Twitter and Scholarly Communication

This week, we had no readings for class. We signed up for Twitter (if we weren’t already signed up) and created a “personal learning network” (PLN) of other Twitter users related to our professional interests. We also needed to tweet or re-tweet 5 times during the week – you can find the tweets from our class by searching for the hashtag #si643.

As I thought about Twitter this week, while using it in a more professional sense than I had been in the past (though I was already following a good number of folks from my PLN before this), I kept coming back to an article about Twitter and Noam Chomsky I had read earlier this year (http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/why_chomsky_is_wrong_about_twitter/). The interviews that this article cites took place shortly after the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011, many of which showed the central importance for technologies like Twitter for the communications of the oppressed. In one of the interviews cited, Chomsky comments on Twitter:

Well, let’s take, say, Twitter…It requires a very brief, concise form of thought and so on that tends toward superficiality and draws people away from real serious communication […] It is not a medium of a serious interchange. (Chomsky, N. as quoted by Jurgenson, N., 2011)

It is strange to me that such a scholar of language and communication would take such a stance on a mode of communication, for a number of reasons. First, it’s clear to anyone who studies language and literature that “concise” forms do not necessarily equate to shallow or non-serious communication. We only need to look to the haiku or the sonnet to see what kinds of truly serious communication can take place when concise forms rule the writer. It’s also strange because it seems to paint Chomsky as out of touch, which I have not seen from him before (as the article’s author points out, statements like this have an air of “rap isn’t music and graffiti isn’t art” to them). Finally, it is strange because, on Chomsky’s own admission, he doesn’t use Twitter.

Further on in the discussion of Twitter and Chomsky, Jurgenson points out that mobile communications technologies, such as Twitter, are becoming more and more a part of communications in the marginalized areas of the world. As he says, studies “[indicate] these so-called shallow ways of communicating are precisely the ways those in the Third World are connecting to and interacting on the Internet”(2011). More and more, these technologies are becoming tools for those who don’t have a voice to make themselves heard.

So what does any of this have to do with Twitter and PLNs? While I admit I’ve gotten a bit far afield, I do have a point. Before I make that point, I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not equating the oppression in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Third World to the “oppression” (notice the quotes) of academia by the publishing industry. These are two different worlds, clearly. However, there are many times when academic innovation is stifled by publishers, even if they make no active effort to do so. The entire model of exclusivity in major academic journals leads to a stifling – as Dan Cohen points out in his blog (http://www.dancohen.org/2012/03/30/catching-the-good/) (which I got from his Twitter feed, incidentally), the way the academic publishing machine is set up today is full of negative reinforcement, which forces scholars to try and conform to the academic community they want to be a part of, which makes many of them scared to innovate or reach beyond disciplinary boundaries. Technologies like Twitter (and blogging, and self-publishing, etc.) provide an opportunity for academics to break free this machine. After all – I will probably have no idea how many people read anything I publish (though I can see how many people cite it, that’s a different topic) – but, I can see right away, using tools such as Google Analytics, how many people read my blog post, and where they are from, and, if they comment, I can get instant feedback on my thoughts!

While these open/social-web technologies can never provide a full replacement for our current model of scholarly communication, I think they can provide a wonderful way for scholars and information specialists to communicate about how we can work to replace or improve the current machine.

Advertisements

About rclement643

I am currently a graduate student at University of Michigan's School of Information. This blog is being kept as a place for reflections on the readings for the class
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Twitter and Scholarly Communication

  1. ryabbc says:

    How interesting on Chomsky. I do agree with you that concise isn’t necessarily shallow. Although, as we discussed in class, Twitter communication is often more casual in tone, I think many of us saw potential value.

    Although “casual” could mean “cute cat photos” it could also mean simply an ability to be more candid, and possibly to connect in a slightly different way to people in one’s PLN. The conversations that I might have on Twitter are likely going to be pretty different than a presentation I give at a conference — but I’m not sure one of the other is inherently more or less valuable.

    I like and agree with your point re:scholarly communication. I think Dan Cohen has been at the forefront of showing that blogging is not specifically “un-scholarly,” and in fact can be a part of the way to work around the potential for stagnation that can happen within certain more traditional channels of scholarly communication.

  2. Kelly says:

    One of the articles I picked way back when we wrote about information literacy was about the use of academic blogs (ie blogs written by academics or graduate students) in undergraduate writing classrooms to help younger writers see how, in short, “knowledge gets made.” The idea is that blogs help demystify the scholarly conversation that’s happening in scholarly articles while adding the interpersonal element that so many of us like about social media exchanges and the larger disciplinary context that’s often missing from scholarly articles written for an insider audience. I’ve been thinking a lot about that blogging article since reading it, and I find it really valuable for helping to demonstrate just one reason why online communication is an important part of this larger discourse we’re all having both inside and outside academia.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s