JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  May 2008

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING May 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: death by peer review

From:

Sally Jane Norman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Sally Jane Norman <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 5 May 2008 16:55:58 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (90 lines)

oh dear - I didn't moan but simply commented on the irony of a situation shared by many of us which, as said, isn't exclusive to universities: there are those who uphold individual and those who uphold collective agendas, with pros and cons and no doubt a need for both. Maybe this somehow resonates with Sloterdijk's foam metaphor of mass individualism and networks of co-isolated individuals. How to measure surface tensions. Movement across membranes. Metrics and transduction again. Something intriguing about the Carolingians - pioneers in measurement as well as instaters of a new education system. OK I'm going "fairly far afield". 
 
Roger, as someone particularly well versed in Leonardo history, what do you think of Sean's  reference to the physics publication initiative (take-over of leading open access publications by a consortium of labs and universities)?  I found it intriguing but nobody seems to have responded to this reference. 
 
best
sjn
 

________________________________

From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org on behalf of roger malina
Sent: Mon 05/05/2008 4:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] death by peer review



Myron Sally Jane

This discussion is going faily far afield, but I cant help comment
that as a community we are victims of our own sucess.

At the time Leonardo Journal was established in 1967 there were very
few venues were artists could write about their own work (
with the exception of a number of books by artists); Art world
publishing in general put the "critic" as intermediary; Leonardo,
as well as a number of other venues, were started as places
where indeed artists , who felt that their research was of wider
interest than only for themselves, could write about their own work. It
was one attempt to open up the academy and the art world to
other voices. And there was a feeling that because technical
details were not being shared, many artists were forced to
re invent the wheel rather than have access to what technical
inventions other artists had come up with. Peer review was one
way to screen out false claims of originality.  Now of course
the "publish or perish" pendulum has swung.

At that time, in 1967,  there were essentially no university
art departments that had any interest at all on how artists
were experimenting with new media; ( with notable exceptions
such as the Center for Advanced Visual Studies of Gyorgy Kepes).

Now of course there are hundreds of new media art departments
of various kinds internationally, all competing with each other
to hire faculty and attract students ( fee paying). And indeed they
operate on business principles where "metrics" are used to try
and assess "productivity" of faculty and researchers; These kind
of systems work for the " general" assessment of " general"
productivity but usually fail to detect the best and most original
individuals. Indeed "death by peer review" is a possibility.

Now that these systems have been set up , institutionalised,
we are again faced with how to make visible the most innovative and
interesting work. Sally Jane moans about "time for research", and indeed
the university sytem and teaching loads often make it literally impossible.


One of the reasons I got interested in Jon Ippolitos discussion of
alternative recognition metrics is that with all this internet technology
there must be a way to see who is doing really striking new work
internationally= but all the social network systems end up it seems
to me to "regress to the mean" in the same way that "peer review"
often does.

I am quite keen on some of the ideas of peter sloterdijk
for instance, and right now have a discussion going with a group
on re imaging cybernetics 60 years after Weiners 1948 book=
given the millions of texts being generated, how to I assess
in some way the "impact" that someone is having through their work.
I am just peer reviewing a text by an artist and the artist is claiming
to have invented a technique, but I know that someone else
did the same kind of work 30 years ago, but how do I find out
who they influenced and the heritage of a particular idea ? How
to we establish  something like an alternative "metric" that can
also serve as a radar ?

I think the good news is that we do have a digital commons out there
with many many more people engaging in discussions of substance
than was ever the case before because of the open part of the
ecology.

Also good ideas are often fragile ( death by peer review) and
need to develop in sheltered environments before being tested
to full scrutiny. In the science world there are a number of establishments
that seek to provide such environentmes ( eg the Princeton Instititute
for advanced sutdy). The medieval university indeed served one
function to create such environments, and many of the on line
environments serve such a purpose now.

roger malina

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager