As if historians of technology have written nothing about this... https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/making-silicon-valley … https://twitter.com/IEEEInstitute/status/969798777472278528 …
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I wish I had an answer to this.
@ColdWarScience hits on a painful point though. One answer - p'raps@wellerstein has thoughts - is to cultivate productive relationships with editors of journals (cf.@PhysicsToday). But that's not a cure-all.
I don't think we can expert non-scholars to take a whole lot of their time to trawl through our scholarly outputs. Esp. if we don't make it easy to do. Let's face it — even we have hard times keeping up with the literature, knowing where to start on a new topic, etc.
-
-
Yeah. I think our community launches into this discussion every so often, maybe in predictable ways/times. While I think it's a necessary conversation, I don't know how productive it is.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Well said. I’m pessimistic that historians as a group will ever recognize that the inaccessibility and unnavigability of our literature is a serious problem both for ourselves and our broader influence.
-
I think historians of science are self-referential/reflexive enough to see this as a form of boundary-work. For every argument about the importance of our work having broader impact, there are those who will/do argue that there is value in being obscure and not chasing relevance.
-
Personally I'm OK with different scholars taking different directions with their own careers. Want to do stuff that is aimed at a larger audience? Cool! Want to do deep dives into a topic that very few people care about? Cool! If you can do good work in either mode, do it!
-
And both modes are capable of good work, both modes are capable of bad work, etc. I think "goodness" is a separate category from the "audience," and I wish it was applied more even-handedly to both approaches.
-
I do think we need to ask what kinds of work we want our institutions to reward (e.g. w jobs, w tenure, w grants, whatever), and also think about how the norms of evidence, attribution, etc., can vary w/different outlets. There are def differences in each mode, better & worse.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The reason my stuff is (vastly) overrepresented in any journalism related to nuclear history is because my blog and popular writings makes it accessible and makes me findable. Not saying every scholar should or can do that. But that's the way journalism works in the aggregate.
-
(BTW, this is what I mean by my own work being vastly overrepresented. I mean, I think I do pretty good work, but I can admit I'm not *this* good, above everyone else in this list. I get these results with Incognito Mode on FWIW.)pic.twitter.com/9r0iqLgkdR
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.