Thursday Notes

by Cliopatria

Dan Cohen,"The Perils of Anonymity," Dan Cohen, 10 July, argues that PhDinHistory invited the attempts to out him or her by blogging anonymously and urges the blogger to return to the net in her or his own name. It's a thoughtful post, well worth the read, but the ‘sphere would be immensely impoverished without some of our anonymous bloggers. They are entitled to anonymity, if that's the way they want it. Used responsibly, as Invisible Adjunct, PhDinHistory and dozens of others used and use it, anonymity is perfectly legitimate. Those who try to out them are the culprits and the effort to"out" an anonymous blogger is probably sufficient evidence to convince shy people that the history ‘sphere isn't quite so benign a place as Dan suggests.
*Update*: PhDinHistory has returned to the net at a new address and under his own name! Hurray!

"From Rags to Riches, or How Undergarments Improved Literacy," Media, University of Leeds, 9 July. The press release summarizes the revisionist argument of Marco Mostert, a historian at the Centre for Medieval Studies, Utrecht University, at this year's International Medieval Congress at the University of Leeds. He argues that the introduction of paper was more important in spreading literacy in late medieval Europe than the introduction of printing. Hat tip.

Scott Carney,"A Handwritten Daily Paper in India Faces the Digital Future," Wired, 6 July, should only be read in conjunction with Sepoy's"Calligraphers," Chapati Mystery, 9 July. But read both and the conversation in comments at CM.

Gary Krist,"Fire in the Hole," Washington Post, 8 July, reviews Joan Quigley's The Day the Earth Caved In: An American Mining Tragedy. Remember Centralia, PA? In 1981, we could have put the fire out for $30,000. Over 25 years later, Centralia's still burning.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Jonathan Dresner - 7/13/2007

I, too, submitted my blogging as part of my evaluation materials. As I said elsewhere, "Well, as far as my colleagues are concerned, my blogging might as well be anonymous..."

I agree that the risk of blogging seriously about scholarship and current events is reasonably low -- no worse, anyway, than being an active member of faculty committees and publishing cutting-edge scholarship. (the risks of blogging about institutional issues is considerably higher) I think the benefits are substantial, but so far I haven't seen much evidence that tenure is among them.

Good luck, Dan!

Dan Cohen - 7/13/2007

I just submitted my tenure package (and so, I suppose, am sadly coming to the end of my "younger" years), and in that package I included a significant section on my blog. Why? Because I consider it simply part of the spectrum of my work (that yes, also includes books and articles). Surely Jonathan Dresner's work at Frog in a Well should be equally considered by his RPT committee since it spins out his thoughts on Asian history, historiography, and culture.

I know that blogging imbroglios are catnip to the Chronicle of Higher Ed, but am I alone (and evidently naive) in thinking that the risk of blogging in a serious way is low (and the possible upside not insignificant)?

Nonpartisan - 7/12/2007

Thanks for your courageous stand in favor of us pseudonymous bloggers, Dr. Luker -- much appreciated.

As for myself, I blog pseudonymously for a completely different reason from that which Dan has mentioned. It's not that I'm afraid to own to my own online statements -- I proudly stand behind every word I've written, even where I've made mistakes, under my pseudonym. But I'm simply too concerned about the reports of prominent history bloggers being denied tenure, or being passed over at the administrative level for promotions. Too many enure committees appear to think that blogging takes away from that all-important other activity, publishing, and to act accordingly. Juan Cole's experience here is illustrative -- even a tenured professor can be burned by what he or she writes online.

I think for us in the younger set, blogging pseudonymously is essential to preserving our hirability and tenurability.

Jonathan Dresner - 7/12/2007

I disagree with the assumption -- because that's what it is -- that pseudonymity equals freedom from criticism. As you yourself demonstrate, it invites criticism because it detaches the arguments from any authority, forces them to stand on their merits. A stable pseudonym is an identity, is a person with a track record, a reputation, and something to lose.

Moreover, I'm not at all convinced that the work that PhDinHistory does isn't the sort that will invite retaliation, and while I'm thrilled to see it reinblogated, I'm actually quite concerned that such high-profile critiques of the field (that is to say, us) will not engender a reputation of accomplishment and erudition among most of our colleagues.

Dan Cohen - 7/12/2007

Bad choice of words on my part with "the latest scandal." I actually wasn't thinking of the Bellesiles scandal or academic tempests in general and agree that this kind of thing would be a perfectly fine topic to blog about. I was more thinking about the commenting on Paris Hilton style of blogging that many professors still think is equivalent to blogging.

And I of course agree that personal choice is tremendously important.

Ralph E. Luker - 7/12/2007

Dan, I'm delighted if your post persuaded PhDinHistory to return to the net and blog in his own name. We'll all benefit from that. And I'm inclined to agree that his was not the personal blogging that might require anonymity. But, then, neither was IA's blogging "personal". I, too, sometimes wondered why she would resist publicly owning her accomplishment. But I know that she is a very private person and I think you have to allow an individual the latitude to make the decision about anonymity for themselves. My only reservation about your comment here is the condescending comment about blogging about "the latest scandal." I continue to think that there was a very widespread tendency among us to act as if the Bellesiles embarrassment was a blip on our professional screens. I've yet to see any significant rethinking about peer review, journal and book publications, and awards at the highest levels that I think it ought to have engendered. If some history bloggers continue to reflect on the scandals among us, maybe it will finally prompt the powerful to look more carefully at what we're doing.

Dan Cohen - 7/12/2007

Perhaps my "gassing" has been slightly misinterpreted. Surely there are times when anonymity is useful, as with Invisible Adjunct. But my feeling--one shared, I believe, by many others--was that PhDinHistory was not writing a tell-all blog or professional critique that required anonymity. He or she was writing deeply considered (if occasionally flawed) articles that provided an important counterpoint to other discussions, online and off.

I suppose the larger point is that we academics face criticism every time we give a paper, publish an article or book. Criticism comes with the territory--online and off. We have to stick our necks out, and yes, some will criticize (and perhaps not want to hire you because of what you've written) and some will applaud your ideas. But my feeling is that it's better to have written (with attribution) and be criticized than to never have written at all, or to write pseudonymously.

I believe that the "mainstream" thinking about blogs in academia is a swiftly moving target. I agree that there are still some who consider it unseemly because of its checkered past (which is due, in part, to the high proportion of early blogs written pseudonymously), but that minority will continue to shrink as more historians blog, and blog seriously (rather than about the latest scandal or what they had for breakfast). Thus my post last summer about the importance of more professors blogging.

As for comments on my blog, like many bloggers I merely found comments to be a haven for spam, but a summer redo of my blog will include them with some new technology to prevent spam. The lack of comments is a legitimate criticism, Jonathan, which I gladly accept. ;-)

Jonathan Dresner - 7/12/2007

I wasn't reading it regularly, so I really am not sure whose ox was being gored. I did a little catching up via GoggleCache, and I still don't get it: if you have any idea which issues might have triggered the witchhunt -- or the perception of a witchhunt, anyway -- I'd be curious.

I know Townsend's work -- though I didn't realize he was still a grad student himself -- and it seems like he and PhDinHistory were doing some interesting back and forth.

Ralph E. Luker - 7/12/2007

If you consider the fact that *many* anonymous bloggers, including *many* anonymous or pseudonymous history bloggers, *never* have been seriously threatened with being outed, it's seems that PhDinHistory was getting under *somebody*'s skin. As I read some of PDH's last few posts, he or she enumerated a number of his or her critics and their criticisms. I suspect that PhDinHistory was uncertain about where the line was between empathetic criticism and go-for-the-gut outrage. And any suggestion that one or more people were trying to do an outing was all PhDinHistory needed to know.
Btw, Robert Townsend of the AHA staff, who's working on his dissertation at GMU, does the kind of statistical-data-gathering for the AHA that PDH was doing on his or her blog.

Jonathan Dresner - 7/12/2007

I note that Dan Cohen's blog doesn't permit user comments, which in itself pretty much disqualifies him from pontificating on bloggerliness or bloggerhood, or bloggerdom, or whatever it is he's gassing on about.

The idea that PhDinHistory might have gotten positive credit for blogging is absurd, given the current state of "mainstream" thinking in departments about blogs, and particularly absurd because PhDinHistory was doing critical analysis of the profession which didn't make us look all that good.

I think the AHA ought to -- since Townsend apparently has PhDinHistory's address -- offer that blogger a regular column in Perspectives. And they better get paid for it, because no history department will consider that in hiring or tenure, either.