Over at Critical Mass, Erin O'Connor wonders why non-academic literary blogs are more exciting than standard academic literary study. Cup of Chica replies that blogs make any discussion more "exciting" due to the immediacy of the medium. On Crooked Timber, Brian Weatherson thinks graduate students need more technical skills.
Although all these posts lament, on some level, the dearth of technical skills shown by those in the humanities, I think it's just a case of generational lag amplified by a fetish-like love of the printed page, the physicality of books. I would expect the next generation of graduate students to be fully versed in blogs and the other technical solutions mentioned on Crooked Timber. This would lead naturally to blogging, or whatever blogging evolves into by then, as the obvious choice for out of class discussions and more in-depth study of the works covered in lecture. Still, expecting future generations to be up to speed is no reason to be sanguine about the current one's lack of skills.
As for myself, a blogger and aspiring academic, the connection between teaching and blogging couldn't be more evident. Once I'm finally being exploited as a source of cheap teaching labor, I plan to set up a blog for each class and strongly suggest, if not outright require, that each student visit it and comment at least once during the semester. By virtue of being written rather than spoken and unlimited by the time constraints of a class, I would expect such blogs to be much more conducive to in-depth discussions of the works being studied than lectures. Naturally, the lecture period is necessary for laying the groundwork for such a discussion and teaching the essential elements of the texts, but I would love to see the blogs used as forums for more discursive study.
UPDATE: At Pharyngula, PZ Myers complains that the discussion is only about blogging in relation to literary studies, ignoring other disciplines. He also links to a bit of an anti-blog rant in the process that argues academic blogs wouldn't help anything.
I think there are dual, related factors at work - in addition to the formal issue (that real-time discussion is more engaging than the slow back-and-forth of literary journals), there's the content issue. Academics and literati keeping blogs are much more likely to be young and engaged in livelier debate than the older, more established and, inevitably, ossified figures who dominate traditional publications.
Oh, while I'm at it, LIT CRIT SUX! CULTURAL STUDIES 4-EVAH, 3itches!
Yeah, definitely high-level dialogue.
Hmm.. good point. I think that was part of one the points made in one of the posts I linked, too. Not necessarily that profs are all fuddy-duddies, but that journal articles, along with being in a completely different medium, are written for purposes of career advancement rather than out of love for the topic. The freewheeling nature of blogs lets you shout about how much you love this author and hate this other. You don't have to kill your ego and opinions to be taken seriously, unlike in a scholarly article.
Trolls get points deducted from their final grade.
Well, again, I think that's a separate issue, one that was definitely raised in one of the linked articles - you can avoid "bookchat" (hello condescension, my old friend) while still being engaged in lively debate. The freewheeling nature of a blog may contribute to ones' tendency to engage in less-than-scholarly debate, but that's not necessarily a strength.
I think there are a lot of different uses for blogs, some of which are appropriate in literary studies, some not. Unquestionably, they are extremely useful for all levels of college classes--they provide a forum for actually entering into dialogue and trying out new modes of interpretation. In addition, they can be essential to developing argumenative skills and gradually mastering the subtleties of fair and reasonable debate. I think that 10 years down the line we are going to see significant changes--one of the main duties for T.A.s will become discussion moderation on the Net.
But using blogs on a professional level (i.e. as a supplement to journals) is another question altogether. I think John's points (from Crooked Timber) were quite wise in this regard--they provide an accessible forum for fleshing out and publicizing ideas so people don't have to go out and buy the books and read the journals. Yet I'm not sure how useful blogs would be, as distinguished from academic lists, for producing new content or even fleshing out new content. Nevertheles they are useful for disseminating new ideas and new schools of thought, and providing an opportunity for ideas to be chewed on prior to conferences, as John suggested.
What I would like to see is more aggressive action from academic journals to become electronic. Here, they could provide a forum for serious discussion on contemporary articles within certain guidelines (without trolls) and also serve as forums for communication. One thing they could try is having two seperate discussions that depend on your subscription status--one for academics and one for students. Of course, there already are electronic-only journals, but most of the content comes from students and is often poorly edited. I want to see the big journals go online, with special discounts for us students!
What motivates your desire to see separate discussions for students and teachers? In my experience, 90% of college students are too intimidated to contribute to a discussion that they don't feel they understand, and as long as these fora were not anonymous (the bane of the internet!), I think discussions would naturally find their own level of student involvement.
Though I think I just answered my own question - the kiddie pool isn't just to keep the kids from annoying the adults, it's also to provide a place for the kids to feel comfortable on their own.
Duh, okay, thanks.
If the purpose is to educate, then segregating the students from the teachers seems counterproductive. Just because you have a forum to discuss something doesn't mean you have anything worthwhile to say. I'm not claiming that the student forums would be full of drivel, but it seems like involving both groups in the same discussion would be more productive and beneficial. In one of the posts I linked to, Chun argues that non-pseudonymous posts would discourage participation. Why do you think anonymous ones would do the opposite?
I'm speaking strictly at the level of developing ideas at a professional level, rather than educating students. These are, at bottom, different spheres of academia, where different systems of ettiqute reign (being a graduate student means occupying a netherland between them). Actual academics would feel much more comfortable posting in a forum where they feel their peers are both professionally inclined as well as capable of understanding what they have to say and providing responsible feedback. No one wants to have to weed through student drivel to get to the real criticism. Besides, as David points out, the seperation allows the student a certain comfort zone--a certain right to take a chance and be mistaken. Also, I appreciate place where I can ask simplistic questions without exposing my stupidity before my superiors.
Which isn't to say students shouldn't have the right to read professional discussions. Of course they should (and vice versa), whereupon they could comment on them in their own forums. I simply feel that productivity is furthered by a certain order of rank, as elitist as that may sound. Ultimately, this is simply the case--why else are academic organs based on competition and selectivity?
And for the record, everything I'm saying here is total speculation.
David (to the court reporter): Let the record show that Mr. Kern's testimony is speculative.
Harumph, harumph.
Erin O'Connor has a posted a followup to the post that helped kick this off with a number of links to other discussions.