Terrors of Traditionalism
Why is this an important issue? Why not simply add "electronic
publishing" to the litany of artifacts that one might produce as part of
the scholarly process? After all, creative productions such as videos, plays and
other such productions--already already "count" in promotion within the fine and performing
arts.
That may be a partial answer, as we will note later, but
unfortunately, the attitude is not yet that open and receptive to even
simple addition. Lisa Guernsey (1997) notes:
As candidates for jobs and
promotions stock their portfolios with Internet-related accomplishments,
many evaluation committees are skeptical. Behind closed doors, committee
members are asking questions that betray equal parts confusion and
suspicion. Should a candidate's Internet project count? Is it teaching,
scholarship, or service? Does editing an electronic journal require the
same kind of rigor as editing a print journal? Who is refereeing all this
stuff, anyway (p. 21).
Guernsey goes on
to profile experiences of academics who have found that their colleagues
are not comfortable with the prospect of evaluating such work. For
example, Dr. Kenneth Morell, working on the Perseus Project at St. Olaf's College, found that his
colleagues did not value his time on-line. He left St. Olafs in 1993 for
Rhodes College, where his work was and is encouraged. John M. Unsworth's
work as editor of the on-line journal Postmodern Culture
"had to
fight for tenure" at the University of Virginia. Leslie Harris reports
leaving a tenure-track position for an administrative position in part
because, as part of a third-year review of his work, which included
on-line journal articles and other "traditional" research publications,
his Department Chair "explained fairly well how the . . . review
committee responded . . . :
Two of the authors of this piece have, themselves, faced such
an issue in the past year. While on-line work, some of which could be
placed in both "research" and "service" categories, would sometimes "open
the door" to interviews they nonetheless noted a reticence on the part of
committee members to evaluate these works in the same light as they would
"published" material, despite the potential of on-line "publication" to
reach a worldwide audience.
