 |
| image courtesy of WHP library |
A committee of administrators at MU is exploring new models that could support scholarly communication in new ways that take advantage of changing technology, Provost Brian Foster said.
"Technological changes have turned media up on their head, and that's turning scholarly communication on its head," he said. "It's more than publishing a book; it's a much broader change."
Communication, he said, is "central to successful research, but given how the system is in such fundamental change, we just don't know where it's going."
Now I'm all for "tak[ing] advantage of changing technology," and admire universities such as UVA and Nebraska, to name just two, that have managed to move into the digital arena while maintaining strong traditional presses. But this doesn't strike me as a bold move into a new era of scholarly publishing; instead, I suspect it's another case of a university being unwilling to support research activities that are revenue-neutral or modestly costly, as opposed to those that generate a profit (or at least a perceived one; administrative costs seem to do a pretty good job of eating up much of such "profits").
There's a facebook group protesting the closure. Frank Donoghue rightly points out in the Chronicle's Innovations blog that digital isn't cost-free, either. And The Little Professor has some follow-up comments on the rising costs of monographs (I suspect Archie would say he gets all his u press books in exchange for serving as a reviewer, and that's a fine way to solve the problem on an individual basis, but it's not much help for the every-increasing underpaid, research-time-deprived contingent army, nor for those at institutions with limited library budgets). 'Tis not an easy nut to crack, but somehow I don't think "first we kill all the presses" is a good place to start.
It will be interesting to see if, over time, the same administrators who are cutting back on university presses will also be willing to grant tenure and promotion to junior faculty who can't get a book contract in the shrinking world of academic publishing.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time as presses are shutting down and faculty are being asked to teach larger classes and more classes, research and publication requirements are remaining steady or even increasing. Also, the presses that are still going are accepting fewer and fewer manuscripts, and the scholarly journals, in some cases, are so swamped with articles that, even if your work gets accepted there's often a lead time of up to two years between acceptance and publication. Everyone talks about the brave new world of electronic publications, but how many T&P committees, deans, and provosts actually take electronic publication seriously when considering faculty members for advancement.
You say that as if they will be granting tenure and promotion to anybody in the future. Why should it matter if the junior faculty can't get a book contract if they're only going to be adjuncts forever?
DeleteI'm afraid MD is right. The lack of publishing opportunities ("real" publishing, not electronic) will be taken by administrators as an excellent excuse to not grant tenure. It is another nail in the coffin of TT and a brick in the magical road to universal adjunct status.
DeleteApparently, there is money to be made in publishing scholarly journals. A professor in my field, quit his job at the university and is now editing several journals and running conferences all over the world, so that academics can present their articles in sunny, exotic locales.
ReplyDelete