"The Net is my culture, my tribe, if you would. In many ways it's the
only place where I feel at home." --Henry Hardy
The way that people communicate with each other has changed radically in
the past five to ten years--no longer are letters carefully crafted,
lovingly sealed, and trustingly placed in the hands of the neighborhood
mailman for delivery. Instantaneous gratification--through the telephone
or fax machine--and almost instantaneous gratification--through e-mail--
have become the methods of choice for communicating, with both family
and loved ones as well as professionally among peers.
The following article describes the emergence of scholarly
discussion groups as a medium for peer review and feedback in the
process of scholarly research and publication. The discussion quoted
illustrates the strong feelings generated both pro and con regarding
information technology.
The Changing Face of Scholarly Communication
All interpersonal communication contains the opportunity for personal
growth and improvement. This is true whether that interaction happens
among persons who are face-to-face or during communication that is
mediated in some manner.
Recently, computer conferencing has been used by professionals in
research and education in many communications settings. One such setting
is the Listserv discussion group, carried over national and
international computer networks like Internet/BITNET and using Listserv
and similar software.
Generally, scholarly communication informs or problem-solves with
respect to issues of mutual concern among the persons engaged in a
scholarly activity. Scholarly discussion, in whatever medium, occurs
most often during the pilot stage of scientific inquiry.
Usually, all the interactions at that prepublication phase (e.g.,
brainstorming, symposia, circulation of preprints for peer criticism)
can be performed more quickly using high-speed electronic networks
(e.g., the Internet). Computer conferencing in general and scholarly
discussion groups in particular has become increasingly popular among
scholars during the past decade.
Scholarly Discussion Groups
Scholarly discussion groups (SDGs) have been likened in function to a
library, a seminar/meeting/conference/salon, a long and drawn-out dinner
conversation, or a newspaper or magazine subscription. SDGs are groups
formed as a result of voluntary association. Some persons use SDGs to
gather information and to explore different views of the same issues,
much as they would a library. Other researchers meet online with
colleagues to informally discuss their own ideas, to promote thinking,
and to listen to others much the way they do in person, by phone, or at
a seminar.
Others feel that conversation in an SDG is no different from one
held in a roomful of people, say, at a dinner or some other informal
face-to-face gathering, where some people carry on at length while
others listen and speak only when they believe their contribution is
worthwhile. No individual is required to post comments as a condition of
membership (except perhaps--on a few lists--an introduction).
Subscribers can, to use Internet parlance, "lurk" and listen/read, thus
forming an audience to the ongoing discussion. Like having a newspaper
or journal subscription, lurking allows one the pleasure of watching
sometimes brilliant minds at work and play, giving one the feeling of
sitting at the feet of masters.
In Reply to the Dreamers
The following is part of a thread posted on IPCT-L that illustrates the
flavor of one type of scholarly discussion.
"Recently, another network posted long statements by optimistic
science fiction writers about the future of Internet and related
activities. I would like to offer my response here because I know there
are dedicated people who will answer eloquently. My view is a dark
view," stated Gerald M. Phillips in a post to IPCT-L on July 22, 1993.
Phillips continued with an essay, "In Reply to the Dreamers":
Perhaps one ought to look at the worst-case scenario; only the
best-case scenario presented by Sterling & Gibson is not so good. What I
see is a school system, already filled with illiterates--teachers and
students--imprisoned by technology and cut off from the flow of ideas.
Our contemporary school systems do not do well teaching the
alphabet and simple number concepts. Children cannot read, cannot add.
Many educators ascribe the decline in intellectual accomplishment to
corruption of time by the media.
Children do not have the time to dream and to play, because their
work is structured for them, so they are autistic. Everything from
Little League to Nintendo is planned and implemented by adults. And they
imitate their corporate elders by forming themselves into gangs, cults,
cliques, [and] roving bands of sociopaths.
There is no time to learn to make friends. There is no time to
learn to write poetry or appreciate music. There is intercourse at an
early age and throbbing noise to which they do tribal dances. The
electric guitar was the beginning of the corruption. The breakup of the
nuclear family carried it further. The decline in respect for the school
system made the job of schoolteacher only slightly better than baby-
sitter.
Now, our mavens want to go further and mechanize the whole thing by
taking our children away from any contact with reality and making
cyborgs of them.
This medium is an addiction. It is of no consequence to me. I am
aged and I will disappear before the real technological revolution
comes. I can take advantage of free access to Internet and enjoy free
speech before MCI descends and allows only the wealthy to play. It is my
grandchildren who will be imprisoned by enforced addiction to electronic
media. It will be my grandchildren who will be taken away from books and
art and ballet and riveted to the screen, compelled to endure the rays
that emanate therefrom, their minds to rot away from lack of contact
with a real sun.
The veritable world of tomorrow has been portrayed sufficiently by
the imaginative geniuses in science fiction. But remember: science
fiction writers are, above all, writers. They are masters of plot, and
timing, and language, all of which can be destroyed utterly by virtual
education.
Spare my grandchildren from your technology. It has already
destroyed my economy so that in the next generation not enough people
will be employed to buy it. Spare my grandchildren from your technology.
It has already created a world of haves and have-nots. Who can afford
the upgrades and the wonderful new chips? Only the elite, who are
sufficiently elite to demand the privilege to live in a real world and
to connect with the past, can use the new technology without becoming
its prisoner.
I foresee a world of people chained to machines, like the world the
Luddites fought in vain. The Luddites may have gone too far, but their
message was correct. We must have respect for human labor and the
dignity of the individual. It is time for another Luddite revolution, a
return to a labor-intensive economy and a people-intensive education.
During the next month, this thread carried approximately 120
responses from more than fifty different persons in many countries. It
was just one thread, albeit an important one, that was occurring
concurrently with others. There were also resulting spin-off threads,
which were derived from "Dreamers."
Several replies agreed with Phillips or thanked him for being the
catalyst that sparked the replier's own thinking. For instance, when
replying to a post by Edward Kerr in the "Dreamers" thread, Frank
Bokhorst, of the University of Cape Town, commented:
The above posting, in my opinion, is an excellent example to show
the value of electronic communication.
It is one of those "gems" I hope each morning to find, as I trudge
the Internet shores. Like my home beach, the flotsam and jetsam is
sometimes piled high. Mostly bits of plastic, tangled fishing line,
empty cans, and, occasionally, something to pick up and take home. But
thanks also to Gerald, for making waves.
Still, most of the responses were refutations to the Phillips
essay, such as casting a brighter view of the future or debating the
merits of specific suggestions in the original piece. Part of Robert
Weaver's retort states:
As for the people-intensive education--sir, I challenge you: where
else but through the nets can a student gain access to the words and
minds of millions of literate souls? While teaching an Introduction to
Computers in Society course, I saw a foreign student, displaced from his
society and peers but who had an interest in the study of physics, get
onto physics-L and latch onto a discussion at the University of
Washington about what it was like to have a Nobel prize winner in the
dept., and [I saw] that student grow in self-respect and be enabled.
Yes, I've seen students spending twenty-five hours a day reading the
Usenet news and becoming lost souls. But I've also seen them tap that
connection with people and ideas and produce what to my yokel
perspective seems miracles. The primary observation one can make of the
net is that it is people intensive; gigabytes monthly of people
educating, arguing, cajoling, seducing, laughing, castigating, and
reaching out to others.
Edward Kerr writes in part:
But, we--Gerald, myself, anyone--do not have to sit glumly by,
watching as we ourselves are fed into the meat grinder. From the time
when I was 14 until a couple of years ago, I subscribed to the view that
society was a complete and utter failure, from which nothing good could
ever come. This is a seductive view, as it allows us to be comfortably
numb and self-righteous as we are destroyed. Since coming to college, I
believe that there are things to be joyful about in the world: people,
humor, art, the random crazy cosmos itself. I have decided now that I
want to be happy and fulfilled: this involves the lives of my best
friends in my house, the people across town [and] around the world, and
the people reading this message. I probably cannot act on a global
scale: I am not fabulously rich, nor a world leader. But I still have
outlets on the Internet, [and] I still have social and political
channels at my disposal in my town, my university, and my state. And I
have good friends. I can try to effect changes and try to be an example
to others of what is responsible and honorable behavior.
There are others like me--I suspect Gerald of being one--who want
the future to be a time when humans don't have to be concerned with
things like subsistence and money and wars and all the other ubiquities
of man's existence (we've had these problems all along). Technology and
"electric guitars" can be applied to good ends; they are only tools. Not
everything that has been done with these tools is bad: this discussion I
would say is stimulating and beneficial; hopefully some people will be
inspired to take action where they are. There are popular icons of pop
culture (few and far between, mind you) that have had great, positive
influences on me and others (I am thinking primarily of the musical
group R.E.M., whose poetry speaks to me [more clearly] than any other
literature). We can develop methods and uses that don't destroy human
dignity, that dissolve barriers, and try to see this implemented in the
worlds around us. If we don't even try, then let us bend our heads to
the floor and ask our captors to slit our throats here and now.
And, finally, Rick Rose responded:
. . . One cannot doubt that the results of our current education
system are woefully inadequate and that this letdown in performance
translates into the suffering of real people, the future adults in our
society. This has a ripple-effect impact on every citizen, with no
regard for age, race, or sex. Phillips indeed paints a very dark view of
the direction our society seems to be taking with regard to education
and technology.
At one point I agreed with his view that trying to turn our
education over to a system based solely on technology would doom our
children to failure. Any system that tries to standardize to this extent
can only result in a majority of young people frustrated with their
inability to master a seemingly simple form of communication. I strongly
disagree with Phillips's statement that "This medium is an addiction"
and that by turning to advances in technology we will be "making
cyborgs of them." The fears behind these statements speak volumes toward
the biases of the author, but I feel he makes other strong points that
are worthy of commentary.
We live in a capital-driven system of haves and have-nots. It is a
fact of life in America that we all have the freedom to starve in the
street unless we are willing to become a part of the system. To this end
we should have no illusions that one of the goals of the educational
system should be training our youth such that the student can become
self-sufficient. It is not necessary to take an exhaustive poll to
discover that an average high school graduate is ill prepared for the
challenges one encounters by the time one turns 20. I agree with Cathy
Moore's reply that technology can be one of the tools for people to
write their own exit ticket from poverty. If Mr. Phillips wants us to
spare his children and their children from the evils of technology, far
be it from me to deny his wishes, but shouldn't we let his children and
grandchildren in turn make their own decisions? What if Mr. Phillips had
been raised by parents who wanted him spared of the evils of medicine
and he died of a minor infection? His grandchildren would have been
forever spared from the evils of technology, or any other evils for that
matter. Who knows what innovations those particular grandchildren might
discover? By using this dreaded technology, his granddaughter or even
his own daughter might become president. . . .
The genie is out of the technological bottle, and it is far too
late in the game to lament the genie's escape. We are being granted
wishes by this genie, and what we do with the wishes is our
responsibility.
The dialogue above illustrates the value of SDGs for sharing
opinions on a topic of mutual interest, in this case the impact of the
technology on future generations. The diversity of geography,
perspectives, disciplines, and the speed of interaction could not be
duplicated by any other channel of communications. The lively give-and-
take over the role and influence of technology is made possible only
through the medium under debate, thus demonstrating its strengths while
lamenting its weaknesses.
In scholarly discussion, the unique background and experiences of
each person in a group combine to allow thinking that results in new
insights and perspectives for everyone. This doesn't mean consensus. It
doesn't mean agreement. On the contrary, it means diversity. It may mean
finding what Frank Bokhorst termed "one of those 'gems' I hope each
morning to find, as I trudge the Internet shores." In these instances,
information technology has promoted human interaction--human interaction
that may benefit scholarship throughout the world.