On Forming a Digital Anthropology Group

The Back-In Lede

Over at Savage Minds, Matt Thompson posted Alright, how about a Digital Anthropology Interest Group? earlier this week. The comments are up to twenty-eight, and I want to discuss here Matt’s outline for an interest group within the American Anthropological Association institutional framework and the many suggestions and ideas that people provided.

I have written more on digital anthropology in the past year than I expected, most recently on the AAA’s stand against Open Access (followed by a quick almost-retraction) and an overview of Digital Anthropology: Projects and Platforms.

My own ideas about a digital anthropology group date back to the #AAAfail controversy over science, and the letter a group of anthropologists (including myself) wrote to the AAA leadership. It finished:

We encourage the Executive Board to consider how to support anthropologists working online, and to encourage further online collaboration and dissemination among AAA members. This will strengthen the discipline, and also permit more timely discussion and engagement among AAA members…

We view our online role as anthropologists as contributing a valuable service to the discipline we love. We are hopeful that this episode in our shared history will prove to catalyze important and inclusive dialogue regarding who we are as anthropologists as well as the channels we use to communicate with one another. We encourage the EB and the AAA membership as a whole to participate in this online community, to hear and join with the voices that are coming from within our discipline. This is an opportunity to move past marginalization and work together toward rebuilding a truly interdisciplinary anthropology based on mutual respect.

My thoughts below have also been shaped by Greg’s contributions onsite, in particular his pieces Blogging for Promotion: An Immodest Proposal (take getting credit by the horns!) and Brand Anthropology: New and Improved, with Extra Diversity!

The Digital Anthropology Interest Group – Proposals

What should a Digital Anthropology Interest Group look like? What is its purpose? What will it do? These are important questions raised by Matt and by many commentators, in particular John McCreery.

Matt proposes three basic functions:

(1) Form a common meeting place, both at the AAA conference and online
(2) Compile and communicate important information
(3) Raising awareness and being proactive within the AAA, while connecting to other groups outside the AAA

In terms of the comments, I will highlight four strands:

First, Ryan Anderson writes about an interest group that it should be about “making connections, making things available, and creating places that help direct people (teachers, students, general audience, etc) to the kinds of content that is being produced.”

Second, Danny Miller points to a forthcoming edited volume, Digital Anthropology, that focuses on research on the digital. Besides critiquing the parochialism of a AAA group speaking for digital anthropology coded large, Miller points to how research, training, and funding form a defensible intellectual program within anthropology.

Third, Megan McCullen (among others!) highlights a push for open access and the creation of new platforms and digital repositories for research and dissemination: “a hub for Open Access Anthropology Papers. This is potentially a general repository, possibly one that has some level of peer review, perhaps something that includes both.”

Finally, John Hawks stakes out a different space for the group, one that is not about digital anthropology research but about the presentation of open data, incorporation of digital tools in research, and other digital means for doing research in public and disseminating results in novel and often broad ways. “As I’m reading, it seems that ‘digital anthropology’ engages different audiences in different ways… There clearly is a ‘digital anthropological genetics’ unfolding today, using many of the social media tools that are developing for other kinds of online communication and community building.”

The Digital Anthropology Synthesis

In the Savage Minds comments, John McCreery repeatedly challenges the group to present a coherent vision and purpose for the group. So here goes, a second draft building on the Savage Minds post. Hopefully it will lead to an even better final draft. And an actual formation of a AAA interest group!

The Digital Anthropology group should do three things:

-Foment change
-Focus on research
-Foster communication and networking

Together these can drive strong growth in the group and its broader impact, and have the dynamism and openness to avoid being a “one issue” interest group that might quickly rise and just as quickly fall.

The Digital Anthropology group should foment change both within and outside the American Anthropological Association. It should both support and critically examine open access initiatives, with a focus on how to achieve greater access to anthropological scholarship while having a sustainable business model. It should promote blogging and other forms of online dissemination and public engagement, and argue for greater recognition and accreditation of online scholarship. It should promote outreach across the sub-disciplines in anthropology and between academic and applied anthropologists, while actively working to connect with anthropologists and organizations working outside the American Anthropological Association institutional framework. Finally, the Digital Anthropology group should recognize that inequalities of all sorts recreate themselves online, and that inside and outside the discipline, problems in representation and access will take new forms that need to be addressed both directly and indirectly.

The Digital Anthropology group should focus on research. The group will support anthropologists who focus on digital mediation and engagement ? on digital anthropology as an object of research ? using a range of anthropological approaches. Anthropologists can also use digital forms to enhance research in other ways, from tackling large data sets to fostering ideas and using social media to improve how research is done. Finally, the Digital Anthropology Group will support researchers in their attempts to do research in public, from making data accessible to the building of repositories for data sets and publications.

The Digital Anthropology group should foster communication and networking. One of its primary purposes will be to provide a common space, both at meetings and online, to communicate and interact among members of the group. The group will also actively pursue ways to provide resources, ideas, examples, and critiques on using digital initiatives and social media in teaching. Given how digital concerns can bring people together in novel ways, the group will draw on digital anthropology as a way to create the flow of ideas and relationships across sub-fields within the AAA, between applied and academic anthropologists, and across international boundaries. Finally, the Digital Anthropology group will actively promote way that digital communication can enhance interactions with the many communities we serve and reach the broader public.

The AAA Digital Anthropology Interest Group ? In Brief

The Digital Anthropology Group will provide a common forum so that members help move anthropology to embrace how digital forms of communication, interaction, and research increasingly mediate what we do as anthropologists.

Foment Change
-Open Access
-Online scholarship and accreditation
-Outreach within the field, with practicing anthropologists, and with anthropologists outside the AAA
-Addressing inequalities of access and representation, from indigenous groups to political economic disparities to gender and race online

Focus on Research
-Digital anthropology as a focus of research
-Using digital tools for data and for improving the creation and execution of research
-Support research done in public, including repositories for data and publications

Foster Communication and Networking
-Offer a forum to communicate and interact among members
-Provide resources, ideas, examples and critiques of digital initiatives in teaching
-Draw on digital anthropology as a way to create the flow of ideas and relationships among anthropologists inside and outside the AAA
-Embrace the ways that digital communication can reach the broader public

Category: Announcements | 2 Comments

Embodiment and Breast Cancer Screening

By Kara McGinnis

Article: Lende, D. & Lachiondo, A. (2009). Embodiment and breast cancer among African American women. Qualitative Health Research 19(2): 216-228.

Lende and Lachiondo present their research on why African American women remain a population that underutilizes breast cancer screening methods. Framing their study within the theoretical concept of embodiment, they explain why traditional examinations of poor screening practices have only slightly improved screening outcomes, and conclude by offering six recommendations for including embodiment in screening initiatives.

African American women have low breast cancer morbidity when compared to White women, and yet their rates of mortality are much higher. Lende and Lachiondo explain that traditionally researchers have examined why African American women do not regularly or timely screen for health issues by focusing on structural causes, deficit approaches, and cultural beliefs. Structural barriers to screening have included cost, access, and discrimination. Deficit approaches take an individual perspective that claims lack of knowledge or fear of the unknown are the barriers women must overcome to get screened. Finally, cultural beliefs such as, screening might bring the disease or God’s Will determines sickness, are used to explain why women are dissuaded from getting screened, and create an argument for culturally competent care.

While Lende and Lachiondo recognize that these perspectives have offered solutions for some of the barriers that individuals face, they point out that those perspectives remain limited in explaining why African American women continue to put off screening and be diagnosed with breast cancer at later stages.

Lende and Lachiondo propose that to truly understand why African American women are not getting screened, public health practitioners must account for how women feel about their bodies, and how screening personalizes and illuminates those feelings. They argue that approaching the topic from an embodiment framework allows researchers to fill in the gaps left by the three traditional approaches. They contend that the embodied approach works because it focuses on three specific concepts including, 1) an emphasis on subjective experiences; 2) the recognition that screening is an “embodied practice” that directly impacts a specific body part; and 3) the acknowledgement that a body is not just an object, but something that has a history and is meaningful (p.217-218).


Continue reading »

Category: Body, Gender, Health, Society | 1 Comment

Call for Papers: Drugs, Borders, and Anthropology

**CALL FOR PAPERS**

American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting
San Francisco, CA, November 14-18, 2012

Drug (Ab)use: Border constructions and crossings in the anthropology of psychoactive substances

Co-organizers: Tazin Karim, Roland Moore, Gilbert Quintero, Lee Hoffer, and Daniel Lende on behalf of the Alcohol, Drugs, and Tobacco Study Group of the Society for Medical Anthropology

This panel invites papers that explore the ideological, legal, and physical borders between sanctioned and illicit drug use through ethnography. We argue that the examination of drug behaviors is particularly salient to anthropology because they traverse and influence many culturally constructed boundaries between work/play, ethical/unethical, mind/body, etc. In particular, the recent development and repurposing of certain psychoactive substances has acted to blur the lines between recreation, medication, addiction, and enhancement. Street drugs like marijuana and certain psychedelics are now being reconceptualized as treatments, while prescription stimulants and narcotics continue to become objects of misuse and abuse. Changing prescription practices and the growth of new grey markets further obscure the space between acceptable and improper drug use behaviors.

This panel explicitly asks: what criteria do individuals, populations, and governments use to define appropriate use of these substances? How do substances move within the space between what is acceptable/useful and what is illegal/immoral? In what ways do these values influence access and encourage behaviors necessary to navigate these new borders? How do these beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors construct cultural configurations of health, agency, and identity?

This panel also seeks to shed light on the experience of drug ethnographers as they trace the social lives of drugs through various cycles. How do we as anthropologists and researchers understand and traverse these borders ourselves? How does this influence our interactions with subjects, law enforcement, policy makers and health professionals? In what ways does this influence the overall quality and content of drug ethnography?

Topics might include:

? Drug free zones and trafficking across local/global borders
? Online pharmacies/grey markets
? Changing prescription practices
? E-cigarettes, nicotine patches, etc.
? Prescription drugs v. recreational drugs
? Legalization of marijuana or psychedelics
? Prescription drugs as enhancers
? Drug ethnography and research

Please send titles and 250 word abstracts to: Tazin Karim (karimtaz@msu.edu)

DEADLINE: February 26, 2012

Category: Announcements | Leave a comment

Short Courses on Research Methods in Anthropology – Deadline Extended!

Every summer a group of top-notch anthropologists assembles at the Duke University Marine Laboraties in Beaufort, North Carolina to teach the world how to do cultural anthropology. These methods courses are fully funded by the National Science Foundation (participants need only pay their own transportation) and provide training opportunities for graduate students and faculty.

Deadlines for applications have been extended to this Friday, February 17th, more information can be found at the QualQuant website. The application is available here.

There are three programs this summer:

The Summer Institute on Research Design provides PhD students an intensive three-week course in research design for students preparing their doctoral proposals. It is directed by Jeffrey Johnson of East Carolina University, with Susan Weller and H. Russell Bernard as co-directors.

The Summer Institute on Museum Anthropology is an intensive, four-week course for graduate students in anthropology and related fields who are interested in research methods for the study of museum collections.

Finally, there are the Short Courses in Research Methods, 5-day, intensive training opportunities for faculty members who already hold a PhD in anthropology. These summer there are three great options:

Behavioral Observation in Ethnographic Research (July 16-20, 2012)
Raymond Hames and Michael Paolisso

This five-day course focuses on methods for observing behavior in a field setting to answer questions of anthropological interest, like: time allocation and division of family labor and child labor; locational analysis (where people spend their time and what they do); what students and teachers do an elementary school classroom; energy expenditure and ecology; food and labor exchange; social groups and patterns of association (sex, age, family, kinship, mates); what people talk about during social interactions; and the nature of doctor-patient interaction.

Methods covered include systematic spot or instantaneous sampling of behavior, continuous monitoring of behavior, and computer-assisted approaches to collecting behavioral data in the field, in addition to survey methods, like recall methods, like time diaries. Finally, participants design a behavioral research project they anticipate investigating in the future, using one or a combination of the approaches presented in the course.

Social Network Analysis (July 23-27, 2012)
Jeffrey Johnson and Christopher McCarty

This five-day course focuses on the methods for collecting and analyzing social network data. The first part of the course provides an overview of social network analysis, including fundamental concepts such as cohesion, bridging, directed versus undirected ties, strength of tie, structural holes, one mode and two mode data. You will learn about specific types of social network metrics that are used to describe these concepts and test them against outcome measures that may interest you. You will also learn about social network visualization, which is a way to combine both the composition and structure of the network so that you can quickly identify patterns that are more difficult to find using metrics alone.

The remainder of the course will focus on hands-on data collection and analysis using social network tools. These include Ucinet for whole network analysis and Egonet for personal network analysis. You will learn how to construct a social network questionnaire and how to identify methods for collecting whole network data from existing data (such as e-mail, citations or just plain observation). During the course you will collect data from each other for both whole networks and your own personal networks. These will be analyzed in class so that you will better understand the benefit of these methods and measures.

Analyzing Video Data (July 30-August 3, 2012)
Elizabeth Cartwright and Jerome Crowder

This five-day course prepares participants to collect and analyze anthropological data gathered through video recording. In the first two days, participants learn to use high quality video and audio recording equipment and the basics of video interviewing, including location of audio and lighting, camera handling, and scene composition. Working in small groups, participants generate video footage that they use in the rest of the course to learn coding and analysis.

Participants learn to tag and code images and how to partition their footage into meaningful sequences that can be coded and analyzed for audio and visual content. Naturally occurring speech in the footage can be analyzed thematically, as can movements, interactions, facial expressions, and other observable events. Still images from video allow researchers to measure and more accurately observe subtleties in body language and facial expressions that may not be detected during full-speed play back. Participants learn how to produce still images from video footage and how to use those stills to understand proxemics and as a means for eliciting informants’ descriptions and interpretations of a scene.

QualQuant also details new distance-learning courses in geospatial analysis and text analysis offered this summer. There is also the Summer Field Training in Methods of Data Collection in Bolivia, application due tomorrow.

Category: Announcements | Leave a comment

The Australopithecine Morphology Song

For the WIN!

Link to YouTube video

Category: Links | Leave a comment

American Anthropological Association Changes Opposition to Open Access ? Plus a Proposal to Do More

The American Anthropological Association, responding to controversy over a January 12th letter sent to the White House opposing further federal support for open access, has issued a new statement that removes that opposition and embraces a diversity of publishing models moving forward. The Association’s Executive Board announced yesterday:

Acknowledging the Association’s commitment to “a publications program that disseminates the most current anthropological research, expertise, and interpretation to its members, the discipline, and the broader society,” but also the need for a sustainable publication strategy, and building on the Association’s support for a variety of publishing models, the AAA opposes any Congressional legislation which, if it were enacted, imposes a blanket prohibition against open access publishing policies by all federal agencies.

In an equally welcome move, the AAA’s Committee for the Future of Electronic and Print Publishing (CFPEP), the executive committee in charge of making recommendations on how the AAA publishing program should move forward, issued an invitation for commentary.

Anthropological publishing is undergoing rapid change as digital technologies, new forms of presentation, and an increasing desire to move to the free distribution of knowledge unfold. Whether existing models of publishing can be sustained is questionable. The AAA is currently assessing its own publication program and seeking to understand how that articulates with the wider realm of anthropological publishing. We need to understand current and emerging trends in the dissemination of knowledge so we can position the AAA to support its members in their intellectual activities.

The AAA Blog highlighted two video-taped sessions from the annual meeting in Montreal sponsored by CFPEP. Available through Vimeo, the first session addresses Core Services of the AAA Publishing Program and the second Sustaining the Future of AAA Publishing.

The new AAA statement from the Executive Board has its strong and its weak points. On the weak side, opposing a “blanket prohibition against open access publishing policies” does not exactly embrace open-access publishing. It does not even support the current federal position, that federally-supported research carries obligations of “preservation” and “public access.” This policy is generally enacted through creating open-access publications hosted by the federal government twelve months after federally-funded research is published in a peer-reviewed journal.

On the positive side, the AAA does emphasize the importance of a diversity of publishing models moving forward, balanced with the need to have a “sustainable publication strategy.” The Association also recognizes the need to be vigilant about “proposed legislation that aims to limit dissemination of research, and that may disproportionately protect private over public interests.”


Continue reading »

Category: Announcements, Critique, Learning, Links, Society | 8 Comments

American Anthropological Association Takes Public Stand against Open Access

On November 3rd, 2011, The White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy put out a call for public comment on Public Access to Scholarly Publications. A central aim of this review was to seek further guidance on “expanding public access to federally funded peer-reviewed scholarly articles.”

On January 12th, 2012, the American Anthropological Association took a firm stance against any further expansion of public access to research. In a letter submitted to the White House, and signed by Executive Director William Davis III on behalf of the Association, the AAA argues that there is already broad scholarly access to published research, and that a move to an open-access model would cripple the Association’s ability to publish its journals. Hence, “no federal government intervention is currently necessary.”

Three points of the letter will likely provoke controversy among the members of the American Anthropological Association.

First, many will dispute Davis’ implicit definition of the relevant “public” in the AAA January 12th letter. In the opening paragraphs, there is mutual agreement about “enhancing the public understanding” and reaching “those in the public who would benefit from such knowledge.” But Davis’ definition of “public” changes dramatically when he argues against expansion. Rather than the multitude of publics an anthropologist might imagine ? the general reading public, the communities with whom we work, advocacy groups located outside the university system ? Davis restricts access to researchers and scholars. Since these groups already have good access, no further expansion is needed.

Second, in making that argument, Davis draws on research published in The Journal of the Medical Library Association. In a 2011 paper ironically available because of federal mandates, Davis and Walters discuss “The impact of free access to the scientific literature: a review of recent research.” The AAA features the authors’ conclusion that “Recent studies provide little evidence to support the idea that there is a crisis in access to the scholarly literature.” However, is a study done on “the primary medical literature” really the best reference for anthropology?

Third, Davis argues strongly that the current financial model is in the best interest of the American Anthropological Association, and its mission to disseminate anthropological knowledge. “If AAA’s publishing plans were to lose revenues from library subscriptions, the authors would have very little ability to ‘pay to publish’ such as has been successful in some STEM fields. The elimination of library subscription revenues from the publishing budget of the American Anthropological Association would cripple the society’s ability to continue publishing its 22 scholarly journals.”

I hope that I will stand corrected, but to my knowledge, it is Wiley the publisher that takes in the library subscription revenues, and then passes on part of that money to the AAA. As Chris Kelty and others have argued, the library budgets will still exist going forward, and could be re-purposed in ways that support an open-access model.

In any case, the money needed to support publications is clearly a central issue in this whole debate. The AAA needs money to support its publishing efforts, and Wiley, like many traditional publishers, offers a model that can provide significant revenues to the AAA while keeping even more significant revenues for the company.

Part of the rub is that academics provide an enormous amount of free labor to support publishing. The AAA letter provides an either/or approach ? either a federal approach that supports everything, or a for-profit model that supports the technological innovations and expertise that make up the publishing business while academics continue to do peer review, editing, and increasingly promotion on their own.

This either/or model is particularly clear in the part of the letter that most rankles me:

Mandating open access to such property without just compensation and lawful procedural limits constitutes, in our view, an unconstitutional taking of private property ? copyrighted material ? an expropriation without fair market compensation. In our view, such a practice cannot and will not withstand judicial review.

This statement from the Association that canceled an annual meeting to stand in solidarity with the striking workers of the conference hotel? This statement from an Association whose members have fought and fought these past decades to get better recognition of indigenous rights? This statement from an Association that consistently offers one of the few prominent public critiques of the neoliberal model?

This statement stinks.

Let us just take one phrase ? “fair market compensation.” Fair market compensation for whom? For Wiley? Or for the people who actually do the intellectual labor? Or any number of publics who might have rights to that work?

Let me be clear. I have my own doubts about the open access model, as it is not that different from the for-profit model. Academics will continue to provide an enormous amount of non-reimbursed labor, and exchange that for the ideal that “the public” will have greater access to our research. It is a sort of tragicomedy of the commons, because I could see the scenario where researchers build the commons only to give it away once again.

I’d prefer a model of “greater access” rather than a rigid adherence to either open-access or for-profit. I’d also prefer a model of “greater sharing,” where the monetary and intellectual benefits of an overall research enterprise are shared more widely among multiple communities.

But let me say what I really wish. This letter comes on behalf of the American Anthropological Association. It resonates strongly with points made in John Wiley and Co.’s letter in response to the same White House call. But I am less sure how much it resonates with the AAA’s own members. Was the AAA Executive Board, the elected members of our association, consulted on this letter? Was there any period of public comment from AAA members on the Association’s letter? I am going to guess a tentative yes on the first (happy to be contradicted!), and a definite no on the second. And what I wish is that this AAA letter on behalf of all its members to the White House that addresses such an important issue had gone through a more open process.

Update: The American Anthropological Association Executive Board has issued a new announcement that is against “blanket prohibitions” towards open access publishing policies set forth by the federal government, and establishing the importance of both dissemination and sustainable publishing going forward. For my commentary on this recent announcement, and a proposal for a new open access initiative AAA Book Reviews, please see the post, American Anthropological Association Changes Opposition to Open Access ? Plus a Proposal to Do More.

Category: Announcements, Critique | 24 Comments

The Digital Return: Digital Repatriation and Indigenous Knowledge

By Kimberly Christen, Joshua Bell, and Mark Turin

On January 19, 2012, twenty-eight participants convened at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC for the “After the Return: Digital Repatriation and the Circulation of Indigenous Knowledge” workshop, organized by the three of us – Kimberly Christen, Joshua Bell and Mark Turin.

The workshop began with a lively keynote by Jim Enote, Director of the A:shiwi A:wan Museum and Heritage Center at Zuni, New Mexico. In a talk ranging from his grandmother’s world travels and humility to the need for tribal communities to own digital materials, Enote encouraged participants to think about the generative possibilities of digital return practices and their ethical entailments.

Enote’s talk set the tone for the two and a half days of discussion that brought together scholars from diverse fields of anthropology, indigenous communities, and collecting institutions to document best practices and case studies in digital repatriation. Over the course of the workshop, participants explored and shared experiences of digital return projects focused on linguistic revitalization of endangered languages, cultural revitalization of traditional practices, and the creation of new knowledge stemming from the return of digitized material culture from the Arctic to Arizona. Participants sought to understand the broad impact of such technological changes and cultural needs on individual communities as well as regional and international networks.

Moving forward from this stimulating workshop, participants are now collaborating on a special issue of Museum Anthropology Review, developing themes raised at the workshop, including access and accountability, intellectual property rights and intangible cultural heritage, digital technologies and community collaboration and the circulation and transformation of knowledge through new digital networks and multiple publics. The Digital Return website will be expanding to include both research network and community resource links to promote discussion and provide resources for communities, institutions and researchers.

Finally, participants will be exploring further grant opportunities to link cultural materials and digital tools with communities, particularly through the Recovering Voices initiative of the National Museum of Natural History, the Mukurtu indigenous archive tool, and the World Oral Literature Project based at Cambridge and Yale universities. Description of the Mukurtu initiative, and other ways anthropology is going digital, previously appeared on Neuroanthropology in Digital Anthropology: Projects and Platforms.

For a full list of “After the Return” participants, their projects and the workshop presentations please visit the Digital Return website. Here is the full conference description:

The “After the Return: Digital Repatriation and the Circulation of Indigenous Knowledge,” workshop brings together scholars from diverse anthropological fields, indigenous communities, and collecting institutions to document sets of best practices and case studies of digital repatriation in order to theorize the broad impacts of such processes in relation to: linguistic revitalization of endangered languages, cultural revitalization of traditional practices and the creation of new knowledge stemming from the return of digitized material culture. Theoretically, this workshop asks how and if marginalized communities can reinvigorate their local knowledge practices, languages, and cultural products through the reuse of digitally repatriated materials and distributed technologies. Invited participants all have expertise in both applied digital repatriation projects and the theoretical concerns that locate knowledge creation within both culturally specific dynamics and technological applications.

Category: Announcements, Application, Society | 1 Comment

Facebook as a Colonial Power?

I came across this clever image today, comparing Julian Assange of WikiLeaks and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook. Of course I came across it on Facebook!

On the left Assange says, “I give private information on corporations to you for free, and I am a villain.”

On the right Zuckerberg goes, “I give your private information to corporations for money, and I am Man of the Year.”

Right before that striking comparison, I had seen this clever cartoon.

The cartoon reads, “How about a compromise? We keep the land, the mineral rights, natural resources, fishing, and timber, and we’ll acknowledge you as the traditional owners of it.”

I can’t help but reflect that Facebook policy is rather like colonial policy. We’re traditional owners of our information, they just get to keep all the rights and sell it as they want.

Lots of internet companies seem to be working this way. Facebook’s approach to privacy – of course you have it, but we get to own and distribute the resulting information – isn’t that different from Apple’s new ibook author software – you create it, but if you use our software to publish it, we effectively own it. But, hey, your name is on it!

Category: Critique | 10 Comments

Wednesday Round Up #162

I open with some social media/e-pub material, and then turn to the usual mix. Enjoy.

And the image comes from the post, Social Media Neuromarketing Revisited 2011. I think it does summarize well the state-of-the-art… Slogans rule!

David Wescott, My Surprisingly Conflicted Take on #scio12
*Read this piece if you care about science and science communication. We need to recognize that the playing field is not one defined by science, academia, or an interested public. Science needs to fight back.

I for one am tired of analyzing the contour and measuring the force of the fist punching “science” in the face. The other side has a strategy, and they are committed to action more than analysis. They’re always on offense. It’s time to develop an overarching strategy that positions science and scientists as the good guys and critics as the bad guys. It’s time to move the needle of public opinion, and it starts by increasing the number of people who actually know a living scientist. It’s time to coordinate efforts, develop a real commitment to outreach, and then just go out and git’er done.

Kate Clancy, Blogging While Female, and Why We Need a Posse
*Great piece by Kate ? the antagonism felt by women blogging online over the past year, and what can be done about it. Go register, go comment, and give Kate ? and lots of other women ? the support they deserve to keep speaking about themselves, about truth, about our lives

Antonio Casilli, By Leveraging Social Media for Impact, Academics can Create Broader Support for Our Intellectual Work and Profession
*Using sociology, Casilli talks about the role of social media in academia ? its role, its detractors, its potential

Nick DeSantis, Tenured Professor Departs Stanford U., Hoping to Teach 500,000 Students at Online Start-Up
*After reaching over a hundred thousand students through his online classes, Sebastian Thrun decides to become an entrepreneur and founds Udacity

Scio12, Podcast: David Dobbs Shares His Experience in e-Publishing
*Author and blogger Dobbs tells us about his great success with e-pubs

Rachel Nuwer, So, You Want to Publish an eBook? Tips From the #scio12 Pros
*Some good advice on this rapidly emerging form

-//-

Valerie Knopnik, Grand Challenge in Behavioral and Psychiatric Genetics: Quantitative Challenges to Keeping up with Molecular Advances
*Beyond the fascinating discussion of the division between heritability and candidate gene research, this article highlights important issues & research needs relevant to neuroanthropology, including:


Continue reading »

Category: Round Up | Leave a comment