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,\u00a0feel inclined to take a side and I believe this is because the idea of online or digital scholarship not being the work of\u00a0Serious Academics \u2122 is a complex issue to say the least. \u00a0That 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.<\/p>\n
Gannon notes a specific aspect of this issue relating to being a serious academic and its relation to social media, saying, \u201cLet\u2019s call it what it is: the argument of Serious Academics \u2122 against social media is not a critique of shoddy scholarship or the lightening of professional standards.\u00a0 It\u2019s a rear-guard action against the increasing diversification and democratization of scholarly space\u201d (Gannon 4). Gannon notes that the issue of “Serious Academics \u2122 against social media” is something that appears to be stemming from an attitude against change. \u00a0He 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.\u00a0And 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. \u00a0There 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.<\/p>\n
Anonymous’ piece, entitled “I’m a Serious Academic, Not a Professional Instagrammer”, alludes to the issues raised by Gannon. \u00a0Anonymous says, “But surely the dedication I show in the lab, and the subsequent data I collect, should speak for itself. I do not \u2013 and should not \u2013 have to parade myself online to please my employer or to stake my claim as a good researcher” (Anonymous 2). \u00a0Although 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. \u00a0However, 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. \u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n
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. \u00a0I 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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,\u00a0feel inclined to take a side and I believe this is because the idea of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/824","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=824"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/824\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":833,"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/824\/revisions\/833"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}