18 Responses to Five minutes with Patrick Dunleavy and Chris Gilson: “Blogging is quite simply, one of the most important things that an academic should be doing right now”.

  1. Alix says:

    “British newspapers are also run chiefly by people with English literature or history backgrounds, who seem to view data and charts and evidence as anathema.”

    I have another short but surefire tip: don’t turn off sections of your audience with tedious snotty bigotry. It is perfectly possible to be a graduate in either of those subjects and still be interested in evidence-based policy and able to inform oneself about the uses and abuses of statistics. If what you mean is there are individuals in the media who are not like this, then say so.

  2. As a young academic studying EU affairs and blogging on EU affairs for several years, I can tell that blogging has not only given me valuable insights about the functioning of EU politics, it has not just helped me to develop close contact with EU officials and people working around the EU institutions or made me participate in behind-the-scenes activities that as an academic publishing in traditional publications I would not have been able to get access to. Through blogging, I have also started to become contacted by other academics. Recently, I have for example been asked to referee a journal article solely based on a blog post that I wrote on a related topic. On another occasion, someone doing research in a similar area made me aware of new publications (I might very likely have missed).

    Given these advantages – not to talk about the fun to write stuff that is actually read, I am very much an advocate of academic blogging and academics blogging, although it is true that writing a good blog actually takes up time from other activities you need to do as an academic.

    When it comes to your argument regarding individual and collective blogs, I would however not be as clear-cut as you are. The disadvantage of multi-author blogs is that these blogs rarely develop the consistency and distinguishable style that make good blogs so interesting to read. They may be more stable in the long run, but a good individual blog that runs for 2-3 years can be much more compelling than a lame collective blog that runs for a decade.

    Especially if, as you argue, some people just “blog” twice a year, that will rarely feel part of the wider debates in the network that a blog should be part of. A good collective blog thus needs at least a core of individuals with either a common voice or with a set of different yet interesting voices. These have to make up the soul of the blog, they must be the ones that make people check the blog regularly for new, compelling content.

    If the blog is just seen by its contributors as yet another way to put out text 2-3 times a year, it is hard to develop what makes social media “social” – an ongoing conversation between human beings who can and want to be seen as such.

  3. Pingback: Shifting Paradigms: One of the most important things for Academics-Blogging « ~Visceral Velocity~

  4. Pingback: Five minutes with Patrick Dunleavy and Chris Gilson: “Blogging is … « Blogging Future

  5. Pingback: The possibilities of blogging « History is now

  6. Pingback: LSE on Blogging: “Blogging is .. one of the most important things that an academic should be doing right now” « The k2p blog

  7. Pingback: Paleopix » And now for something completely different…

  8. Rob Gargett says:

    I’ve been thinking for some time that my role as a blogger is that of a gadfly. My aim is to break down the closed quoting circles and the hardening of the orthodoxy that seems to describe what goes on in my field–the archaeology of modern human origins. I was minimally successful as an academic in large part because I was questioning the received wisdom of my discipline. As a blogger I don’t have to worry about who I might be making unhappy, not for my career’s sake, and not for my self’s sake. I have a small but faithful readership, which, considering the tiny corner of the universe that palaeoanthropology inhabits, is very gratifying.

  9. Thank you for this very stimulating post – I also highly appreciate the calm and considerate comments!
    I disagree, however, with some of the messages – and believe that intra-scientific communication is necessary and different from wikipedia-style open interaction. I formulated it quite drastic here http://www.smarts-club.com/2012/02/academics-should-be-blogging-no.html – and felt quite some heat for doing so.
    In all its provocative tone it might still be an interesting input into the debate.

  10. Michael Rose says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFXlnOaZXuc&list=UUCo1xm_Sdslk7MytjEHO73Q&index=4

    proposes a somewhat different attitude. I can’t, yet, work out whether Dan is hopelessly old-fashioned and reactionary or the bloggers are dealing in a lot of over-hyped hot-air.

    Anyway, I offer the link as a counterpoint.

  11. Pingback: Blog Archive Digital History – A Selective State of the Field | Cultural Heritage Informatics Initiative

  12. Pingback: “Blogging is quite simply, one of the most important things that an academic should be doing right now.” : eloquentscience.com

  13. Pingback: Blog Archive Digital History: A Selective State of the Field | Cultural Heritage Informatics Initiative

  14. Pingback: Research chat: Scholarship and blogging “across the pond” – the view from LSE – Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

  15. Pingback: News from the social sciences and humanities « Fedcan Blog

  16. Pingback: The possibilities of blogging « Between the Lines

  17. Pingback: The value of academic blogging | spanthegenres

  18. Pingback: Five minutes with Patrick Dunleavy and Chris Gilson: “Blogging is quite simply, one of the most important things that an academic should be doing right now”. | EUROPP

Comments are closed.