Technology Battle
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 1 I honestly do not feel very inclined to take a side in this debate (partially because of how snippy everyone got). I thought both authors had legitimate points. I 100% understand how annoying people constantly on their phone can be but I think Gannon is right about the community it builds. However, I think there is a time and place for such usage of social media. Instead of having half the audience at a conference on their phones tweeting, there should be one official Tweeter. The rest can take notes and tweet later if they want. Gannon points out that conferences can be sexist and many other bad things but I find that argument completely faulty because Twitter has those things too and ignoring them doesn’t solve anything. But the conference scenario is only part of the argument.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Gannon and his commenters convinced me that the most important aspect social media brings to academia is community. It brings together people with unique interests who may live far apart in a (digital) place where they can discuss their ideas. This increases the sense of community and the diversity of a particular field. However, I agree with the other side that scholars should not be judged by their social media presence. Social media was originally started to be just that, social. Not academic. I definitely think we can use social media in an academic way but expecting scholars to build up their social platforms so they can look more committed to their job is asking too much of people. If someone wants to focus on their online portrayal, that’s fine, but no one should be expected to or viewed negatively if they don’t. There are (multiple) negative qualities of social media that have been exposed by research as well so I think it’s ridiculous to expect this of people.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 I do think digital scholarship values immediacy and while I am inclined to say it’s not bad it’s just different, the comment section on Gannon’s paper may imply otherwise. I lost respect for both sides because the people got defensive and very rude as well. I think if they had taken the time to think about the consequences of what they were typing, they may not have done it. So, in this way, social media and the internet actually put communities in danger by making opposing sides more bold in their hostility. This brings up another issue of social media; displacement. Yes, we all know the name of the Tattooed Professor but he is not right in front of us. He and others can type the things they can because they’re not actually physically speaking to someone. Simply being physically present discourages rude language because it demands a certain respect. This is another dark side of social media.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 3 Ignoring the decrease of a filter online, I think immediacy could bring about good change for academics. Change comes slowly in the academic world – not as slowly as in government but close. The immediacy of digital scholarship encourages fast-paced adaption; there will still be negative reactions to such evolution but even those will happen quicker. While slow thinking, or at least thinking before typing, can be good, the immediacy of the internet could actually help change things that need to be changed. Imagine if we could just take a remote and fast-forward Congress. How much more would be done! Internet gives academics this chance and I hope the digital revolution can generate change beyond the medium.
I have a hard time following your line of argumentation here, so I’d encourage you to slow down, breathe, and take argumentative points / claims one at a time.
For instance, it’s pretty clear to me that Gannon’s point about academic conferences being unequal / sexist / etc. has to do with who gets into those conferences, and who is able (in terms of funding, etc.) to attend them. There have been several instances recently where academics who could not attend a given conference participated at a distance by tweeting and checking hashtags. So he’s not critiquing conferences as a platform for scholarly interaction alongside Twitter as a platform: slow down and try to work logically through the pieces of his argument in turn.