Mp
On 8 Dec 2015 12:08 pm, "PHD- automatic digest system" <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> There are 9 messages totaling 885 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. Digital platforms and design practices (2)
>   2. Unfrozen – First SDN Design Research Winter Summit, January 28-31,
2016 -
>      registration now open
>   3. CFP Future Anterior Olfaction and Preservation 22 February 2016
>   4. Full, Associate or Assistant Professor in Design, The University of
Texas
>      at Austin
>   5. Why Are We Not Boycotting Academia.edu? (4)
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 7 Dec 2015 08:01:51 +0200
> From:    Cindy Kohtala <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Digital platforms and design practices
>
> Hello Sandra,
>
> The Open Knowledge Foundation has a Working Group on Open Design and
> Open Hardware.
> http://design.okfn.org
>
> There is an email list for practitioners and researchers working with
> 'open design' - it may be a good place to discuss.
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
>
> Warmest regards
> Cindy Kohtala
> Doctoral candidate, Aalto University School of Arts, Design and
Architecture
> Helsinki, Finland
>
>
> On 5 December 2015 at 21:54, Sandra Bermudez <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > After setting the basis, I properly focus on the "Digital platforms and
> > design practices" intending to understand the new complexity for design
> > aims and procedures, and "Open: object, tools, processes", on the arise
of
> > two great poles; the close versus the open one. Relating the last one
with
> > open source, free culture, open tools, collaborative procedures,
co-design,
> > crowdsourcing, new models for distribution, platforms for sharing and
so.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 7 Dec 2015 09:51:02 +0100
> From:    Sarah Haug <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Unfrozen – First SDN Design Research Winter Summit, January
28-31, 2016 - registration now open
>
> Unfrozen – First SDN Design Research Winter Summit, January 28-31, 2016
>
> Uncovering gems from the glaciers of design history, exploring the
melting snowcaps
> of design’s changing climate and riding the fresh powder of emerging
trends…
>
> The Swiss Design Network presents 3 days of cutting-edge design research
projects
> at the 9th SDN Symposium and the first SDN Desig Research Winter Summit
at Giessbach Grandhotel.
>
> Keynote speakers, fireside talks, workshops raclette, presentations,
debates and
> waterfalls.
>
> Book your spot next to the fire
> –
>
> registration now open until January 11, 2016
> unfrozen.ch
>
>
> Sarah Haug
>
> Swiss Design Network
> Coordinator
>
> +41 76 616 28 08
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:
[log in to unmask]>
>
> www.swissdesignnetwork.ch <http://www.swissdesignnetwork.ch/>
>
> @sdn_tweets <https://twitter.com/sdn_tweets>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 7 Dec 2015 13:05:22 +0100
> From:    Adam Jasper <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: CFP Future Anterior Olfaction and Preservation 22 February 2016
>
> CFP Future Anterior Olfaction and Preservation 22 February 2016
>
>
> CALL FOR PAPERS
>
> *OLFACTION and Preservation*
>
> Special issue co-edited by Jorge Otero-Pailos and Adam Jasper
>
> Extended Deadline: Monday 22 February 2016
>
>
> Future Anterior publishes essays that explore preservation from
historical,
> theoretical and critical perspectives. For this issue, we seek papers on
> architecture, atmosphere, preservation and the sense of smell. We seek
> scholarly papers that take stock of the recent surge of interdisciplinary
> research on olfaction and speculate on its relevance to the practice of
> preservation.
>
>
> Our technical ability to deodorise and perfume buildings runs in advance
of
> our theoretical understanding. Although the deep relationship between
> olfaction, memory and atmosphere is a trope that extends from Proust to
> neuroscience, the conscious practice of altering odor in order to
influence
> how visitors experience heritage is rarely subject to scholarly scrutiny.
>
>
> The powerful connection between smell, memory, and emotions encouraged
> preservationists to experiment with scenting historic sites in the 1980s.
A
> pioneering example is the Jorvik Viking Center in York, England, designed
> by John Sunderland, who conceptualized smell as a central element of what
> he called “time warp experiences.” Papers may examine the history,
> successes and failures of olfactory design in preservation projects. It is
> now possible to document the smells of contemporary buildings and to
> archive them along with more traditional records such as photographs and
> architectural drawings. At the same time, the scenting of historic sites
> can be, and often is, dismissed as a gimmick. Papers can examine why
> historically smell has been so easily construed as a lure. To what degree
> did the introduction of manufactured smells as part of historic buildings
> reinforce or challenge previous conceptions of preservation? Could current
> knowledge regarding olfaction be used to re-read historical debates about
> the authenticity of buildings?
>
>
> What schemata are available for the categorization of historic smells? The
> language of smell is here a central concern. The description of smells
> proceeds entirely via euphemism. Would it be appropriate to categorize the
> smell of historic buildings according to their visual styles (eg. Gothic,
> Barroque, Neo-classical, Art Deco, Modernist, etc)? Papers might also
> consider the modern pursuit of the well tempered and attractively scented
> environment.
>
>
> Within flavors and fragrance companies, "fragrance wheels"—in which
> families of smells are arranged in an analog of the spectrum of visible
> colors—are often used as mnemonic and communicative devices. Other schemes
> array scents on musical scales, or in n-dimensional space. We also have
> taxonomies of scents from Carl Linnaeus (1756), Zwaardemaker (1895),
> Crocker and Henderson (1927), and Jellinek (1951), amongst many others.
The
> enormous variety of such representations, which may be indispensable in
the
> effective communication of olfactory experience, attests to their current
> insufficiency. What developments are to be expected on this front? Can the
> conventional language of smell be satisfactorily formalized for
> professional preservation use? In recent years, studies of the smells of
> decomposing materials point to a promising new form of non-destructive
> testing for historic architecture, and a new science of “material
> degradomics.” What new possibilities are offered by corpus analysis, data
> mining and other research techniques in the digital humanities in
> determining historical perceptions and theories of smell? How can these
> techniques best be disseminated, applied and critiqued?
>
>
> We also welcome papers that examine the historical intertwining of
> olfaction, atmosphere and urbanism. From the characteristic odors of the
> Renaissance city, through the great stenches of London and Paris in the
> nineteenth century, to the rise in synthetic deodorants in the twentieth,
> the smell of the historical city undergoes change. As Rudolph el-Khoury
> writes in *Polish and Deodorize*, “Urban historians have indeed spoken of
a
> Copernican revolution in the Enlightenment's conception of a city. Beauty,
> once the governing principle of urbanism, is claimed to have been
> overthrown by health, hygiene and physiology”. In particular, the public
> fear of disease engendering miasmas, and more specifically the telluric
> emanations of interior walls, had a significant impact on both urban
> planning and interior architecture. Likewise, even as control over
lighting
> and odor has become ever more standardised, architectural language
> valorising “atmosphere” has gained in prominence. What are the theoretical
> implications of the discussion of atmosphere, and to what extent can it be
> empirically tethered to the history and politics of smell?
>
>
> Future Anterior is a peer-reviewed journal that approaches the field of
> historic preservation from a position of critical inquiry. Future Anterior
> invites papers from scholars from a variety of disciplinary perspectives:
> architectural history, art history, anthropology, archeology, geography,
> chemistry, engineering, philosophy, political science, juridical studies,
> urban studies and planning. A comparatively recent field of professional
> study, preservation often escapes direct academic challenges of its
> motives, goals, forms of practice and results. Future Anterior invites
> contributions that ask these difficult questions from philosophical,
> theoretical, and practical perspectives.
>
>
> Articles submitted for peer review should be no more than 4000 words, with
> up to seven illustrations. Text must be formatted in accordance with the
> Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition. All articles must be submitted in
> English, and spelling should follow American convention. Please let us
know
> via which mailing list or forum you first read the call for papers. Text
> should be saved as Microsoft Word or RTF format, while accompanying images
> should be sent as TIFF files with a resolution of at least 300 dpi at 8”
by
> 9” print size. Figures should be numbered and called out clearly between
> paragraphs in the text. Image captions and credits must be included with
> submissions. It is the responsibility of the author to secure permissions
> for image use and pay any reproduction fees. A brief author biography
> (around 100 words) must accompany the text.
>
>
> For further manuscript guidelines, please visit:
>
> http://www.upress.umn.edu/journals/futureanterior/fa_msguidelines.html
>
>
>
> Acceptance or rejection of submissions is at the discretion of the
editors.
>
>
>
> Please email all submissions to:
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> Questions about submissions can be sent to the above email address or to:
>
> Jorge Otero-Pailos
>
> Founder and Editor, Future Anterior
>
> Jo2050 at columbia dot edu <[log in to unmask]>
>
> or
>
> Adam Jasper, Guest Co-Editor
>
> adamjasper [at] gta.arch.ethz.ch
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:23:18 -0600
> From:    Carma Gorman <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Digital platforms and design practices
>
> I suggest taking a look at Zachary Kaiser & Aviva Kaiser's essay
> "Proliferating Platforms," from *Design and Culture*:
>
http://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84909982293&origin=inward&txGid=13E170A86E49FCDFB34E04BE60EE46AF.zQKnzAySRvJOZYcdfIziQ%3a2
>
>
>
> CARMA GORMAN, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Assistant Chair
> The University of Texas at Austin  |  Department of Art and Art History
> +1 512-471-0901  |  [log in to unmask]
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Sandra Bermudez <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Hi, my name is Sandra Bermúdez and I live and work in Mexico City. I've
> > been following this list for long time ago but this is my first post.
> >
> > I'm graphic designer working on digital products development. I made a
> > master on Design Studies. Currently I'm also working in my thesis
research.
> > The subject is "Digital platforms and design practices" and my goal is
to
> > dig into how our practices and values as designers have been reshaped
> > facing the tecno-social transformation lead by digital platforms.
> >
> > I address the "Smart objects and perpetual connectivity" on how the
gadget
> > as an electronic device of domestic use becomes part of the social
strains
> > (I've found the work of Fiona Raby and Antony Dunne too useful, for
> > example). Onboarding the gadget and the internet as the components which
> > enable a wide range of new scenarios for design and deeply transform the
> > way we work, not only because of the new skills and fields of action,
but
> > also the object itself as a responsive intelligent matter in continuous
> > dialogue with the context and the user (like Bruce Sterling on Shaping
> > things and Paola Antonelli on Talk to me).
> >
> > DUNNE, A. Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience and
> > Critical Design, Londres: RCA CRD Research Publications, Royal College
of
> > Art, 1999
> > STERLING, Bruce. Shaping things. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005
> > ANTONELLI, Paola et al. Talk to Me: Design and the Communication between
> > People and Objects, New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2011
> >
> > After setting the basis, I properly focus on the "Digital platforms and
> > design practices" intending to understand the new complexity for design
> > aims and procedures, and "Open: object, tools, processes", on the arise
of
> > two great poles; the close versus the open one. Relating the last one
with
> > open source, free culture, open tools, collaborative procedures,
co-design,
> > crowdsourcing, new models for distribution, platforms for sharing and
so.
> >
> > LESSIG, Lawrence. Free Culture. Penguin, 2004
> > SENNETT, Richard. Together: the rituals, pleasures, and politics of
> > cooperation, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012
> >
> > I appreciate all kind of feedback, questions and references.
> >
> > Saludos, Sandra.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
> > Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> > Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 7 Dec 2015 09:42:55 -0600
> From:    Carma Gorman <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Full, Associate or Assistant Professor in Design, The University
of Texas at Austin
>
> The University of Texas at Austin
> College of Fine Arts
> Department of Art & Art History
>
> PROFESSOR OF DESIGN, OPEN RANK
> Location: Austin, TX
> Closes: Feb 1, 2016 at 11:59 PM Eastern Time (GMT-5 hours)
>
> The Design Division of the Department of Art and Art History at The
> University of Texas at Austin seeks applications for a tenured or tenure
> track faculty position at the rank of Full, Associate or Assistant
> Professor with an anticipated start date of fall 2016.
> Industry/professional experience in one or more of the following
> specializations is expected: interaction, experience, service, HCI, or
> user-centered design, and/or design methods and strategy. Area of research
> specialization is open, but should complement the expertise of current
> faculty in the Design Division and in the university’s new initiatives in
> design, including the Design Institute for Health. Salary is commensurate
> with experience.
>
> The Design program’s broadly conceived curriculum affords BFA and MFA
> students the opportunity to work across a wide range of subfields,
> including graphic, object, interaction, system, and service design. The
> degree programs’ flexible curricula, paired with new cross-disciplinary
> initiatives in the university, allow students and faculty to take
advantage
> of the extensive resources of one of the world’s great public research
> institutions.
>
> The Full, Associate, or Assistant Professor is expected to be a critically
> engaged, expert practitioner with a record of significant contribution to
> the field. Applicants who do not hold the rank of tenured Full or
Associate
> Professor should have substantial equivalent experience. The successful
> candidate is expected to maintain a record of research/creative activity
> with a national or international profile; teach undergraduate and graduate
> courses in design, ranging from introductory courses on design methods and
> techniques to advanced graduate studio courses focusing on the faculty
> member’s area of expertise; and contribute actively to the development and
> governance of the program, department, and university. A typical teaching
> load for research faculty in the Design Division is two classes per
> semester (2/2)
>
> QUALIFICATIONS
> Required qualifications include a significant record of professional
> achievement in the field of design, a terminal degree in design, such as
> the MFA, M.Des., MAD, M.Graph., or Ph.D., or equivalent record of
> professional/academic experience. College/university teaching experience
at
> both the undergraduate and graduate levels is expected, but candidates
with
> substantial professional experience will be considered.  The University of
> Texas at Austin and the Department of Art and Art History maintain a
strong
> commitment to gender equity, multiculturalism, and human diversity. We are
> interested in candidates who will contribute to human diversity and equal
> opportunity in higher education through their teaching, research and
> service.
>
> APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
> Applicants are invited to upload the following materials to
> http://apply.interfolio.com/33110:
>
> -a letter of interest explaining their areas of research/creative
expertise
> and teaching interest;
> -a curriculum vitae that includes a link to their professional website or
> online portfolio, if applicable;
> -names and contact information for three references.
>
> Please do not submit additional supporting materials until requested.
>
> CARMA GORMAN, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Assistant Chair
> The University of Texas at Austin  |  Department of Art and Art History
> +1 512-471-0901  |  [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 7 Dec 2015 17:26:42 +0000
> From:    David Durling <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Why Are We Not Boycotting Academia.edu?
>
> Hi everyone
>
> There is an announcement below that relates to an event being run by the
disruptive media folks at my university tomorrow. The announcement raises a
number of issues about for-profit and not-for-profit platforms, some of
which has been touched on before now on this list. There are also issues of
privacy. I know that some members of this list are users of these
platforms, and might care to give their views. Personally, I decided some
years ago not to put effort into academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> though
our university is pushing towards other academically related social media,
some of which seems to suffer from the same problems. I do have an ORCID
reference, and this seems benign and helpful.
>
> kind regards
> David
>
> _________________________________
>
> David Durling FDRS PhD   http://durling.tel
>
>
> Why Are We Not Boycotting Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/>?
>
> Coventry University
> Tuesday 8th December 2015
> 3:00-6:00pm
> Ellen Terry Building room ET130
>
> With:
>
> Janneke Adema – Chair (Coventry University, UK)
> Pascal Aventurier (INRA, France)
> Kathleen Fitzpatrick (MLA/Coventry University, US)
> Gary Hall (Coventry University, UK)
> David Parry (Saint Joseph’s University, US)
>
> Organised by The Centre for Disruptive Media: www.disruptivemedia.org <
http://www.disruptivemedia.org/>
>
> Registration:
http://why-are-we-not-boycotting-academia-edu.eventbrite.co.uk <
http://why-are-we-not-boycotting-academia-edu.eventbrite.co.uk/>
>
>
> With over 36 million visitors each month, the San Francisco-based
platform-capitalist company Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> is hugely
popular with researchers. Its founder and CEO Richard Price maintains it is
the ‘largest social-publishing network for scientists <
http://fortune.com/2015/05/08/scientists-social-study/>’, and ‘larger than
all its competitors put together <
http://fortune.com/2015/05/08/scientists-social-study/>’. Yet posting on
Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> is far from being ethically and
politically equivalent to using an institutional open access repository,
which is how it is often understood by academics.
>
> Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/>’s financial rationale rests on the
ability of the venture-capital-funded professional entrepreneurs who run it
to monetize the data flows generated by researchers. Academia.edu <
http://academia.edu/> can thus be seen to have a parasitical relationship
to a public education system from which state funding is steadily being
withdrawn. Its business model depends on academics largely educated and
researching in the latter system, labouring for Academia.edu <
http://academia.edu/> for free to help build its privately-owned for-profit
platform by providing the aggregated input, data and attention value.
>
> To date over 15,000 researchers have taken a stand against the publisher
Elsevier by adding their name to the list on the Cost of Knowledge <
http://thecostofknowledge.com/> website demanding they change how they
operate. Just recently 6 editors and 31 editorial-board members of one of
Elsevier's journals, Lingua, went so far as to resign, leading to calls for
a boycott and for support for Glossa, the open access journal they plan to
start instead. By contrast, the business practices of Academia.edu <
http://academia.edu/> have gone largely uncontested.
>
> This is all the more surprising given that when Elsevier bought the
academic social network Mendeley in 2013 (it was suggested <
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/when-the-rebel-alliance-sells-out>
at the time that Elsevier was mainly interested in acquiring Mendeley’s
user data), many academics deleted their profiles out of protest. Yet
generating revenue from the exploitation of user data is exactly the
business model underlying academic social networks such as Academia.edu <
http://academia.edu/>.
>
> This event will address the following questions:
>
> ·      Why have researchers been so ready to campaign against for-profit
academic publishers such as Elsevier, Springer, Wiley-Blackwell, and Taylor
& Francis/Informa, but not against for-profit platforms such as
Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> ResearchGate and Google Scholar?
> ·      Should academics refrain from providing free labour for these
publishing companies too?
> ·      Are there non-profit alternatives to such commercial platforms
academics should support instead?
> ·      Could they take inspiration from the editors of Lingua (now
Glossa) and start their own scholar-owned and controlled platform
cooperatives for the sharing of research?
> ·      Or are such ‘technologies of the self’ or ‘political technologies
of individuals’, as we might call them following Michel Foucault, merely
part of a wider process by which academics are being transformed into
connected individuals who endeavour to generate social, public and
professional value by acting as microentrepreneurs of their own selves and
lives?
>
> About the speakers
>
> Janneke Adema is Research Fellow in Digital Media at Coventry University.
She has published in numerous peer-reviewed journals and edited books
including New Formations; New Media & Society; The International Journal of
Cultural Studies; New Review of Academic Librarianship; LOGOS: The Journal
of the World Book Community; and Krisis: Journal for Contemporary
Philosophy. She blogs at Open Reflections: http://www.openreflections.org/ <
http://www.openreflections.org/>
>
> Pascal Aventurier has been leading the Regional Scientific Information
Team at the French National Institute for Agricultural Research’s (INRA,
France) PACA Centre since 2002. He is also co-leader of the scientific
information technology group. His focus is on research data, linked open
data, open science, knowledge management and controlled vocabularies, as
well as researching digital and social tool practices. His team is also
exploring the evolution of social networks for academic use. His recent
piece on ‘Academic social networks: challenges and opportunities’, is
available here:
http://www.unica-network.eu/sites/default/files/Academic_Social_Networks_Challenges_opportunities.pdf
<
http://www.unica-network.eu/sites/default/files/Academic_Social_Networks_Challenges_opportunities.pdf
>
>
> Kathleen Fitzpatrick is Director of Scholarly Communication at the MLA,
and visiting professor at Coventry University. The author of Planned
Obsolescence <
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814727883/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=plannedobsole-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399373&creativeASIN=0814727883>
(2011) she is also co-founder of the digital scholarly network MediaCommons
<http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/>. Her recent piece on
Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/>, ‘Academia. Not Edu’, is available
here: http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/academia-not-edu/ <
http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/academia-not-edu/>.
>
> Gary Hall is Professor of Media and Performing Arts, Coventry University,
UK, and co-founder of Open Humanities Press. His new monograph, Pirate
Philosophy, is forthcoming from MIT Press in early 2016. His recent piece
on Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/>, ‘What Does Academia.edu <
http://academia.edu/>’s Success Mean for Open Access?’, is available here:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/10/22/does-academia-edu-mean-open-access-is-becoming-irrelevant/
<
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/10/22/does-academia-edu-mean-open-access-is-becoming-irrelevant/
>
>
> David Parry joined Saint Joseph's University in the Fall of 2013. His
work focuses on understanding the complex social and cultural
transformations brought about by the development of the digital network. He
is particularly interested in understanding how the internet transforms
political power and democracy. He also researches and is an advocate for
Open Access Research. His work can be found at www.outsidethetext.com <
http://www.outsidethetext.com/>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 8 Dec 2015 06:27:38 +1100
> From:    "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Why Are We Not Boycotting Academia.edu?
>
> I am reminded of a phrase used by the late Robert Hughes
>
> “An enclave of abstract complaint”
>
> David
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> blog: http://communication.org.au/blo <http://communication.org.au/blo>g/
> web: http://communication.org.au <http://communication.org.au/>
>
> Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
> CEO • Communication Research Institute •
> • helping people communicate with people •
>
> Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
> Phone: +61 (03) 9005 5903
> Skype: davidsless
>
> 60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 7 Dec 2015 22:06:39 +0000
> From:    Tobie Kerridge <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Why Are We Not Boycotting Academia.edu?
>
> hi David,
>
> Why Are We Not Boycotting is an event that seems misaligned with your
evocation of the politics of 80s postmodernity that Hughes
(problematically) countered.
>
> Here we are in 2015 in different times, when peoples' material is
repackaged and monetised in strange and un-agreed ways, as a result of
their best attempts to enable those materials to have "impact".
>
> Let’s not belittle the discussions that come out of our "enclaves of
abstract complaint", they are perhaps all we have to rethink the "bulwarks
of applied conceit” that got us into the mess we are in.
>
> bests,
> Tobie
>
> > On 7 Dec 2015, at 19:27, [log in to unmask] <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > I am reminded of a phrase used by the late Robert Hughes
> >
> > “An enclave of abstract complaint”
> >
> > David
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > blog: http://communication.org.au/blo <http://communication.org.au/blo
>g/
> > web: http://communication.org.au <http://communication.org.au/>
> >
> > Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
> > CEO • Communication Research Institute •
> > • helping people communicate with people •
> >
> > Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
> > Phone: +61 (03) 9005 5903
> > Skype: davidsless
> >
> > 60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
> > Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> > Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 7 Dec 2015 23:09:16 +0100
> From:    Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Why Are We Not Boycotting Academia.edu?
>
> Dear David,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. This issue has been making the rounds at
many universities. Here is my view.
>
> Academia — like Google Scholar — is open access and free to users. To do
what they do, they must monetise what they offer. I can’t see the problem
in that. I’m happy to let them use my data in exchange for the services
they provide.
>
> The complaints that made against for-profit journal publishers rest on an
entirely different argument. The journal publishing industry once delivered
a service with significantly high costs in press production, printing, and
postage. Universities and government paid for the research that went into
articles, and they paid for writing, reviewing, and editorial services.
While they purchased journal subscriptions to buy back the printed versions
of the content they paid to produce, journal publishers covered many
additional services and expenses.
>
> In recent years, journal subscription costs have gone higher and higher,
while journal production costs have gone down. The argument with journal
publishers involves asking why universities should pay increasingly higher
costs so that journal publishers can realise a massive profit margin on
content that universities already pay to produce, write, review, and edit.
>
> It is important to note that publishing in most journals requires the
authors and their universities to transfer copyright to the journal
publisher. Once they do, the publishing company owns and controls copyright
and distribution, not the author, the university, or the research
organisation that did the work or the organisations and government agencies
that funded it.
>
> As editor-in-chief of an Elsevier journal, I am not in a position to take
a position on the argument against Elsevier. All I will say is that my
journal is owned by a public, not-for-profit university that has chosen
Elsevier as its publishing partner. We make the journal available free of
charge — the journal is fully accessible on an open access basis, and there
are no author fees. I also serve on editorial boards for other journals
from companies that are profit-making (Elsevier, Taylor & Francis,
Intellect) and not-for-profit (The MIT Press and International Journal of
Design). I am not here to respond to the issues involved in the case of
journals, but merely to state them and show that these issues differ from
the complaint about Academia.
>
> The complaint with respect to Academia is entirely different to the
question of journals. The complaint here is that Academia is privately
owned and they are trying to make money by providing a free service. My
view is that as long as they provide a free service with content that I may
freely add or delete, I am hoping they *do* make money so that they can
continue to provide a service I value.
>
> Academia recognises the fact that its users own their own content and do
not cede copyright. So Academia needs us as much as we need them. Academia
and its users benefit each other. I am not working free for Academia. I
work to produce, edit, and manage my own content, and I use Academia to
make it accessible to a wide audience. I own my content, and I do not
believe that Academia is exploiting my labour.
>
> Based on many years of experience in publishing, I believe that the
proposal of a scholar-owned version of Academia is unlikely. Developing
something of this kind is massively expensive. It is unlikely to receive
public funding — and less likely still that a consortium of universities
wants to get into a business that pits the struggling not-for-profit
university sector against extremely successful companies such as Google or
reasonably successful companies like Academia
>
> Scholar-owned not-for-profit publishing ventures are possible, but they
are difficult to establish, difficult to manage, and difficult to sustain.
I know of several, primarily in the book business, with a few in journals.
The platforms and repositories that work are generally maintained by large
institutions with the skills, infrastructure, and budget to ensure durable
success.
>
> Academia also offers some unusual benefits that depend specifically on
network effects among users. It would have been difficult for me to get
over 1,000,000 page views and downloads on my own or using a university
repository. The fact that many people who share my interests use Academia
means that they know where to look when I post a paper or an article. Those
people who choose to follow my posts are able to view what I post whenever
I add something to my page — and I am able to view the people I follow.
>
> In my view, Academia is providing a public service. We are free to use it
or not — but they aren’t exploiting us. As long as I retain control and
copyright of my own material, or post it with permission of the copyright
holder, Academia is a publishing platform that continues to need me as much
as I need them. I cannot withdraw articles from journals once they are
published — I wouldn’t want to do so, but it’s not an option.
>
> Academia.edu provides a service. I appreciate the service they provide.
As long as they remain service-oriented and helpful, I wish them every
success.
>
> At most design schools, we encourage students and staff to design useful
products and services. We advocate entrepreneurial action, and we hope that
our students will sell and benefit from the products and services they
create, just as we hope that those products and services will benefit the
people that use them.
>
> Academia.edu has done what I hope more designers learn to do in different
ways.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The
Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji
University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL:
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
>
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University
Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne
University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
>
> --
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of PHD-DESIGN Digest - 6 Dec 2015 to 7 Dec 2015 (#2015-159)
> ***************************************************************


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------