here via synecdochic, just to say... while comparing mechanics of community interaction relative to fandom, versus relative to pro-fic, whyn't consider also scholarly academic publication?
It really looks a lot like fandom from a certain angle. People rec/reveiw/criticize with and without permission, publicly or not-so, on basis of ideas or execution or personal affinity. The academic's version of "your characterization is totally off from canon" is "your results are not borne out by research", academic writers have to offer their friendslist (major advisors, advisees, collaborators, and others with potential "conflict of interest") to publishers and funding sources to reduce the effect of bias on formal/important reveiws, while at the same time, informal recs & reveiws are continuously employed and invaluable in shaping the course of researches.
Fandom might learn from academia in that formal reveiwing venues give proceedures for producing a useful reveiw, and discount those which don't adhere--that way reveiwers from very different traditions can all understand what's expected in that vanue. Meanwhile, no such explicit guidelines are in place on informal reveiws, but anyone will tell you that you must be aware of your audience and their likely reaction--privately to your old chum from college you may be as effusive or scathing as you like, maybe a little less so in front of your own grad students/immediate colleagues (analogous to unlocked post in your own journal?), and it's wise to be quite circumspect in front of acquaintances at a departmental meeting or conference (analogous to a public comm) regardless of whether you care about their feelings, because your own reputation and future opportunities may depend upon it.
I could drag out some more parallels... What do you think?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
winterfish
no subject
Date: 2008-07-28 06:03 pm (UTC)It really looks a lot like fandom from a certain angle. People rec/reveiw/criticize with and without permission, publicly or not-so, on basis of ideas or execution or personal affinity. The academic's version of "your characterization is totally off from canon" is "your results are not borne out by research", academic writers have to offer their friendslist (major advisors, advisees, collaborators, and others with potential "conflict of interest") to publishers and funding sources to reduce the effect of bias on formal/important reveiws, while at the same time, informal recs & reveiws are continuously employed and invaluable in shaping the course of researches.
Fandom might learn from academia in that formal reveiwing venues give proceedures for producing a useful reveiw, and discount those which don't adhere--that way reveiwers from very different traditions can all understand what's expected in that vanue. Meanwhile, no such explicit guidelines are in place on informal reveiws, but anyone will tell you that you must be aware of your audience and their likely reaction--privately to your old chum from college you may be as effusive or scathing as you like, maybe a little less so in front of your own grad students/immediate colleagues (analogous to unlocked post in your own journal?), and it's wise to be quite circumspect in front of acquaintances at a departmental meeting or conference (analogous to a public comm) regardless of whether you care about their feelings, because your own reputation and future opportunities may depend upon it.
I could drag out some more parallels...
What do you think?