Friday, October 30, 2009

And just for the sake of.....

From the folks at io9 the sci-fi blog comes this comment on the future of the professorate: Prescient perhaps, but much has already been discussed here, at Modern Medieval, In the Middle, the Chronicle of Higher Ed, Inside Higher Ed...etc. Interesting though that some of the things we've all been batting around are making it out to others.

Interesting Article of General Interest

As usual this time of year, I'm overwhelmed with things to do, so posting and even thinking about stuff and things has just not happened. But I thought I'd share a link to an article from Inside Higher Ed Favorite Spouse printed for me and I read on the train. It's very interesting and articulates much of my own feelings about the move to for-profit education and learning as a commodity and the student as consumer. Here it is:

Monday, October 12, 2009

Publishing, Peer Review, And Professional Matters

Believe it or not, I began the following on 8/15, when I was in danger of becoming caught up on posts in queue. For what it's worh, here it is.

Several items over the last year have come across the proverbial desktop(s) concerning publishing and the needs and concerns of academic publishing especially as related to online publishing. One in particular came up a few months ago as Matt Gabriele posted some thoughts on the question at Modern Medieval. Shortly after that, I was catching up on some journal reading and was looking at PMLA 23.3 May 2008.

In that issue is a short article by Kathleen Fitzpatrick entitled "Obsolescence" in the "Changing Profession" section (pp. 718-722). Fitzpatrick makes some comments in this piece that I'm not sure about. She says in part "...the current system of peer review is part of what's broken, part of what's made a vibrant mode of scholarly communication undead." She attacks whatever the current system of peer review as "gatekeeping" of a type that prevents intellectual exchange and has to do with the "economics of print."

But is it? As the editor on an online journal, my second, I have to say that peer review has nothing to do with the economics of print. Nothing at all. Peer review doesn't prevent publication: since ancient times in order to publish, one needed simple access to the tools of literacy: paper, papyrus, parchment and pen and ink. In the age of print, one simply needed Kinko's and a typrewriter. And if peer reviewers prevented publication, the simple solution was to go to a vanity press and have it printed and published. Peer review might prevent publication in a particular journal or at a particular publishers, but has never prevented publication per se.

And of course peer review is performed by humans, so is subject to all the things that humans are subject too: pettiness, political maneuvering, mistakes, stupidity as well as moments of keen insight, publishing an excellent work. And everything in between on the spectrum. And nothing is going to change that: we're humans, and getting rid of peer review isn't going to change anything.

In the Internet age anyone can put up anything. So why have peer review? The same reasons as always: at least to make the effort that whatever bears the stamp of The Heroic Age or Blackwell or what have you may be trusted. Sure, mistakes are made. Sometimes the venerable Oxford Book of... for example isn't quite up to par or there's an article that seeps through into say JEGP or Notes and Queries that isn't earth shatteringly original. And of course there's the famous "theory" case where a chap made up the whole article packed with jargon and got it published in a high end literary theory journal. Peer review sometimes fails because we humans fail.

But it also often succeeds. Not everything should be published, regardless of the author's own passion and love for his/her work. And the author is often not the best person to make such a determination, nor would someone who for one reason or another have a vested interest (friendship, partnership, dislike, departmental pride, etc). Like democracy, peer review is the worst system in the world until we compare it to any other system.

Further, just putting it on the Internet is fine, no harm in that, and might even be good. The advantage of a journal or other organ practicing peer review however is that if one is looking for information, one simply isn't at the mercy of the search terms in the search engine that may or may not yield someone's self published web page on an issue. Like vanity publishing, there some good material and bad material there, but the trick is finding the good that is there if outside the normal channels.

Perhaps I've misunderstood the issue. But I don't think so. It just seems to me that criticisms of peer editing are unfounded. Yes there are certainly problems with the system. But the system is us. So like anything we create and do there are abysmal failures and soaring successes and everything in between. And this like many issues should be constantly revisited, self awareness and autopolicing are desireable activities. But abolishing peer editing and just letting anything out there both misunderstands publishing and peer editing as well as does a disservice to academia as a whole. Them's my thoughts...yours?

Sunday, October 04, 2009

Looney Kalamazoo Part the First

Over on the Facebook group wall for International Congress on Medieval Studies, Eve Salisbury wrote and queried:
Yesterday at a meeting of MI faculty, the director told us that some people out there think the Congress has deteriorated in quality; some even call it (according to the report) "looney." Of course, I think that's a characterization worth developing, but I'm wondering what the members of this blog think. What are the concerns out there? How would you like to see the Congress in the future? What would you change? not change? Is the ZOO still worth visiting?

Several people, including myself have weighed in and given some perspective, but while there is some frustration with some things, overall folks are positive. Kalamazoo the Conference has been as instrumental on my own development as a scholar as any of the programs I studied at, so I thought I would say some things here and tag some others in the blogosphere for their input as well.

To a degree, I think this is somewhat related to things expressed last summer over the Allen Furor. Both in Allen's article as well as in fora such as Mediev-L, a largely historical list, some frustration was expressed by historians, economic historians, and others in related fields about Kalamazoo. Not surprisingly, the comments of the current director of the Medieval Institute, an economic historian, mirror those comments from a year and more ago. I believe, however, that it is a very distorted view of what happens at Kalamazoo.

Perhaps the most bandied about issue was the anti-theory feeling among those outside literary studies. Over the last 15 years that I've been watching or been a part of the Congress, there has certainly been an increase in theory oriented sessions. For those outside the field of literary studies, such sessions and the tools the participant use and the questions they ask are as if we're inviting the Galgameks from the next galaxy over to participate in sessions on the European Middle Ages. I too was once of that opinion: when I started my own studies, utilizing the historical-critical and philological models of Biblical studies and Classics I had been taught as an undergrad, a session on feces in literature or comparing Beowulf to Superman was a strange and useless beast indeed. What did Derrida, Lacan, etc really have to do with studies of the ancient or medieval world? Half the time, when those authors talked about those periods at all, they got the basic facts wrong!

All that to say that I know where these critics of Kalamazoo sessions are coming from: I was one, I voiced some of those same concerns and for many of the same reasons. I know better now. And yes, it is a different way of looking at things, and a different set of questions, and like many literary studies, isn't grounded in "hard" evidence of material goods. And it is that strangeness I think that gives pause. To illustrate, from the Allen Furor, the difference in approach between a reader who is discussing social value of shit and shit workers as contextualized in a particular literary work in contrast to the economic historian who is noting and saying the former is wrong or at least hasn't thought about the economic value of poop by the same people. The economic historian isn't interested in fecal humor, or in feelings, thoughts, or revulsion in a story. Rather, the economic historian is interested in the economic value of the commodity and can point to indicators that help establish that value. The former can only point to a story, and use tools to tease the social attitudes out of the story, attitudes that may in fact be at odds with the findings of the economic historian.

Now I know this is an oversimplification of the camps....but the essence I think is there: on the one hand we have the scholar who uses "hard" evidence: artifacts, manuscripts, manuscript contents and texts and on the other we have the scholar who applies modern perspectives to medieval texts or deals in more nebulous ideas not always having a grounding in real life. And not understanding each other and the different approaches tends to divide, separate and make us into "us vs. them" camps. So I think that a lot of the commentary behind the director's "report" rests with some being frustrated by the growth in theory oriented literary studies...and part of why I think that is that when we went through the Allen furor, there were those who expressed exactly that sentiment about K'zoo in those anti-theory terms.

As always, Jeffrey Cohen had a very good insight that he posted on the Facebook group wall: we always look for and like the "ubi sunt": where now the great papers of yesteryear? the great conference of times past? where now the great scholars who read those papers and made the conference so great? We now are not as they were....well, you can fill in the rest.

But you see, for those who feel that way, and those that have expressed such feelings are now fairly established in their fields, they have failed to realize an essential fact. The giants of yesteryear have either left us and we stand on their shoulders, or have since become colleagues and collaborators because we've caught up with them: we are now the giants that younger scholars and students look up to. Ok, maybe not me, but many of those who take the "long view" and express the ubi sunt opinion of Congress now fit this bill. One doesn't learn as much at Congress because one has mastered one's field; one doesn't hear much newly broken ground because one is already intimate with the field and if not borken the ground has been over the surface and considered looking there. The ubi sunt often goes with familiarity of the present breeding contempt for the present. I really think that on the part of some, that this is exactly what has happened.

Others have expressed some frustration over undergrad papers, that can't be at all good for the quality of the conference can it? No, as a general rule an undergrad paper isn't going to be in the same ball park as a grad paper or a senior scholar's paper or a true giant's paper....and no one would claim otherwise. But let's face some facts: the number of undergrads participating as paper readers is VERY LOW. I don't have stats, but of the 650 sessions, there are usually just 2 or 3 sessions designated for undergrads, and depending on the session, there are probably less than 20 undergrad papers in the entire Congress at the most. So of the 2000 or so papers read every year, we're talking .01% of the total by undergrads. Really? People are seriously going to say that the quality of the largest medieval studies conference in the world has declined because of .01% of the 2000 papers read every year? Seriously? Seems to me that to have any real impact on the quality of the conference those papers would have to be attended and have an influence. But other than the organizer, presider, and participants and their advisers and a couple friends, those sessions aren't attended, and have no impact beyond the immediate room.

But why have undergrads in the conference at all? One reason: outreach. I've preached this before here, but unless we as medievalists are willing to do some outreach to other areas in teh academy and to cultivate even undergrads and make inroads into pop culture, we will certainly die. Cultivating interest among a few undergrads is a sure way to ensure survival. So yes, I'm all for a few undergrad sessions, it can only help out the field in the long run by cultivating the giants of tomorrow.

Well, we can set aside the presence of a few undergrads as a concern. But what about all those dashedly modern sessions: Shakespeare, Spenser, Milton....etc. Surely these affect the quality of a "medieval" conference. But no...these have actually been around since the beginning of the Congress. Otto Grundler, who started the thing, called friends and colleagues in other fields in the early days, before it was an annual conference, to make the thing actually go with decent numbers to justify the thing. It is in fact to these long time friends of the Congress that such a conference exists for us to attend year by year and complain about the wine, food, paper quality etc....And while there are sometimes more sessions devoted to these subjects than to undergrad papers, nonetheless there are great papers here and again the numbers are so small that one can not point here to any perceived decline in quality, utility, or magnificence of the Kalamazoo Conference. Further, anyone who has taught so-called "early modern" history, language, or literature knows that the line between Shakespeare etc and a 15th century writer is negligible and arbitrary.

So what next? Well we could look at the popular culture sessions. There are without a doubt more of those now than there were even ten years ago, much less twenty years ago. And let's face it, pop culture studies isn't as rigorous as traditional medieval studies, right? Well, not so much....but let's look at this another way for a moment. There's a delightful little conference and journal, Studies in Medievalism, that includes among those who belong, who read, who publish the top names in the fields that make up Medieval Studies: Tom Shippey, M. J. Toswell, Jan Ziolkowski, and I might mention that the current head of the Medieval Academy has spoken as keynote speaker at the conference. So doing "medievalism"...the study of the medieval in pop culture...can't be all bad....and let's not overlook the Popular Culture conference that has a medieval component. There's a lot of good scholars, top names, who participate.

Is there any justification at all, other than "that's not what I do or am interested in" not to have many medievalism/pop culture sessions at Kalamazoo? Not a single one I can think of. You see, as far as I'm concerned not only is medievalism a fascinating study in itself whether we're talking Matthew Parker or Shakespeare or T. S. Eliot or Tolkien or Harry Potter or Zemekis, but a necessary one. If we do not include the present in our studies in the past, we will become irrelevant and lose our place in the academy...a process already underway in some quarters. Only by showing the folk with the purse strings that we're important enough to keep around will we be kept around, and since we can't bring in that many grants etc, being relevant to our students, the larger culture, and our local academic communities is our only option: and reading papers at popular culture sessions is one way to do that. So, there's both quality and necessity in such sessions.

One final point on this issue: if people, medievalists, were not interested in popular culture as whole and medievalisms these sessions wouldn't be proposed, wouldn't have readers, and wouldn't be attended. But all three are happening and happening in greater numbers at Kalamazoo with each passing year bearing very loud testimony that many a medievalist is interested! Not all are, and that's fine, but let's not devolve to calling it less scholarly, less worthy, of less quality simply because the topic is not of interest.

There is one real problem with Kalamazoo: the attitude that "its just Kalamazoo" and so therefore one needn't have a done paper or a good paper....but that attitude doesn't last. You see, anyone who is a graduate student with this attitude will quickly learn within a year or two that it does matter: one develops a reputation rather quickly and it doesn't take too many bombs before your first impression is made on your older colleagues and you will fight like the dickens to change that. Oh, a student with this persistent attitude may keep it through grad school and may land a TT job and even earn tenure reading bad papers at some medieval conference. But make no mistake: I've known several who seem oblivious to the fact that they've earned a reputation for shoddiness. I don't do all this work so I can have such a reputation. I doubt most others do either...always exceptions of course. Point is, that yes, more graduate students participate now than in the 70s, 80s, etc. and some of these grads and young scholars have an attitude that their session is unlikely to be attended, so what does it matter if they are still writing on the train/plane or even while at the conference? What does it matter if its not a good paper? Its a line on the CV, that's good, and no one will care. Well, word does get around, and it does matter.....let me tell you all a story in the best medieval homiletic tradition.

I've never had the attitude that it doesn't matter. But I have been guilty of reading a bad paper at K'zoo. At the time I proposed the paper, I had already read the obscure text I was working on, and knew where I was going. But in the intervening months I just had no time to work on it...after all there was always time until Kalamazoo, right? Until of course the beginning of May came and I hadn't written much. "But I should be alright" I reasoned. After all, my session won't be of interest to many, its after lunch and people will be late, and I'm the first paper. So I relaxed: even though my paper was incomplete and not very good, I should get through without much embarrassment. To my horror and surprise four of the biggest names working in the field to which my obscure text was related. They sat in the front row. They watched me crash and burn. And crash and burn I did. The lesson: NEVER EVER take for granted that no one will take in your bad work at a conference and that word doesn't get around. I've had to work triply hard to get those four scholars to even look at anything else I've done because of that, which makes doing work in that obscure, subfield extremely difficult. It matters. Bad papers at Kalamazoo can and do affect your future reputation. So let that be a lesson to you.

Back to the question: do these grad students affect the overall quality of Kalamazoo? No. Again the numbers of grad students with that attitude pales in comparison to the number of scholars and grad students without it who read solid papers, even good and great papers, at the conference. Besides, the Kalamazoo conference is a great place for professionalizing these graduate short the future of the profession rests on conferences like this rather than on grad student conferences like Vagantes (sorry, I just don't think specifically grad student conferences are helpful in the long run; perhaps in the short run, but I've a longer view perhaps being ancient and all).

Well, that's probably enough to answer the majority of objections. Eve did ask some specific questions and in Part the Second I'll address my take on those questions.