[ANPPOM-Lista] Fwd: [IASPM-AL 6067] Compilación de correos para iaspm-al em googlegroups.com - 1 mensaje en 1 tema

[Martha Ulhôa]

estava na lista da iaspm latinoamericana:

   Fuente:

   http://jhupressblog.com/2013/08/22/on-dissertations-embargoes-books-and-jobs/

   Do not fear open access. Embrace
   it!<
   http://jhupressblog.com/2013/08/22/on-dissertations-embargoes-books-and-jobs/
   >

   *Guest post by Rebecca Anne Goetz*

   In the recent controversy over the American Historical Association’s
   statement
   on open access dissertations<
   http://blog.historians.org/2013/07/american-historical-association-statement-on-policies-regarding-the-embargoing-of-completed-history-phd-dissertations/
   >,
   I
   found myself reliving an old argument about how scholars do research and
   share their work. The advent of both the internet and the social media
   tools that facilitate scholarly communication online have left our rather
   traditional professional associations scrambling to figure out how to
   respond to the vast changes in how we work and how we publish. The
   historian in me, of course, looks for past examples of how technology has
   changed the way we work—often for the better. And in the controversy over
   open access, I remembered the blog hysteria of 2005.

   In 2003, I started a blog. It was a crazy hodgepodge of a blog; I wrote
   about politics, cats, and my dissertation. Initially, I was pseudonymous,
   but later I accidentally outed myself to the world, with no consequences
   except that other scholars with suggestions about my dissertation could
   email me directly instead of leaving a comment. I liked blogging about my
   dissertation. I worked out awkward problems, shared documents, and tried
   out interpretations on an appreciative and engaged audience. You might
   imagine my surprise, though, when in 2005 I went on the academic job
   market
   and suddenly everyone thought my blog was a huge liability.

   That summer, an academic going by the pseudonym “Ivan Tribble” wrote a
   column in the Chronicle of Higher Education warning of
   doom<http://chronicle.com/article/Bloggers-Need-Not-Apply/45022> to
   all job seekers who chose to also blog. Tribble indicted blogs for not
   being peer-reviewed and therefore also illegitimate as forms of
   disseminating scholarly knowledge. The response to Tribble’s (rather
   inane)
   column in higher education hiring circles was pretty dire. I went to a
   forum for job candidates that fall during which the facilitator begged us
   to delete everything about ourselves from the internet and to never, ever
   post pictures of our cats. In other words, the anecdotal experience of
   one
   person who could not even share his name with the world suddenly became
   concrete evidence that within the blogging world, the sky was falling.
   The
   rumor spread: blogging damaged one’s chances at an academic job.

   One might call this the blog hysteria of the mid-00s. (I responded to
   Tribble’s nonsense
   here<http://chronicle.com/article/Do-Not-Fear-the-Blog/44985>).
   The blog panic passed. I first got one job, and then another, and now
   blogs
   are so commonplace as to be passé. In fact, many graduate students now
   blog, and blogs might even be assets on the job market. I haven’t heard
   similar complaints about Twitter or Facebook. Academia seems to have
   gotten
   used to the idea of social media as a medium for scholarly exchange. What
   was initially unfamiliar has become standard, and perhaps even expected.

   The recent kerfuffle over the American Historical Association’s statement
   on open access dissertations reminded me of this episode in 2005.
   Underlying the AHA’s statement is a hysteria similar to that generated by
   Tribble’s column. Based on rumors and innuendo (and, in the case of
   William
   Cronon’s follow-up
   column<
   http://blog.historians.org/2013/07/why-put-at-risk-the-publishing-options-of-our-most-vulnerable-colleagues/
   >,
   “off the record” statements by publishers and editors), there is now a
   widespread belief that allowing one’s dissertation to be available via
   open
   access will prevent one from ever getting a book contract (and therefore
   a
   job and/or tenure). The only way to protect oneself is to embargo one’s
   dissertation for a period of up to six years. Fear prevents rational
   conversation about what open access is and how newly-minted PhDs can
   benefit from it.

   Open access strikes me as not that different from previous systems that
   allowed dissertations to be available via microfilm and later through
   ProQuest’s database. Open access cuts out the ProQuest middle man (and
   the
   fees paid by libraries to access material) and allows universities to
   make
   dissertations publicly available online. Jason M. Kelly has written an
   excellent
   short history<
   http://iupuidh.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/open-access-and-the-historical-profession/
   >
   (on
   a blog, no less) of open access in the historical profession that gives a
   good overview of the OA movement and explains why many in the humanities
   are advocates of OA. What open access isn’t, of course, is an attempt to
   seize the intellectual property of dissertators, nor is it a tool to
   facilitate plagiarism. Nor is open access an attempt to prevent new PhDs
   from pursuing a career in academia. As Kelly points out, the evidence
   that
   publishers choose not to work with scholars whose dissertations are
   available via open access is very weak indeed, perhaps even non-existent.
   (I do agree that embargoing a dissertation is a good idea when classified
   material was used, or potentially sensitive oral interviews were
   conducted,
   but this will affect a very small proportion of history dissertations
   every
   year.)

   We do have anecdotal evidence that open access dissertations actually
   facilitate the traditional publication process. In a cogent response to
   the
   AHA’s policy statement, editors at Harvard University Press pointed out
   the
   obvious: if you can’t find a dissertation, you can’t sign a
   dissertation<
   http://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2013/07/cant-find-it-cant-sign-it-on-dissertation-embargoes.html
   >.
   HUP’s position on open access mirrored my own experience with Johns
   Hopkins
   University Press, which published my 2012 revision of my dissertation
   *The
   Baptism of Early Virginia: How Christianity Created Race*. I ended up
   submitting my manuscript to JHU Press *after* American history editor Bob
   Brugger had read the dissertation and sought me out at a conference to
   talk
   about it. I was never told not to mention in the acknowledgements that my
   book had once been a dissertation. Instead, Bob gave me lots of good
   advice
   about how to turn my dissertation into a book. A book, I might add, that
   is
   selling well enough that I got a royalty check about six months after it
   came out. But the material point is this: Bob found my dissertation,
   signed
   it, and published it *because* he had access to it. Had I embargoed the
   dissertation, it would have been that much harder to find a publisher.

   Indeed, I fear that embargoing a dissertation might result in real harm
   to
   new PhDs just starting out. Within a year of my dissertation becoming
   available, I ran into people at conferences who had read it (I have a
   vivid
   memory of my friend Ed Blum bounding up to me and announcing that he just
   LOVED my dissertation and he had so much fun reading it, and oh by the
   way
   five pages were missing from the middle of it). By the time my contract
   came up for renewal in 2009, I was able to show numerous citations other
   historians had made to my dissertation. If I had embargoed the
   dissertation, many historians would not have had access to my work. As
   scholars we are supposed to speak to one another, and our written work is
   supposed to start conversations. Embargoing prevents good conversations
   from ever getting started.

   Rather than having a conversation based on fear and lack of concrete
   information, or, as I like to call it, a Tribble conversation, here’s
   what
   the historical profession should be talking about. We should be asking
   ourselves why we are so far behind in the open access movement. We should
   be looking at universities that have open access policies and figuring
   out
   how to disseminate historical knowledge using those policies, rather than
   trying to circumvent them. Imagine if the AHA had decided to look into
   building an arXiv-like network for historians, instead of trying to get
   around open access policies! (arXiv <http://arxiv.org/> is a forum for
   scientists to share new work and works in progress—and it does not seem
   to
   have inhibited scholarly publishing in those disciplines at all.) We
   should
   be thinking about how to respond to the challenge of changes in the
   publishing industry, not with fear, but with ideas about how to make open
   access work for recent graduates. The question the AHA’s statement should
   have asked is this: how do we embrace OA and make it into an advantage
   for
   our discipline?

   *[image: goetz] <http://bit.ly/UBPETT>Rebecca Anne Goetz is an associate
   professor of history at New York University and the author of *The
   Baptism
   of Early Virginia: How Christianity Created Race <http://bit.ly/UBPETT>,
   *her
   first book. She blogs infrequently at historianess.wordpress.com and
   tweets
   quite regularly from @historianess <https://twitter.com/historianess>.*



 --
Has recibido este mensaje porque estás suscrito al grupo "IASPM-AL" de
Grupos de Google.
Para anular la suscripción a este grupo y dejar de recibir sus correos
electrónicos, envía un correo electrónico a
iaspm-al+unsubscribe em googlegroups.com.
Para obtener más opciones, visita https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



-- 
Martha Tupinambá de Ulhôa
Instituto Villa-Lobos - UNIRIO
+55 21 2287-3775 / cel: +55 21 9993-3775

http://lattes.cnpq.br/5378800627543781
-------------- Próxima Parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: <http://www.listas.unicamp.br/pipermail/anppom-l/attachments/20130824/1c2d2913/attachment.html>