Saturday 12 Sep 2009

Blogging, SBL affiliation, and academic respectability

22 comments Christopher Heard | blogging, professional societies

22 Responses to “Blogging, SBL affiliation, and academic respectability”

1. on 12 Sep 2009 at 5:51 pm   Christopher Heard
   
   

   As a footnote, I’m pleased to report that the RTP Committee voted in favor of promoting or tenuring J, on the strength of J’s excellent teaching evaluations, the publication of J’s dissertation, and J’s contributions to several journals in J’s field. The committee simply ignored the blog, realizing that the “SBL Affiliate” badge held no actual implication of endorsement by the Society or even of quality control. Having judged J highly by other means, the committee assumed that J’s blog would probably be quite good, but obviously that assumption could not then be used to inform the committee’s decision. Congratulations to J, at any rate, on the outcome.

2. on 12 Sep 2009 at 6:53 pm   robert r. cargill
   
   

   chris,

   this is a straw man.

   this is just as silly as a hypothetical scholar who argues that despite the fact that he has no peer-reviewed articles and no critical publications, he should receive tenure because he gave some great papers in the ‘semiotics’ section at sbl annual meetings.

   you are framing the argument against biblioblogging, but the same argument could be made for any sbl section. if a blog is worthwhile, it should become an article in a refereed journal. i can point to a litany of papers i’ve written and presented at the annual meeting, but any university worth their salt will reserve tenure for publications in refereed journals, critical books, teaching evaluations, collegiality, etc.

   who on earth asks for tenure based on their blogs? is that how tenure is granted at pepperdine?

   your entire argument above is nothing more than a straw man.

3. on 12 Sep 2009 at 6:56 pm   James F. McGrath
   
   

   This is a brilliant post, but I’m glad you added the follow-up, because I think that is indeed what would happen. But to the extent that a blog shows one to be an obnoxious ranter (or cat-hater), if anyone on the tenure committee looked at it, it could still be a liability. And to the extent that a university wants faculty to address a wider public, it could have value.

   Presumably to the extent that scholars leave you appreciative comments, one could slip them into an appendix of the tenure dossier – it probably couldn’t hurt, unless you have a dean who despises blogs on principle.

4. on 12 Sep 2009 at 7:06 pm   jim
   
   

   if a committee is so worried about your blog or facebook page or whatever rather than what you can contribute to the faculty and the students, do you really want to go there? it sounds to me like if one wants a vaunted position one shouldnt blog at all. or express any opinion about anything. or publish a paper because someone might disagree with it.

5. on 12 Sep 2009 at 7:31 pm   Mark Goodacre
   
   

   Enjoyable post, Chris, but inclined to agree with the detractors. At best blogs provide “added value”. They are never going to be part of any serious tenure review or hiring process, with or without the SBL affiliate badge. I have always maintained that if you do the internet stuff, you have to do *all* the other stuff as well, at least as well as everyone else does it. RTP’s questions in the scenario above are quite right — I’d ask them too.

   Incidentally, I have had a couple of students reference my blog in essays and on each occasion I have thanked them for the reference and pointed out to them that they can find the ideas in question in my published work too.

6. on 12 Sep 2009 at 7:32 pm   Christopher Heard
   
   

   Bob, if my argument is made of straw (notice how deftly I avoided the sexist bias of assuming that my argument is male), why have so many bloggers said precisely that what they value about the Biblioblogger/SBL affiliation is that recognition by the SBL lends academic respectability? (Okay, some have used the word “legitimacy.”)

7. on 12 Sep 2009 at 7:38 pm   Christopher Heard
   
   

   Mark, it’s precisely because I agree with you about the “internet stuff” that I don’t want anybody (I’m thinking especially about younger scholars in our field) to think that having the SBL affiliate badge will somehow make their blog pay higher status dividends than it already does.

8. on 12 Sep 2009 at 7:38 pm   Christopher Heard
   
   

   Jim, your ability to misread never ceases to amaze me. The whole point of the scenario is that the committee ignored the blog …

9. on 12 Sep 2009 at 7:51 pm   John Anderson
   
   

   Chris:

   Very interesting (and amusing) read, especially given I have a slew of job apps out there right now and assume that in the age of google some will find my blog.

   It is my hope that my blog will continue to be not only a networking tool but always, and only, an extension of my research. My blog is NOT on my CV, nor do I think it should be. But as an extension of things, I am quite happy with it.

   I also think a simple look at any given blog will allow one to judge fairly quickly (although this is still highly subjective, of course) the level of acumen and respectability of that blog. For instance, my CV is clearly present on my blog. 98% of my posts now are on academic topics, and very intentionally so. And if you go to my blog you can see I have interviewed Walter Brueggemann, and have several other seminal scholars in the field of HB/OT lined up to do interviews as well. An interview with someone the calibre of Brueggemann reads a bit different than, say, several posts a day about “total depravity.”

   What role will my blog play in my (hopeful) hiring? I don’t know. I am hopeful it will be viewed positively and as precisely what it is, an extension of (but not replacement of) my scholarship . . . . and little more than that.

10. on 12 Sep 2009 at 7:52 pm   robert r. cargill
    
    

    chris, you are a man, so i chose the male gender. had a female bloggers framed an easily refutable argument, i’d have called it a ‘straw woman.’

11. on 12 Sep 2009 at 7:52 pm   jim
    
    

    which was my point as well. you’re simply misreading me.

12. on 12 Sep 2009 at 7:59 pm   robert r. cargill
    
    

    btw chris,

    i went to your pepperdine faculty page:
    http://seaver.pepperdine.edu/religion/facultystaff/member.htm?facid=christopher_heard

    i noticed the following section on your website:

    Key Awards/**Affiliations**:

    Seaver Fellow in Religion, 2005-2006
    Armstrong Fellow in Religion, 2004-2005
    Member, Society of Biblical Literature
    Member, Catholic Biblical Association
    Member, National Association of Professors of Hebrew
    Chair, Hebrew Bible Section, Western Commission for the Study of Religion

    it seems you’re not as opposed to ‘affiliations’ as you claim…

13. on 12 Sep 2009 at 7:59 pm   Christopher Heard
    
    

    How am I misreading you, Jim? If I understand you correctly, your goal is to create a framework by which bloggers can have a dedicated program unit at the SBL Annual Meeting. I have some doubts/concerns about that, chiefly that I’d rather have bloggers gaining exposure through the Computer Assisted Research Section than shuffling off into their own corner.

    A number of bloggers other than you have touted increased “respectability” or “legitimacy” for blogs as an effect of the affiliation. I don’t think the tag will actually pay that dividend.

14. on 12 Sep 2009 at 8:06 pm   Nathan C
    
    

    It’s not that the above hypothetical professor is denied tenure due to his blogging, but membership in this society of bloggers has no added value for “J” either.

    Saying that blogging should not be the sole factor considered when promoting a professor seems obvious – not to mention missing the point completely.

    I’m sure professors seeking tenure/promotion would be better served simply by inviting the RTP committee (and their peers at large) to read their blog and decide for themselves whether it shows a previously unrecognized form of valid scholarly expression.

15. on 12 Sep 2009 at 8:38 pm   Christopher Heard
    
    

    Bob, you know as well as I do that Pepperdine’s internal promotion process requests that sort of information. Of course I’m not opposed to membership in professional organizations any more than I’m opposed to membership in squash clubs. But the main point is to what end such affiliation is put. Those memberships don’t say anything about the academic quality of my work; they do say that I try to maintain an active interest in what else is going on in my field. Period. The tags can’t do any more work than that.

    And I never said I opposed “affiliation” in the abstract. I just don’t think this affiliation will have the payoffs some seem to think it will have.

16. on 12 Sep 2009 at 10:11 pm   Carl Flynn
    
    

    One of the larger questions that I see from a library perspective (which is where I am working right now) is the future of juried, print journals. With the turn in the economy, many university libraries are cutting back on subscriptions to print journals in favor of electronic resources available in “bundles” from vendors (more bang for your buck). Many journals produced by academic societies (SBL excluded) are not in these bundles. If this shift away from print by the libraries is significant, it will quickly impact circulation of these journals. If circulation is impacted, then that could raise the question about the mode of “publishing” for the journal. Can an online journal maintain the same academic credibility as traditional print journals? How will this medium fly with RTP committees? What is the relative distance, between a professional blog that publishes ideas in conversation with other scholars and a journal published online? Further, the “hard” sciences are finding that the time to publication in print slows research. The humanities still seem to be wed to the classic, juried print journal format. This approach “shackles” the latest research for several months in the editorial process. Electronic publishing gets the ideas out there more quickly and can still have the same, basic checks as a print journal. This shift to electronic publishing closes the “virtual” gap between the juried journal and the academic blog. Question is, how far are we from this point on the digital horizon? Or will the humanities, biblical studies/theology in particular, cling to the printed page with its last breath?

17. on 13 Sep 2009 at 5:30 am   Bryan L
    
    

    Chris:
    Do you think there’s a danger of someone trying to pad their resume with papers they presented or sessions they chaired at the biblioblogging session of SBL?

    I don’t know how hard it is to get a paper accepted to present at the annual SBL meeting (or even the regional ones) but is it possible someone will try to get papers in through the back door, through the biblioblogging group, if it’s too difficult for them through the front door or through other more notable groups? Do people already do this with other groups at SBL?

    I think it’s been noted in the past that there are way too many subgroups at the SBL now and how maybe that affects the quality of some of the papers since so many subgroups means there is less direct competition. Is that a potential problem with creating a biblioblogging group since there is already a computer assisted research section as you noted?

    Bryan L

18. on 13 Sep 2009 at 10:09 am   Shawn
    
    

    Chris;
    Unlike the others I agree with you that this “officilization” step is problematic.
    I am a PhD student who had a blog and deleted it, mostly since it was too time consuming but also to avoid the type of situation you illustrated.
    Others may want to consider that the fictional account you gave has already occurred in different manifestations.
    One has to be very careful of this new territory (which many of the bloggers do well). If one decides to blog, they should be prepared to be judged on that material in an interview, but should not expect it to count for anything significant.

19. on 13 Sep 2009 at 10:16 pm   Christopher Heard
    
    

    Bryan, I’m not really worried about resume padding. Given the type of program foci that Chris Brady and Mark Goodacre have projected in their comments on blogger sessions at the SBL meeting, I don’t think poor work will get through. I don’t think Jim and the rest will allow the session to degenerate into Yet Another Open Session that happens to be populated mainly by bloggers.

    My chief concern is this whole thing about “academic respectability.” I just don’t think that the affiliation has one of the benefits that I’ve seen quite a few bloggers tout.

    And I do worry a bit that creating a separate session for bloggers will dilute bloggers’ participation in other units, if only for that one session’s time slot. It’s not an issue of quality (to me), but of diluting the audience. I think that bloggers could probably gain more of an audience by working through CARS rather than separately. But admittedly, that is just a guess.

20. on 13 Sep 2009 at 10:20 pm   Michael
    
    

    I’m happy “J” got tenure.

    But what I’m curious about is: how did “J” continue the conversation with the student?

    (Chris: I’ve enjoyed your discussions on pedagogy. How about a new series of posts on helping students develop critical evaluation?)

21. on 14 Sep 2009 at 8:12 am   Bryan Bibb
    
    

    I think where folks diverge is in the definition of academic “respectability” or “legitimacy.” No one would seriously argue that their blogging should be considered alongside or equal to their peer-reviewed output. However, one might argue that blogging is in the same category as public lectures and teaching, paper editorials, curriculum writing, and other kinds of applied scholarship. This might show up in professional activity or in “service,” depending on how the RTP form is set up. I would argue that this is an essential component of biblical studies in the world in which we live, and as a member of the RTP committee, I would hope to see such engagement.

    The respectability I would like to see enhanced is that of the platform itself as a means to communicate with other scholars and with the general public, legitimacy within the professional alongside more traditional publishing and collaboration mechanisms. I am convinced that the SBL and the guild in general should do more to reach out to the larger world. And when I say “guild,” I mean “us.” If a session at SBL would help people take this task seriously (and think about how best to do it), then I’m in favor.

    I deplore the instrumental thinking that has gripped pre-tenure faculty, perhaps understandably. I insist on making value judgments based on the worth of the activity, not on how it benefits me in an institutional context.

22. on 14 Sep 2009 at 8:42 am   Christopher Heard
    
    

    Bryan (Bibb), I agree with you about “where to put blogging on your CV,” and that’s exactly what I’ve been doing for several years. The SBL Affiliate tag makes no difference in this respect.

    As for SBL sessions, the proof is in the pudding, and we won’t know for a while.

Leave a Reply

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website