Web 2.0 culture

In previous posts I argued that as teachers, we should be prepared to give our content away for free. There are two reasons for this. One is to benefit those learners worldwide who wish to learn from you and need to see your content. Secondly, it is so you can reap the exponential rewards the social web offers. In Giving it all away I showed how offering free online access to your ideas and works actually increases your audience size. Licensing your content under a Creative Commons agreement that allows for repurposing or remixing provides an opportunity and invitation for others to translate your slides or blogposts into another language. Several of my posts and slideshows have been translated into Spanish, which opens up vast new audiences in South America I can share my ideas with, with no extra effort.

Look at the photograph. There were several images I could have used to illustrate this post, but all were protected by a copyright licence. In doing so those photographers lose the opportunity for their work to be amplified to a larger audience. The image I chose was licenced for free use and remix with attribution, so Noel Hidalgo gets the prize and receives a larger audience for his fabulous picture.  But the ethos of sharing on the social web goes deeper than the act of sharing content. It's also the adoption of a new mindset and a new culture for many professionals - the culture of Web 2.0. By way of explanation, here's an adapted extract from a book I published a couple of years ago:

The introduction of wikis into conservative environments such as classrooms requires all participants to adopt a new culture - one of co-operation and sharing. When they understand they can actually create and share content on a global stage, students can be both excited and daunted. Many of those who welcome the experience are probably in some way already connected into the culture of Web 2.0 and will probably already have accounts on social networking sites such as Facebook. They may be familiar with other media sharing sites such as YouTube or Flickr, and aware of the protocols that are active within these micro-cultures.


Those who are reluctant to share or co-operate, or anxious in some way about posting their content up on the web for all to see, may need to work a little harder to assimilate the culture of Web 2.0. It is only later, when they are more immersed into the Web 2.0 culture, and they have begun to develop the specialist digital literacies which gain them full access into it, that these students begin to understand the power and potential of sharing, co-operation and collaboration. Some never make the transition, and steadfastly refuse to allow their work to be edited by others, preferring instead to protect their ideas and maintain sole ownership over their content.

Canadian academic Brian Lamb once declared that during times of economic challenge, when so many people need access to learning, it seems preverse to hoard knowledge in any form. And yet, in schools, colleges and universities around the globe, there are many teachers and academics who jealously guard their content, as if by doing so they will benefit in some way from their protectionism. They may receive some financial reward, but will they have the satisfaction of knowing that in some way they have also helped other people, without cost? I have a message for such professionals. Change your mind. Choose to share your content openly and freely - it is only through giving it away that you will begin to reap the full rewards of the Social Web. Knowledge is like love. You can give as much away as you like, but you still get to keep it.

Adapted from Wheeler S. (Ed: 2009) Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. (p. 9).

Image by Noel Hidalgo


Web 2.0 culture by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

An academic writes...

As a part of the forthcoming REF (Research Excellence Framework) I plan to submit several of my recently published works for consideration. As an eminent researcher in my field this is expected of me. One piece I am submitting, of which I am justifiably proud, is entitled: Precapitalist Sublimations: The dialectic paradigm of narrative and postcultural discourse around the works of Oliver Stone. Published in 2009 in Volume 91, Issue 4 of the journal Social Realism, my paper performs a complex Derridian critique of Lacan's Semanticist Model. In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a Sartreist absurdity (redolent of the early work of the late Czech playright dissident Vaclav Havel), and includes art as a 'reality' within the discourse. Lacan's model of the semanticist paradigmatic shift toward reality implies a narrative of sexual identity, and perhaps surprisingly, has a great deal of intrinsic post-modernist meaning.

There has been severe, and if I may be frank, undeserving criticism, against the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) and its successor, the forthcoming REF. Here I wish to offer a rebuttal to those detractors who for whatever reasons consider the system to be flawed or unfair.

Firstly, the fact that Social Realism has a very small readership of around a dozen subscribers should not detract from its very high impact ranking of 3.6. It has a long and illustrious history of over 90 years, throughout which time the members of the editorial board have been a constant presence. Impact factors for each journal are calculated over a three year period on the average number of times its articles are cited in other articles appearing in the list of indexed journals. It goes without saying that the new fangled open access journals are rightly excluded from this elite list, due to their less rigorous standards of reviewing, the free and open nature of online publication, not to mention their substantial readership. My fellow authors and I are more than capable of compensating for the small but select readership of Social Realism by ensuring that we cite our own and each other's articles copiously in all our subsequently published papers to maintain the superior impact rating of the journal. This is only fair under the circumstances.

Secondly, doubt has been expressed over the capabilities of the appointed REF panel of experts (pictured above during their innaugural meeting in 1906) to fairly or competently judge the quality of research outputs across the board. I am happy to refute these claims, on the basis that three of the members of the panel are close friends of mine and the fourth is a member of my own family. I can assure all those who have made such claims, that the panel are all exceptionally talented people who are extremely knowledgeable in their respective fields and each is totally impervious to bribes or any other form of cajolement. Some also sit on the editorial boards of Social Realism and other journals I have published in, so their integrity is not to be doubted. Those who doubt any of the panel's capabilities, academic or otherwise can be assured. Each and every one of the expert panel has been certified.

Thirdly, the fact that I have a full time and permanent academic contract of employment with my institution means that I am eligible to submit to the REF, and will therefore be in the running to attract research funds from central government should my published works be deemed to merit it (I am confident that they will, but am not at liberty to say why). Many of my lesser academic colleagues are on fixed term or part-time contracts and unfortunately (but rightly) will not be eligible to submit. Although their published research is exemplary, the temporary nature of their employment status militates against them. Their research is thus deemed to be inadmissible, and this is only reasonable under the circumstances. Full-time permanent academic contracts must be earned on merit, and are not just given away freely to any Thomas, Richard or Harold.

Fourthly, that my research for the above article was neither empirical, nor quasi-experimental, but rather was carried out entirely as a result of personal introspection, is neither here nor there. The fact that it has been published in a high ranking journal ensures that I will almost certainly attract a 4* star rating (world leading research) and will therefore be eligible for substantial research funding. My work was double blind peer reviewed by two eminent and highly respected members of an elite academic review panel and after minor changes, was accepted for publication in the illustrious said journal.

And finally, it matters not that some claim the title and content of my published paper were generated by a spoof post-modernist essay generator. These are scurrilous accusations and borne out of pure academic jealousy. It is neither the unfamiliar sequence of the words, their apparently dense and pretentious verbosity, nor their perceived lack of coherent meaning that should be called into question here. Rather, it is the concept that is important, and of course its post-modernist interpretation. That my article could be considered by some ill-informed individuals to be little more than supercilious nonsense is at best irrelevant and at worst pure unsubstantiated opinion. The same accusation was levelled at Foucault, and look what happened to him. Instead, it is incontrovertible fact that double reviews by two blind academic peers have resulted in a major publication in a highly berated journal. This ensures that my article (and its companion submissions) will be taken into full consideration by the REF evaluation panel without question, and that in due course, I am confident that my institution will be commensurately rewarded with substantial research money from public funds, to which of course I shall be given privileged access, for the funding of subsequent research. In the final analysis, and under the circumstances, that is all that really matters. My journal article is below. Judge for yourself:

Precapitalist Sublimations: The dialectic paradigm of narrative and postcultural discourse around the works of Oliver Stone
Social Realism
2009; 91 (4), pp 16-18.

In the works of Oliver Stone, a predominant concept is that of subpatriarchial art. Geoffrey [1] states that we must choose between Lacanist obscurity and Derridaist reading. “Society is dead,” says Lacan. It could be said that Baudrillard uses the term ‘nihilism’ to denote not narrative as such, but neonarrative. The main theme of the works of Stone is the fatal flaw, and subsequent rubicon, of capitalist class. Therefore, the ground/figure distinction depicted in Stone’s JFK is also evident in Platoon. The primary theme of Scuglia’s [2] critique of subdialectic capitalist theory is the bridge between sexuality and sexual identity.

It could be said that Bataille uses the term ‘nihilism’ to denote a mythopoetical whole. The characteristic theme of the works of Stone is not materialism, but prematerialism. In a sense, Debord uses the term ‘Lacanist obscurity’ to denote the common ground between class and language. Many discourses concerning a self-justifying reality exist.

If one examines Batailleist 'powerful communication', one is faced with a choice: either accept Lacanist obscurity or conclude that class has significance, but only if art is equal to consciousness; if that is not the case, we can assume that the task of the writer is significant form. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a Batailleist 'powerful communication' that includes art as a whole. The premise of Lacanist obscurity suggests that truth, somewhat paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning.

“Sexual identity is part of the meaninglessness of narrativity,” says Sartre; however, according to Long [3] , it is not so much sexual identity that is part of the meaninglessness of narrativity, but rather the absurdity of sexual identity. In a sense, in JFK, Stone deconstructs Batailleist 'powerful communication'; in Platoon he examines nihilism. Baudrillard promotes the use of subdialectic narrative to read society.

“Consciousness is fundamentally unattainable,” says Lacan. It could be said that if Batailleist ‘powerful communication' holds, we have to choose between nihilism and deconstructivist predialectic theory. Marx uses the term ‘textual discourse’ to denote the role of the observer as participant. Therefore, Foucault’s essay on nihilism implies that truth may be used to entrench class divisions. The main theme of Bartok's [4] model of Batailleist ‘powerful communication' is a mythopoetical paradox.

In a sense, nihilism states that context is created by the collective unconscious, but only if Bataille’s essay on postcapitalist conceptual theory is valid; otherwise, Derrida’s model of Batailleist `powerful communication’ is one of “Marxist capitalism”, and hence dead. The example of neotextual capitalism prevalent in Stone’s Natural Born Killers emerges again in Platoon, although in a more semioticist sense.

It could be argued that the subject is contextualised into a Lacanist obscurity that includes language as a totality. Hubbard [5] suggests that we have to choose between nihilism and cultural Marxism. However, Bataille suggests the use of pretextual discourse to challenge sexism. The subject is interpolated into a Lacanist obscurity that includes narrativity as a whole. In a sense, the primary theme of the works of Stone is not deconstruction per se, but postdeconstruction. Derrida uses the term ‘Batailleist powerful communication' to denote a mythopoetical reality.

Dialectic capitalism and neoconstructive discourse. If one examines nihilism, one is faced with a choice: either reject Lacanist obscurity or conclude that culture is used to marginalize minorities. But Lyotard promotes the use of nihilism to deconstruct and read society. The characteristic theme of Finnis’s [6] analysis of textual narrative is the stasis, and eventually the futility, of neostructural class.

“Truth is part of the collapse of consciousness,” says Sartre. However, the subject is contextualised into a Lacanist obscurity that includes language as a paradox. Marx suggests the use of Sontagist camp to challenge class divisions. The main theme of the works of Stone is not, in fact, theory, but pre-theory. Therefore, the premise of Lacanist obscurity states that society has objective value. Bataille promotes the use of nihilism to modify class.

“Society is meaningless,” says Foucault. It could be said that several materialisms concerning neoconstructive discourse may be found. The subject is interpolated into a Lacanist obscurity that includes art as a whole.

In a sense, many theories concerning the role of the artist as observer exist. In Natural Born Killers, Stone affirms cultural subdialectic theory; in Platoon, however, he denies neoconstructive discourse. But the characteristic theme of de Selby’s [7] critique of Lacanist obscurity is the bridge between narrativity and society. The subject is contextualised into a nihilism that includes culture as a reality.

It could be said that if Lacanist obscurity holds, we have to choose between nihilism and Marxist class. Bataille’s model of cultural narrative holds that the law is part of the failure of consciousness. Therefore, Debord uses the term ‘nihilism’ to denote the role of the reader as poet. Lacanist obscurity states that art serves to reinforce the status quo, given that truth is interchangeable with narrativity. It is contentious that the subject is interpolated into a neoconstructive discourse that includes culture as a paradox. A number of deconstructions concerning Lacanist obscurity may thus be revealed.

Bibliography
1. Geoffrey, J. Y. ed. (1983) The Expression of Failure: Lacanist obscurity and nihilism. Oxford: Oxford University Press
2. Scuglia, V. Q. B. (1972) Nihilism in the works of Koons. New York: Quartermaine.
3. Long, R. E. ed. (1981) The Burning Sky: Nihilism and Lacanist obscurity. University of Illinois Press
4. Bartok, R. (1993) Lacanist obscurity and nihilism. Berlin: Schlangekraft
5. Hubbard, F. I. ed. (1984) Subcapitalist Theories: Nihilism and Lacanist obscurity. London: Loompanics
6. Finnis, Q. (1975) Lacanist obscurity and nihilism. London: Bow and Sons.
7. de Selby, R. U. P. ed. (1992) The Futility of Reality: Nihilism in the works of Eco. San Francisco: O’Reilly Associates

Image source


An academic writes... by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

The open case

Today, more than ever, academics and professionals need to question the value of publishing in closed journals. Forget for a moment the ludicrous prices many publishers charge for personal and institutional subscriptions. Think about the audience. Just how many people will actually read an article in a closed journal? 10? 20? 50? 100? The answer for most closed journals is - not very many. Conversely, publishing in an open access journals can increase the audience dramatically. Essentially, because they are free and online, open access journals are read more widely.

Online open access journals trump paper based journals every time in terms of amplification of ideas too. Often open access journals provide online forums for discussion of the articles presented. This kind of dialogue is invaluable both for the readers and authors. Many open access journals also provide reader metrics. Authors can see at a glance how many people have downloaded their abstract, or full paper, and some also track where the readership is located around the globe. This simply cannot be achieved with paper based journals. All you can know for certain is how many subscribers there are for each issue sold. I have already written about sharp practice - the cynical manner in which some publishing houses exploit the goodwill and free labour of academics, and then make huge profits selling on journal subscriptions back to the academic community, so I won't revisit this point.

What is worse though, is the fact that much of the academic establishment continues to frown upon open access publications as though they were second class citizens in the publishing world. There are a number of elite journals (largely rated on the basis that their published works are cited more widely than those of other similar publications, and also tacitly on the reputation of the editorial board) that academic managers encourage their researchers to target. If researchers can secure publications in any of these elite closed journals, they will be well placed when it comes to the official research assessments that come along periodically, where governments award money for further research. Those top universities that demonstrate the best research outputs (that is, the most prestigious) and publication track records receive most of the cash. Those who don't can pretty much forget it for another round. It's an inward looking, self-feeding, self congratulatory 'old boys' club, and it is entirely unjust at so many levels. It's a hierarchy that rarely changes. No wonder many people despise the ivory tower brigade and their academic snobbery.

There has to be a better way to disseminate research. There are many high quality open access journals in existence, and several that are highly recommended in the field of learning technology and distance education. Some of these are listed as links below. If you know of others, please send me the links and I will include them on this blogpost. There is also a large list of links available to open access and hybrid education related journals. One that is not listed yet on the list is Research in Learning Technology (formerly ALT-J) which will be converting to open access in January 2012. Other closed journals should, and probably will follow suit. Open access is not synonymous with poor quality. In fact many online open access journals work twice as hard to prove that they are high quality. What open access does mean is larger readerships for the published research. That has to be worth something in anyone's book.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
Digital Culture and Education
e-Learning Papers
EDUCAUSE Review
European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning
Future Internet
International Review of Research in Open Distance Learning
The Journal of Distance Education
Journal of Interactive Online Learning
Journal of Technology Education


The open case by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Sharp practice

During my keynote for the Zukunft Personal event in Cologne, I publicly announced that I would no longer publish my work in closed journals. In truth, the last time one of my papers was published in a pay-to-subscribe journal was quite some time ago. I'm not the first academic who has made this stand and hopefully I won't be the last. Many others now only publish their work in open access journals, and I intend to do the same. I will still also continue to write for professional journals and magazines such as Learning Technologies. I'm also going to continue writing these blog posts for as long as people like you find them useful, and continue to come back for more.

But my days of helping to fill the academic publishers' coffers are over.

For a long time I have felt very strongly that some academic publishers are operating a sharp practice by exploiting the goodwill of scholars. Large groups of lecturers and researchers act as journal authors and reviewers without payment, and then the publishers sell this content on to other academics at grossly inflated prices. Other highly knowledgeable academics give up their time, also for no payment, to review and advise editors on the content, and this can be painstaking work - read this by Martin Weller on the real cost of 'free reviewing'. This is not sustainable and must change. The publishing industry should no longer be allowed to operate such cynical, profiteering business models. The content they sell has been given to them for free by exceptionally skilled academics who have spent their valuable time and energy researching and writing their reports. The price we are expected to pay to read the work of our own community is unjustifiable. How much does it cost a publishing house to create and maintain an online journal? The cost of reading journal articles should be reduced or eradicated completely, or academics should vote with their feet. What would happen if we all pledged to no longer patronise the publishing houses in future? What would be their response if we all promised we would no longer publish our work in their journals? Actually, I articulated these very sentiments in What if they threw a party and none of us came? on my blog last year. If all academics withdrew their labour, the publishers would have to think again. Here are some of the facts and figures taken from the publishers' websites:

Taking out a personal subscription of a Taylor and Francis journal can be particularly expensive. Learning, Media and Technology (4 issues a year) comes in at around £70 per issue. Sister journal Technology, Pedagogy and Education (3 issues each year) is much cheaper at £18 per issue. Another T and F journal Interactive Learning Environments (currently 5 issues a year) works out at just over £26 per issue for an individual subscription. Taylor and Francis also offer individual online articles for download at just £21 per copy. Wiley's British Journal of Educational Technology will cost you between £232 (or £403 for the rest of world) for 6 issues. That's more than £38 (£67) for an issue, each of which is on average 175 pages in length. A slightly better deal is Elsevier's Computers in Education journal which at 8 issues a year works out at just £34 per issue for a personal subscription. Why the fluctuation in prices? Only the publishers can explain that one. I ask again, why do publishers charge such high prices for knowledge? If we continue to allow knowledge to be commoditised to such an extent that it is only available to the privileged few who can afford it, we are in effect, perpetuating an unjust society. In the long term, this can only damage the academic community.

Image by Pieter de Vries


Sharp practice by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Pigs are flying

In several previous posts on this blog I have extolled the virtues of open content, and have called for traditional journals to go open access. Recently we heard the excellent news that the flagship journal of the Association for Learning Technologies (ALT-J) which recently changed its name to Research in Learning Technology, will go fully open access in January 2012. It took a change of publisher to achieve it. In future, I predict that the 3 issue a year publication will reach a significantly larger and more diverse audience than it has ever previously achieved. That's what happens when content is made free and open for all. For me and an increasing number of other academics in all disciplines, open access is the way forward, and I am becoming disenchanted with the idea of writing for closed and pay-wall ridden publications.

I therefore sat up and took notice this week when the American publishing house Nova Science sent me an e-mail asking me if I wanted my recently published chapters to be open and freely available to readers. What an opportunity! I thought. It's a no brainer! So I checked the fine print. Here's the deal: Any Nova published author can participate in the open access scheme - it's easy. All we have to do is complete an order form and send it off to Nova with our credit card information. For only $400 I can enjoy option 1. "This feature allows your chapter to be visible free of charge to anyone in the world with internet access. In addition, the Publisher will send e-announcements to up to 100 recipients upon request and provision of the email list." For a paltrey $700 my readers and I can enjoy option 2: "The Express version of Open Access provides Open Access immediately after page proofs resulting in full Open Access 8-12 weeks before publication." Not satisfied with such an unbelievably generous offer, Nova are really pushing the boat out, creatively offering additional options for only a small extra payment, including colour print versions ($300 for the first 10 pages and just a little more for additional pages), video enhancement (a snip at $400 for 10 minutes) and even 'personalised offprints' at $14.50 per item.

It thrills me to think that Nova Science (and hopefully other publishers too) have finally decided to put their authors and readers first, while worrying less about their shareholders, as they fully adopt the ethos of open content and open access for all the content they publish. After all, the content is only there as a result of the hard work of academics and authors, so it's only fair. It warms my heart to think that they are now putting aside their profiteering instincts to ensure that knowledge is democratised and freely available for all. I'm going to sign up to this most excellent arrangement ... just as soon as the pigs that are flying around outside my window stop for a swill break.

Image source by Stephanie Pouyllau

Pigs are flying by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.