February 12, 2011

Daniel Lende: "You can read this blog for free"

Daniel Lende over at Neuroanthropology has a new post about some of the possibilities for anthropology. He talks about some of the recent PR controversies that took place within the field, and how this is illustrative of some of the primary issues and challenges that anthropologists face these days. We are, it seems, at a bit of a crossroads. And it's probably about time to move away from some of the old models and explore new ways of not only doing anthropology, but also publishing and disseminating anthropology. My favorite part of the post is when Lende talks about the contrast between old school publishing models (which lock up information behind expensive subscriptions) and some of the new possibilities:
The Nature commentary by Adam Kuper and Jonathan Marks is behind a paywall. It costs $32 to buy, unless you have institutional access. Ulf Hannerz’s article in American Anthropologist, which Greg drew on extensively in writing about diversity as anthropology’s brand, is available either through institutional access or by joining the American Anthropological Association. The cheapest AAA membership costs $70. You can read this blog for free (my emphasis).
That last line is a beauty. The point, as I see it, isn't to do away with journals, but instead to realize that the publication models are severely limiting. If we are all about the dissemination of anthropological analysis, concepts, and ideas to wider audiences, how is that supposed to happen if all of the latest research sits behind a subscription wall? The irony of course is that there is still a fairly skeptical view among THE ACADEMY about online publishing. Many question whether or not REAL RESEARCH can be published online. I mean, is it possible? However, I have recently run a complex experiment and come to the conclusion that yes, all 26 letters of the English alphabet do show up on screen, so it is indeed possible to publish real, valuable, and important work online. The only thing stopping this is a lack of either interest or desire. So it goes. As Lende points out:
A negative view of writing online (i.e., blogging) and a closed view of knowledge production (i.e., through institutional access or society membership) is still predominant in anthropology.
It's funny, when you think about. Or, at least, when I think about it. Anthropologists are doing all sorts of cutting edge, timely, and fascinating research. So why is our publishing model and ideology so....well...stale? The good thing is that people like Lende, Greg Downey, the folks at the OAC (Open Anthropology Cooperative), Max Forte, the Savage Minds crew, John Hawks, John Postill, Colleen Morgan, and a slew of others are indeed messing with the boundaries. Who knows? Maybe, at some point, more people outside of the academic world will actually know what anthropologists are up to.

Here's another good section from Lende's post:
Online media, not just writing, is an incredible way to reach the public. Michael Wesch, a cultural anthropologist who became interested in new media and teaching after doing his doctoral work in Papua New Guinea, work with his students to create a video, A Vision of Students Today. It has been viewed 4,136,850 times. That is an incredible impact.

And open access? Take PLoS One. It was founded in 2006, and covers research in science and medicine. In five years, it became the world’s largest journal. That is incredible success. One of its more technical journals, PLoS Biology, was founded in 2003, the first of the PLoS journals. It has been the highest impact journal in biology, as ranked by the Institute for Scientific Information. Open access isn’t just viable – it is the way to reach the broadest possible audience and have the greatest scholarly impact.

On Amazon, which came to fame and financial success by selling books online, its #1 product is its Kindle e-reader. Books themselves are going digital. And not just books. Amazon recently launched Kindle Singles, which presents “a compelling idea–well researched, well argued, and well illustrated–expressed at its natural length.” Apple’s iPad offers ways to integrate multi-media features with traditional text. Digital innovation in how we present scholarly material is already happening, and will continue to grow extremely rapidly.

Anthropologists need to go digital – blogging, collaborating, creating, sharing, and disseminating the field online. Blogs, the integration of new media with text, e-publications, and open-access publishing need to be part of how we keep our borderlands discipline healthy and vibrant.

To do otherwise, is to make the field into a marginal borderland, rather than the key meeting place and vibrant area of production the anthropology is today and can be even more so in the future.

Agreed. No need to remain on the borderlands any longer. Time to go push the boundaries and go digital. What's stopping us?

UPDATE: Check out Michael E. Smith's response to this issue: "Anthropologists Urged to Unite Behind Archaic Policies and Technology."

7 comments:

Greg Downey said...

Ryan, I agree wholeheartedly. What's stopping us? Well, I think it's that the people who get it, aren't making decisions about where to take the major flagship publications in our field. The people who are making these decisions, don't get that the landscape is changing under their feet.

When the two come together, somebody's going to clean house. Whichever major journal or organization pulls their head out and puts together a top drawer open access anthropology publication is going to have a blockbuster, I think. They're quite likely to pound traditional publications in our field by all normal measures of impact, citation, readership, etc.

But somebody has to figure out the numbers (budget, viability, etc.) and take the plunge. Whoever does is going to generate enormous goodwill, especially in the generation of up-and-coming anthropologists who get that the publishing landscape is changing.

Then there will be more wailing and gnashing of teeth from the traditional publishers about how they need to extort more money from libraries or professional societies. And then the old publications will either get over it or go away.

At least, that's one possibility... But we won't know until someone tries, and I cannot WAIT for that!

Maximilian C. Forte said...

"Who knows? Maybe, at some point, more people outside of the academic world will actually know what anthropologists are up to."

Interesting comment--I think that I started what became Zero Anthropology precisely when I thought that more people outside of the academic world were being told that what anthropologists do is to join counterinsurgency units in an exercise that Kilcullen called "conflict ethnography" and "armed social science." That is precisely the origin of ZA in fact--you guys went public to recruit anthropologists, then I will go public with a response.

Ryan Anderson said...

@Greg:

"They're quite likely to pound traditional publications in our field by all normal measures of impact, citation, readership, etc."

Ya, I agree. And it'll be great to see too!

"Whoever does is going to generate enormous goodwill, especially in the generation of up-and-coming anthropologists who get that the publishing landscape is changing."

Ya, this is something I think about a lot, since I am in the process of getting certain articles ready to submit--I have several that are at the "pretty close" stage. But sometimes I wonder which direction I want to take things. I really like how the OAC is publishing things. Overall the only way to change things is to do it.

"At least, that's one possibility... But we won't know until someone tries, and I cannot WAIT for that!"

You and me both. Thanks for the comment Greg.

Ryan Anderson said...

@Max:

The irony is that few people had heard of many anthropologists outside of...who...Margaret Mead? And then the whole HTS "armed social science" things crops up and THAT'S what the general public thinks anthropology is all about!

"That is precisely the origin of ZA in fact--you guys went public to recruit anthropologists, then I will go public with a response."

Ya, and I'm glad you did. In fact, I refer people to your site all the time. Rather than sit back and lament the public perception of anthropology (in this case as a ready order ethnographic service for the military) it's good that you actually took an active role in defining what "anthropology" is all about in your eyes. IMO we need more of that. Anthropologists should be the ones defining what the discipline is all about these days - even if there is disagreement and debate. Much better than the head in the sand approach, if you ask me.

Thanks for the comment, Max.

wrobertangell@gmail.com said...

hi Ryan,
just found your blog, tried reading through this post but it's a bit over my head, so will refrain from a relevant comment but rather to say thanks for thinking so deeply about things that i am sure are very important. i am going to peruse your links and try and get myself a bit more educated on the subjects, and maybe weigh in at a later date.
but for now i hope all is well and 2011 is going according to plan.

Ryan Anderson said...

hey robert! thanks for the comment. glad you found my site again!!!

Anthea said...

I think that something is going to happen and it's probably in development now. Why? Well, it's abundantly clear that high quality and validated content is going to be the driving force behind why people decide to even buy a subscription for one of these paywalled sites. People are always suspect about free stuff especially given that there's so much of it. I think that the key thing is to establish a brand/name (dare I say this since I sound quite corporate) that people recognise and know indicates high quality and trustworthy content. People will pay a small sum but balk at a large sum such as the AAA since that's an awful lot of money for just one subscription and you don't really know if you're going to be interested in all of it. I think that people may not have as much money as in previous years so they are consequently determined to pay for the 'quality' of the content and not just for 'quantity'. Large quanities of content doens't mean that it (a) interests you or (b) is refereed...ie you can trust it for your own work. Just some thoughts.