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 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 -
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.