Dear dean of faculty:
I am writing to express the need for change in the way that researchers want to develop our research and the way we want to publicly share our knowledge, especially in the humanities.
To begin, we refuse to write books as you understand them and the university has requested it so far. With current tools available (and the book is one of them, I know) can not afford to publish books to use, those that are printed two years after it was written and reviewed. The reality is that these books are old as we deliver, because researchers are dedicated to investigate, and a week later we have new materials and nuances that add to the book, which becomes impractical when in print. The book has always been a stage of knowledge within a research line, a particular time, but to some random point, our own state investigator. Therefore we refuse to write more books, or milestones of paper and ink. You no longer need to restrict ourselves to these terms in a society where information flow has reached a much larger, and in which researchers are able to manage it better.
Therefore, we ask a very different technological infrastructure for the university and department publications. Typically, researchers carry out two or three lines of research. In these lines of analysis developed in small groups around specific issues, while we are used to delineate the general framework in which we stand and where we locate the research of other colleagues. That is, the university must approve only those lines of research giving us a space to develop appropriate technology and expose each. We always work with projects that expand and generate new continuously. Therefore, we need a space in a dynamic show not only the results (is there any one definitive result time?) but our research process, with capacity to share with our audience (colleagues, students, stakeholders) in a continuous and interactive. This implies that all the current 2.0 technology, using the most advanced wiki, blog, multimedia and social networking should be available to us to keep alive and open our lines of investigation, in which the researcher can decide when to publish a result as he conceives it, and where the projects are fed back to the interaction of other specialists and why not, other audiences not necessarily academic.
often discover new material each week, and these new materials is part of a puzzle that's in my head and I built, piece by piece. Should have the opportunity to incorporate public immediately and this piece to the puzzle of my online research, so that reading can be answered at any time. And to do the same with other colleagues or stakeholders. The researchers did not investigate for ourselves, although it can be a pleasure to do, but we do also to provide insight (and disclosure) within a vast network of common knowledge which we conceive the world, a collective repository now called network of networks. Knowledge is understood and accepted more than ever as participation in the imago mundi, and how to participate in it is based on the flow of communication of our ideas, discoveries, trial and error.
my book does not matter that grows daily, it changes every week, we all learn something every day and therefore the world does not stand still for anyone. As a researcher, not fear of contradiction, to go back one day, to advance another, often because the contradiction has led me to where I am.
Thus, researchers would get many benefits, not only fluency in the exhibition, provision and communication of ideas, processes, results, but also the creation and membership of a scientific community better connected, and therefore better community. Colleagues may criticize (positively or negatively) and therefore, revise or defend some of the ideas much more effectively and live.
Therefore, we ask for a multimedia and interactive space where we can outline, add, modify, re-retrieve, link, and experience any kind of information, and we can discuss, share and link information themselves and others (do not you means the same from the outside?). We do not want to publish more books, but we want to keep updated and open to our projects possible. Published continuously, because they continually investigate and reflect well our collective activity continued to ask, answer us, interact, question, express, clarify, propose.
want a tool that combines the best of wiki + wordpress + twitter + facebook + google + youtube Prezi + flickr + delicious + + + ustream flowr citeulike + + + rss + dropbox wallwisher sync.in + + + Zotero + pip.io Dipity. Some journalists and other professionals and offer basic packages or, failing that, they organize themselves on personal pages. But in our case, if the university wants to continue to provide knowledge to the society and approved in its universal work, has the responsibility to innovate as well, providing as institution renewed knowledge tools for researchers.
and apologize. I believe that I forgot to list some 2.0 service, but is easily understood why should I use each and all together. Anyway, I can explain it in detail in a separate report, if necessary. Can you think of something else?
Sincerely Yours,
a researcher.
PS. It seems that other voices are coming similar requests.
0 comments:
Post a Comment