February 21, 2005
Reachng Critical Mass
Nate says he is continuing to pick on me by commenting on my posts. I am just glad to have one person who has a passing interest in what I am rambling about on here! Let's jump back into the discussion, which spans a couple of posts:
Now, this only works if a significant number of us engaged in the field are actually reading and writing...
Yes! That is part of my point exactly. And when do we know we have reached that point? According to the latest Pew study, 7% of Americans blog. Is that critical mass? If we had 7% of AECT members blogging, would it be enough? If it is just the two of us, I am not sure we are there (I believe this one is a no-brainer).
From Nate's earlier post
And the "current peer-review/journal system for research dissemination" has already broken down. Society hasn’t caught up with that yet.
And, from his more recent post"
Blog engines COULD (and SHOULD) replace current juried research publication.
Is this similar to the paperless office?? I think we need to make sure we avoid what Collins and Porras call, "the tyranny of the or." Let's think in terms of and, rather than traditional publishing or blogging. Many possibilities exist, we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. However, I agree that journals are going to have to evolve in order to remain relevant.
Posted by Rovy at February 21, 2005 4:52 AM
Comments
It's not about critical mass. It's about significant involvement. It's about identity. I'm getting much more involvement from people who are NOT members of AECT -- what does that say about AECT's position in the field?
The full reply is over on CogDiss.
Thanks, Rovy. Talk to ya soon.
Posted by: nate at February 21, 2005 9:50 AM