culture was in fact considered as high culture. People that were watching American movies and TV shows were in fact the elite with cultural competences superior to an average viewer (Kowalski, 1988) [2].
  • I must underline, however, that fan clubs were completely different from Western fandoms. Members of clubs were the elite in a different sense than fans. Sci-fi fan clubs were a window with a view on freedom, with a view on a completely different world – a capitalist world.
  • olish fans are “fans without the past”. Unlike their equivalents from the West they have no tradition or heritage. Therefore they do not realize they are a part of something larger, something that has a long history and has been a part of media consumption for a very long time.
  • Comparisons (with Western fans) that Polish researchers are bound to make seem to be methodologically unfounded. One cannot compare Polish fans with their Western equivalents. This kind of comparisons become inappropriate because of a completely different background of Polish fans (or I should say: lack of this background).
Nele Noppe

Science in the Open » Blog Archive » Peer review: What is it good for? - 0 views

  • Scientists worship at the altar of peer review, and I use that metaphor deliberately because it is rarely if ever questioned.
  • Somehow the process of peer review is supposed to sprinkle some sort of magical dust over a text which makes it “scientific” or “worthy”, yet while we quibble over details of managing the process, or complain that we don’t get paid for it, rarely is the fundamental basis on which we decide whether science is formally published examined in detail.
  • There is a good reason for this. THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES! [sorry, had to get that off my chest]. The evidence that peer review as traditionally practiced is of any value at all is equivocal at best
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • But there is perhaps an even more important procedural issue around peer review. Whatever value it might have we largely throw away. Few journals make referee’s reports available, virtually none track the changes made in response to referee’s comments enabling a reader to make their own judgement as to whether a paper was improved or made worse. Referees get no public credit for good work, and no public opprobrium for poor or even malicious work. And in most cases a paper rejected from one journal starts completely afresh when submitted to a new journal, the work of the previous referees simply thrown out of the window.
  • We never ask what the cost of not publishing a paper is or what the cost of delaying publication could be.
  • There is a direct cost to rejecting papers, both in the time of referees and the time of editors, as well as the time required for authors to reformat and resubmit. But the bigger problem is the opportunity cost – how much that might have been useful, or even important, is never published? And how much is research held back by delays in publication? How many follow up studies not done, how many leads not followed up, and perhaps most importantly how many projects not refunded, or only funded once the carefully built up expertise in the form of research workers is lost?
  • Journals need to acknowledge the papers they’ve rejected, along with dates of submission. Ideally all referees reports should be made public, or at least re-usable by the authors.
  • Traditional peer review is hideously expensive. And currently there is little or no pressure on its contributors or managers to provide good value for money. It is also unsustainable at its current level. My solution to this is to radically cut the number of peer reviewed papers probably by 90-95% leaving the rest to be published as either pure data or pre-prints. But the whole industry is addicted to traditional peer reviewed publications, from the funders who can’t quite figure out how else to measure research outputs, to the researchers and their institutions who need them for promotion, to the publishers (both OA and toll access) and metrics providers who both feed the addiction and feed off it.
Nele Noppe

melannen: So, a long, long time ago, before I had - 0 views

  • Given that I generally approve of fair use and quotation and derivative/transformative work with or without permission, and am pretty radically anti-intellectual-property in general, and strongly support acafandom in using internet postings in published papers, I ought to just be happy that somebody (somebody who I rather admire as a writer and scholar) has noticed my un-expert little translation and thought it worth talking about.But, well, what pisses me off? Is that the journal's publisher wants 25 dollars from me in exchange for the privilege of looking for only 24 hours at the article about my work that they published without even notifying me.
  • I am not, I want to note here, upset at the author of the paper, or its existence, or the fact that he chose to publish in the venue he did. I am *deeply* upset at the system in which venues of choice for academic work lock away professionals' discussions while amateurs can actually have the free and unfettered forum for sharing thought that academics of a hundred years ago could only have dreamed of, and academics of the modern world are expected to choose not to participate in.
  • What bothers me, I guess, is when that locked professional world doesn't stay immured behind its walls. Someone who has probably spent his entire adult life in an academic world, where everybody has institutional support that lets them access things like ridiculously expensive subscription journals, is coming in to *my* world, where everybody works for nothing and publishes for the joy of sharing freely, and dragging our work back behind the wall with him, where we can't touch it anymore.
Nele Noppe

archive : s0metim3s | Undercommons - 0 views

  • there are different ways in which the idea of the commons has worked its way into being one of the most significant memes of the last few years - Pete Linebaugh is not Silvia Federici is not Toni Negri is not Lessig, and so on. Federici, for her part, signals a timely warning in Caliban and the Witch against assuming that ‘the commons’ was without divisions of labour, particularly a gendered division of labour.
  • Yet, as the idea of ‘the commons’ became resolutely attached to discussions over IP and various other forms of knowledge production it - much like the precarity meme - was often put to service as a way of reimposing a certain claim to ownership and division of labour, namely: the implicit assertion that knowledge-production only involved those who are marked (or mark themselves) as knowledge producers in a certain division of labour.
  • the concept of the undercommons is disruptive of claims that the commons was an idyll, without difference and without divisions of labour.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • For Harney and Moten, it works as a reminder of the colonial, racialised and gendered conditions of the (university) labour market, and against the constant calls for the renewal of this or that discipline which function merely to idealise (and continue) such conditions
1 - 20 of 39 Next ›
Showing 20 items per page