Comments on: Off to OAH to answer the question: is blogging scholarship? http://www.historiann.com/2014/04/11/off-to-oah-to-answer-the-question-is-blogging-scholarship/ History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:41:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Blog « Lady Economist http://www.historiann.com/2014/04/11/off-to-oah-to-answer-the-question-is-blogging-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-2023905 Fri, 02 May 2014 14:12:35 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=22597#comment-2023905 […] doesn’t mean I blog at the expense of my real work. I’m well aware that blogging does not equal scholarship. In academia, print publishing—in peer-reviewed books and journals—is still the coin of the […]

]]>
By: “[A]nd the number of the counting shall be three.” | More or Less Bunk http://www.historiann.com/2014/04/11/off-to-oah-to-answer-the-question-is-blogging-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-1981026 Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:09:43 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=22597#comment-1981026 […] I was making my way home from Atlanta on Sunday, a whole bunch of my virtual and actual friends were still at the Organization of American Historians annual meeting discussing whether blogging is […]

]]>
By: sophylou http://www.historiann.com/2014/04/11/off-to-oah-to-answer-the-question-is-blogging-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-1980446 Wed, 16 Apr 2014 03:48:24 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=22597#comment-1980446 Of course, another thing that didn’t get discussed (unless I missed it) was comment moderation, except insofar as a “you idiot” quote could count as peer review. Not sure if the comment above this one counts as peer review :S

]]>
By: Voice Over Talent http://www.historiann.com/2014/04/11/off-to-oah-to-answer-the-question-is-blogging-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-1980350 Wed, 16 Apr 2014 01:28:45 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=22597#comment-1980350 This is my first time pay a quick visit
at here and i am truly impressed to read everthing at
one place.

]]>
By: Is Blogging Scholarship? | The Not So Innocents Abroad http://www.historiann.com/2014/04/11/off-to-oah-to-answer-the-question-is-blogging-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-1980249 Tue, 15 Apr 2014 22:30:23 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=22597#comment-1980249 […] participated (to be honest), but reading about it from afar can be fun. Kudos to John Fea, Ann Little, Ken Owen, Joseph Adelman, Mike O’Malley, Ben Alpers, Michael Hattem, and Caleb McDaniel for […]

]]>
By: Knitting Clio http://www.historiann.com/2014/04/11/off-to-oah-to-answer-the-question-is-blogging-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-1979923 Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:50:42 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=22597#comment-1979923 Thanks for posting the links to storify and other comments. I was following the backchannel during Palm Sunday service — I am wicked!

]]>
By: Is Blogging Scholarship? Reflections on the OAH Panel « The Junto http://www.historiann.com/2014/04/11/off-to-oah-to-answer-the-question-is-blogging-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-1979912 Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:42:02 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=22597#comment-1979912 […] a roundtable discussion entitled “Is Blogging Scholarship?” Several other participants have posted their thoughts on the subject; there was also a great deal of live-tweeting, and our own Joe […]

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2014/04/11/off-to-oah-to-answer-the-question-is-blogging-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-1979829 Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:38:18 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=22597#comment-1979829 Thanks for all of your further reflections on this. I keep wondering if I should write another post on this subject to summarize the panel, but so many have already beat me to it–John Fea posted his summary at The Way of Improvement Leads Home, and Paul Harvey at Religion in American History also posted a notice about our panel. Michael Hattem has published a storify of the tweets about our panel, and last but not least, the OAH HNN has videorecorded the whole thing too, so I’ll post a link to that when it’s available. And of course, Ben Alpers’s and Andrew McGregor’s links to further thoughts have appeared in the comments above.

Phew!

John, thanks for introducing yourself. I’d say that your blog idea sounds fantastic, esp. because I think there’s a broader popular audience out there for information about the connections between the human and non-human animal worlds. (I know that for at least the past decade I’ve found animal studies to be an incredibly fascinating and fruitful subfield, although I don’t really have any ideas as to how to engage this as a researcher myself. But I love reading other people’s ideas and research!)

Indyanna and Sophylou–the question that Michael O’Malley engaged (what exactly is scholarship anyway, and why are our definitions so narrow?) is indeed a fascinating one, and it’s got to vary by the consideration of audience that Sophylou raises. Lots to think about.

]]>
By: Andrew McGregor http://www.historiann.com/2014/04/11/off-to-oah-to-answer-the-question-is-blogging-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-1979164 Tue, 15 Apr 2014 00:31:44 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=22597#comment-1979164 […] (much of which has been Storified here).  Historiann (Ann M. Little) was a member of the panel and wrote her own blogpost about it here. As response to this conversation, I felt it appropriate to reflect on why I blog, how I use it, […]

]]>
By: sophylou http://www.historiann.com/2014/04/11/off-to-oah-to-answer-the-question-is-blogging-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-1978922 Mon, 14 Apr 2014 19:59:40 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=22597#comment-1978922 The “counting” question does raise the question of what blogging is, or can be, for, which I’m resisting codifying too strongly. I don’t want or need my blogging to “count” as part of my job, or as something I would point to for promotion, because I’m not interested in writing about the things I’d have to write about in order for it to “count”–there are a million library blogs and I’m not interested in creating yet another one, especially given the not inconsiderable resentment librarians have for people with PhDs. I am expected to contribute informational items to my library’s public blog, and I do, but I don’t crosspost those to my personal blog because they would have nothing to do with what my blog is about.

In a sense, my blogging is about maintaining a kind of work/life balance: it is about my scholarly work, not my for-pay work. So while I think it’s probably worthwhile for those who do need/want for blogging to “count” to have some kind of regularization via AHA/OAH/NCPH et al., I’m not behind the idea of making history blogs conform to those standards. I want to write about what I want to write about, and I don’t want to have to write to standards geared towards a career path I’m not on (and don’t get to be on).

But again, part of this goes back to points that were made by the audience (including me): blogs are a space that those of us who are outside the academy in various ways can use to have a presence and a voice in academic discourse. I want to have a space where I can talk about my scholarly work, because my “day job” in some ways precludes that, and where I can think through ideas on my way to writing them up for publication, presentation, etc.

To limit the conversation (I’m not saying that the conversation was this limited, I’m saying that in a more general sense) to a discussion of how can we make blogging “count” does seem to make blogging awfully instrumental, rather than fun, or interesting, or a way to simply explore ideas or to reach out to find a community. I’m thinking about my blog, but I’m also thinking about Kate Bowles’ powerful blog Music for Deckchairs, in which she is discussing her cancer treatment and the culture of overwork in academia — I think that she would have a complicated response to whether her blog should “count” for her academic career.

I guess I think that “counting” is something that each blogger should be able to make their own decision about. If that means we develop standards for how to make blogging count towards tenure/promotion, that’s probably a good thing, but I would hate to see that become such a strong focus that someone like me would feel pressure to comply or risk not being taken “seriously” somehow because my blogging wasn’t seen as being up to scholarly snuff. That seems like yet another way to draw a line between “real” academics (people who need things to count toward tenure!) and “alt” academics who don’t, but who still want to write and publish scholarly work… in whatever form.

]]>