Blogging, scientists, humanists, and complexity
Stephen over at Blogging Alone mentions Sébastien Paquet's reasons why blogging has failed to become a widely accepted research tool among academia. I disagree with nearly all of these reasons. Below is the list of reasons and my thoughts based on my own experiences:
1. It takes time.
All research and information sharing takes time, but yet it continues in so many ways. I know very few research scholars unwilling to do anything simply because it 'takes time'
2. The technology is not well-established and tested at this point.
Since when is Blogging a technology heavy solution? It is more a social phenomenon and paradigm shift that in the end will be technology agnostic.
3. Many people don't like being among the first ones doing something.
Silly, silly, silly. This is a population-general statement and does not support the hypothesis regarding research and academia.
4. Not all scholars are used to the Web and hypertext.
I would say that most scholars are. This is no longer 1994.
5. Shyness and fear of public mistakes.
We are talking about scholars aren't we?
6. Many scholars won't write unless they have to.
The scholars I know, all they do is write, that is how they communicate.
7. They may especially be reluctant to publicly expose ideas that they haven't tested.
A huge vast majority of scholarly ideas are untested - especially within the social sciences. Scholars within the social sciences have the most to benefit from a Blog culture - it will provide them another forum in which to expose ideas outside the circle of pure scholars.
8. Fear that someone else will pick up their ideas and work them out before they do.
This is a legitimate reason. [Superfluous Man]
I think this reply and this earlier one highlight the cultural difference between the social sciences and "science" that would be worth exploring. I have a "science" background. In this world, it would seem that there is more pressure for conformity. People are much more concerned about making mistakes in public and about doing things in non-traditional ways. For instance, it is far easier to publish work that follows a time-honored template, even when the template is arguably inadequate for the problem at hand, than to push forth an innovative methodology.
Perhaps you could put it this way: scientists think of themselves as producers of reliable results, while social scientists see themselves as producers of tentative ideas. But this is an overgeneralization. Many theoreticians such as physicist David Mermin produce (very interesting) ideas, not results.
I think the difference boils down to whether you're working inside a paradigm (what Kuhn calls normal science) or are busy trying to work out appropriate paradigms for a particular object of study. The latter kind of people spend little time in a lab and more time arguing, so maybe they're better prepared for blogging.
But as science is increasingly diving into complex problems, growing numbers of scientists question the adequacy of the dominant paradigm or methodology in their particular discipline. Scientists gone meta. Third culture. Those oddballs are the ones I expect to start blogging. (By the way, if you're reading this, somehow recognize yourself and haven't yet started blogging, now is a perfect time to begin.)
By the way, googling for "normal science" I found this really interesting page on post-normal science which suggests a possible middle ground between the labcoats and the latte drinkers. The business world in some ways would look like the most fertile soil for such a brand of science. Don't you think?
 8:21:30 AM
|
