A Progressive View Emerges --
How Progressive Is It, Really?
In response to this issue, in 1996, the Modern Language
Association published its own guidelines for evaluating on-line
scholarship. This is one move forward in offering a supportive rationale
for faculty wishing to have their work evaluated on its own merits,
irrespective of the issue of where it is located or how it is formatted.
This action followed their 1993 adoption of a Statement on Computer
Support which notes: "Generating, gathering, and analyzing texts electronically is
becoming a necessity for all education, especially for the contributions
made by the humanities."
The relevant passage reflecting the spirit of their approach is as follows:
Computer related work, like other forms of curricular innovation,
scholarship, and service, should be evaluated as an integral part of a
faculty member's dossier, as specified in an institution's guidelines for
reappointment, promotion, and tenure. Faculty members are responsible for
making a case for the value of their projects, articulating the
intellectual assumptions underlying their work, and documenting their
time and effort. In particular, faculty members expecting recognition for
computer-related work should ensure that their projects remain compatible
with departmental needs, as well as with criteria for reappointment,
tenure, and promotion.
This is all well and good, but does not address the critical issues
that are implied in the way the guidelines are formatted. Note that it is
the faculty member's responsibility. . . that is consistent with
traditional expectations. But there is a significant difference between
electronic and traditional forms in illustrating "the evidence of rigor."
One assumes, at the outset, that electronic publication is print material
produced by another means. That may well be the case, but need not be.
Conventional standards of rigor may not be as clearly evidenced in an
electronic format. In fact, as Walker notes in
reference to the MLA: "the guidelines make it clear that 'the criteria
for evaluating computer-related work will be based on existing criteria
and the traditional categories.' " If this is the case, then little force
is exerted to prompt change in the way electronic publication evolves, or
is evaluated as "respectable scholarship" by those in charge.
