Group items tagged

The workload of academics has increased exponentially in recent years, as has been well-documented

I have found that writing for popular audiences is not solely an internal passion, but has actually become an external demand of young scholars, another metric by which their job application or tenure-file is evaluated.

The problem is that Robin goes on to romanticize the lives of young scholar-writers, saying that their work arises from intrinsic desires, whose realization is made possible by new technology:

Young scholars are compelled to transform themselves into academic entrepreneurs, creating a brand that they promote through their blogs, tweets, and online profiles.

The swelling workloads of academics are indicative of the micropolitics of neoliberalism

The mantra of “publishing early and often” has intensified, especially in a tight job market. As tenured horizons grow grimmer, new scholars must do anything they can to stand out above a crowd of over-achievers. Publish early, publish often — and now, publish online.

Consider the website Academia.edu

But the site also exemplifies the quantification of the productive self, with each profile displaying the number of views, article downloads, and followers for each academic.

The labor of public intellectualism is more than a political project, or even a charitable effort of self-expression — it’s another manifestation of exploitation

As a result, young academics trying to keep up with new media are writing, reading blogs and engaging in Twitter wars during lunch breaks, between teaching commitments, and well into the night.

To meet the demands of academic capitalism, there’s now even less of a chance of ever clocking out.

Yes, let us praise the young writers whose voices are being seen and heard across the blogosphere, and luxuriate in the possibilities of transcending the borders of the Ivory Tower. But let us not forget that writing, even on the Internet, and even for the “public good,” is still work. And whenever we’re encouraged to do more work, we should be a bit wary.

We need to develop flexible but clear guidelines for recognizing and rewarding public scholarship and artistic production.

We are also looking for a broader definition of "peer" in "peer review," to include recognized nonacademic leaders in public scholarship and public-art making

Our working definition of public scholarship in the arts and humanities comprises research, scholarship, or creative activity that: connects directly to the work of specific public groups in specific contexts; arises from a faculty member's field of knowledge; involves a cohesive series of activities contributing to the public welfare and resulting in "public good" products; is jointly planned and carried out by coequal partners; and integrates discovery, learning, and public engagement. As we move toward a consensus on what constitutes public scholarship, we are committed to developing criteria for the excellence of this work.

agining America: Artists and Scholars in Public Life, a consortium supported by 70-odd colleges and universities, including Syracuse University and CalArts. Based at the University of Michigan, the consortium is establishing a "tenure team" to develop policies and processes that appropriately value public scholarship and engaged artistic creation in the cultural disciplines.

Perhaps most important, we are recommending that faculty members and evaluators not advise junior colleagues to postpone public scholarship if that is where their passions lie.

Nor does he see the gatekeepers—even in our new age of blogs and little magazines—that prevent supply from meeting demand.

The problem here isn’t that typically American conceit of “culture” v. nonconformist rebel. It’s the very material pressures and constraints young academics face, long before tenure. It’s the job market.  It’s the rise of adjuncts. It’s neoliberalism.

I had to smile at Kristof’s nod to publish or perish. Most working academics would give anything to be confronted with that dilemma. The vast majority can’t even think of publishing; they’re too busy teaching four, five, courses a semester

Getting her work out of the pile is helped enormously by having done something more than what was expected

You must support her in doing the risky thing. Insist that she defend her experimental work, and then, in turn, defend her choice to anyone who doesn't understand her deviation from the road ordinarily traveled.

Scholars doing digital work require kinds of support that many more traditionally oriented humanists do not: access to technical resources for both their teaching and scholarship, as well as help maintaining those resources.

we run the risk of breaking the innovative spirit that we've hoped to bring to our departments

And where that spirit isn't broken, untenured digital scholars run the risk of burnout from having to produce twice as much—traditional scholarship and digital projects—as their counterparts do