Response to Gannon and Anonymous
As far as my response to either of these pieces and taking sides with one, I’m not totally convinced by either side, however, given the issue, I don’t know that I would necessarily expect to be. As such, I don’t necessarily, feel inclined to take a side and I believe this is because the idea of online or digital scholarship not being the work of Serious Academics ™ is a complex issue to say the least. That being said, I do agree with parts of what Gannon has to say, and those parts are perhaps best outlined in what I see to be be his main point in his piece.
Gannon notes a specific aspect of this issue relating to being a serious academic and its relation to social media, saying, “Let’s call it what it is: the argument of Serious Academics ™ against social media is not a critique of shoddy scholarship or the lightening of professional standards. It’s a rear-guard action against the increasing diversification and democratization of scholarly space” (Gannon 4). Gannon notes that the issue of “Serious Academics ™ against social media” is something that appears to be stemming from an attitude against change. He claims that their concern with social media is not that scholarship becomes careless or becomes less “serious”, but, instead, that it is one more thing changing the way scholarship currently exists. I buy this to an extent, and it’s something we’ve seen being discussed throughout our different readings, especially in relation to DH being taken seriously. And I suppose that I agree, that part of the push-back against digital and online scholarship is that there are those who are unwilling to change, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that its the only reason this issue exists. There are likely some academics that are against change, and while that very well may be their reason behind their anti-social media stance, and regardless of how often it may be used as a camouflage, there are certainly also those who are concerned that social media allows for less serious and more careless scholarship.
Anonymous’ piece, entitled “I’m a Serious Academic, Not a Professional Instagrammer”, alludes to the issues raised by Gannon. Anonymous says, “But surely the dedication I show in the lab, and the subsequent data I collect, should speak for itself. I do not – and should not – have to parade myself online to please my employer or to stake my claim as a good researcher” (Anonymous 2). Although their unwillingness to create in an online space may indeed be stemming from an attitude against change, something that can be seen in their critique of the use of cell phones at conferences and the like, what Anonymous seems most concerned with, what I would consider their main point, is the pressure they’re feeling to take their scholarship top an online format. Anonymous argues that in order to prove that they are in fact a serious academic, an enthusiastic academic, that their research and work done in whatever traditional manner should be enough to convey this, that they shouldn’t need to broadcast it online as well. However, and although Anonymous takes time to avoid the accusation of being “some cranky old professor harking back to the Good Old Days”, it does appear as though they are not wanting to change, as Gannon suggests. The pressure they note arguably stems from their unwillingness to change. Instead of embracing the new and different, existing in the form of social media, Anonymous is pushing back, creating that pressure.
Regardless of the cause of the pressure that Anonymous feels, Gannon points out an important element relating to the issue of social media and its relationship within , and Anonymous seemingly falls into the mold Gannon outlines regarding the avoidance to change. I suppose then, because I do agree with more of what Gannon said in his post, that I would be more inclined to “take his side”, but again, I think there more things to be discussed and considered in relation to this issue, specifically in terms of discussing and combating the idea of online scholarship being careless and less “serious” when this concern isn’t being used a camouflage.
You raise an interesting point that we didn’t get to in discussion–does online “scholarship” derail DH’s attempt to define itself as a serious (and worthy) part of the University as a whole?
The nature of online interactions–meaning how easy it is to default to unscholarly practice–and how readily available that information immediately becomes, can be detrimental to DH as a whole. A few too many bad comments gone viral and you’ve got one bad apple ready to spoil the whole bunch.
I agree that Anonymous that their might be too much pressure on academics to have an online presence in social media, but that argument is lost amongst what seems like an almost Luddite stance on people using phones during conferences.
I also agree that social media can be a valuable tool for networking with other people in your field and possible outreach.
Gannon’s article also shows the pitfalls of social media in the comments section when its hijacked by yet another Anonymous with a diatribe about how academics are being undermined by technology companies. the pseudo flame war that ensues was very mild by internet standards but stands out as an example on my many sites choose to disable comments.