Why is this problematic? While we respect the concerns of those who counsel caution before we run headlong into the electronic maelstrom, it is problematic simply because the electronic environment is different. As we have learned, when disparate qualities such as computer-mediated production, the blurred distinction between author and reader, and the enhanced opportunity for revision are lumped into the mix of traditional texts, the definition of those texts is fundamentally challenged--and forever changed--by these new categories. After all, an electronic document is pliable; it can be altered and reproduced without concern for "author's intent." It can cease to exist due to an electronic surge. Moreover, it need not be subject to traditional editorial gatekeeping. Ultimately, though, the fundamental challenge with this format is its non-linearity. Traditional texts are linear in that they may be read in a limited number of ways. As such, they may be judged in a limited number of ways. Electronic texts are built according to intersections, not planes (if one accepts a geometrical metaphor). In Landow's (1992) terms, "this new information technology has the power to reconfigure our cultures basic assumptions about textuality, authorship, creative property, education, and a range of other issues" (p. 32). Among those issues is that of judging scholarly merit of work published in an environment that differs radically from the traditional print-based culture.
A second reason this is problematic relates more to process than to product. When the first author of this "editorial" was reviewed for tenure, the majority of those on the review committee were not "publishing scholars" -- they had been tenured under an older system which valued their contribution in teaching and cared little for whether scholarship was a part of their professional lives. To have one's scholarship viewed by those for whom, in terms of their scholarly credentials as reviewers, one had little respect, was part and parcel of the "promotion system" as late as the early seventies. That is no longer the case across most of the academy, as these older faculty have since retired. Jacques Leslie (1994) states:
This picture is in some senses replicated for those now completing graduate studies and seeking jobs in the academy - as in the case of the co-authors of this piece. Their experience, as they undergo hiring and eventual reviews of their performance, may well be that they are evaluated by a core of tradition-minded faculty who, as noted earlier, view the new-fangled ways of doing scholarship with suspicion. Many will be very active in mainstream publishing, but will not accede to countenance new approaches to the dissemination of ideas with anything like receptiveness or openness. For this reason, if no other, even standards for incorporating electronic publication as "more of the same" will not suffice. There is nothing in the MLA Guidelines which informs a faculty that change should be made -- especially not when the candidate is advised to discern what the criteria are, what the likelihood of success will be if one elects to publish in an electronic environment, and whether the colleagues will accord work with respect. If that is the case, the experiences already recounted may yet continue until another generation of faculty retires. More to the point, if the criteria simply continue the same methods of evaluation, extended to another domain, much of what is now done electronically will be given a "no pass" designation by review committees.