Conclusion

      This review of the tradition and its challenges concludes with a hopeful optimism - that the answers to the question, "what counts" will not only incorporate electronic publications, but will do so in a manner that goes beyond an "add and stir" mentality. As in the case of writing women into the historical tradition (Ballif, 1992) nothing changes if we only transfer contemporary standards into new arenas. The arrogance that accompanies such a transfer, as if the final word has been said on who and how research is evaluated, is not lost on these authors. It should not be lost on the academy.

      The imperative, then, for the communication discipline, is to consider the kinds of research being done, and to enter into a spirited, at times raucous, discussion of the standards or guidelines to be recommended. In this process, it will not be enough for the "respected scholars" in the discipline to involve themselves in this review; rather, it will take a group as diverse as the discipline, including untenured as well as tenured, to arrive at anything resembling a consensus that will "stick" once approved. We have not sought, in this review, to provide definitive answers. Rather, we have attempted to tease out some of the relevant issues.

      Beyond this, we will suggest some actions that might be taken to carry the conversation forward

      • First, we would propose that the communication discipline undertake a discussion of the issues involved; while tenure decisions are the clear purview of faculty at individual institutions, the discipline can and should follow the lead set by the MLA and APA in facilitating the discussion of standards.

      • Second, or those currently on Promotion and Tenure Committees, and for those seeking to gain entry into such hallowed, generate discussion with departmental, college and university colleagues about the standards you believe are appropriate, and consistent with the qualitative difference that on-line scholarship represents. Once standards are in place, and one presumes that the untenured faculty across the institution have been consulted on their formation, make sure the operative criteria for assessing on-line scholarship are clear.

      • Third, untenured faculty engaging in such scholarship, in the absence of clear guidelines, may wish to consider collaborating with others, untenured and tenured, in the production and review of online scholarship. Educating those unfamiliar with the medium by involving them may go a long way towards facilitating clearer guidelines for future tenure review.

      While the above initiates a process view toward the issues, what should be considered as relavant substantive topics? At the very least, what we hope to have made clear is that the review needs to move beyond an "add and stir" approach, and will need to consider not only those procedures and practices that are known and comfortable to many, but also those procedures and practices that are just beginning to be exercised within the academy. These includes, but are not limited to, the manner of handling the review process as well as how "influence" is determined with respect to the qualitative judgment of an essays merit. It is our hope that the "talking points" raised previously will also serve as reference points for such a discussion. We have not seen the last of change; nor should we limit or constrain ourselves to approving only that with which we have grown comfortable. Conventions are just that, as Bach, Blair, Nothstine, and Pym (1996) eloquently remind us. We need to remember that we didn't always value scholarship according to the standards now in place, and that these standards are not sacrosanct with respect to what may be in place in one hundred years.

      References

          Raymie E. McKerrow is a Professor in Ohio University's School of Interpersonal Communication. Andrew F. Wood is an assistant professor in San José State University's Communication Studies department. Matthew J. Smith, an Ohio University doctoral candidate, is a visiting professor at Miami University-Hamilton. The contribution of each of the authors to this essay is equal.




      Back Forward