<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Burn the Boats/Books</title>
	<atom:link href="http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2010/burn-the-boatsbooks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2010/burn-the-boatsbooks/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Emerging Media and Higher Education</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:17:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jebyrnes</title>
		<link>http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2010/burn-the-boatsbooks/comment-page-1/#comment-177677</link>
		<dc:creator>jebyrnes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:51:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/?p=444#comment-177677</guid>
		<description>Intriguing argument.  I agree with it all save for two points - self-publication and getting over peer review.  In the Sciences, this would be disaster.  At some point, there has to be a gatekeeper for scientific information.  I think, if anything, the fact that anyone perceives that there is a &quot;debate&quot; on topics such as climate change or evolution is proof enough of that.  I&#039;m a big fan of services such as Nature Precedings or archivX as a pre-publication point, but the beauty of it is that it is, indeed, pre-print.  The validity of a piece is questionable until the piece receives sufficient peer review, revision, and is judged sufficient to be published.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Intriguing argument.  I agree with it all save for two points &#8211; self-publication and getting over peer review.  In the Sciences, this would be disaster.  At some point, there has to be a gatekeeper for scientific information.  I think, if anything, the fact that anyone perceives that there is a &#8220;debate&#8221; on topics such as climate change or evolution is proof enough of that.  I&#8217;m a big fan of services such as Nature Precedings or archivX as a pre-publication point, but the beauty of it is that it is, indeed, pre-print.  The validity of a piece is questionable until the piece receives sufficient peer review, revision, and is judged sufficient to be published.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Natalie Binder</title>
		<link>http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2010/burn-the-boatsbooks/comment-page-1/#comment-173564</link>
		<dc:creator>Natalie Binder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:05:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/?p=444#comment-173564</guid>
		<description>I adore books.  As I librarian, I spend much of my life cataloging, processing, repairing, lending and reading them.  But I agree that they are no longer a viable vessel for academic knowledge.  

Scholarly knowledge is developing at an astronomical speed, and books--especially media and technology books--are frequently outdated before they hit the presses.  Not to mention the crippling cost to students, both financially (last semester&#039;s book bill: $350) and in terms of copyright restrictions.

Why does it seem like many academics can&#039;t see the future?  Personally I think it&#039;s a love of status that&#039;s holding us back.  It still means something to have a book or article published. There&#039;s still a dividing line--and a career-making one--between the published and the unpublished.  

I have strong reservations about the online-only classroom, but in a lot of ways we seem to be going back to an earlier era of scholarship, when teachers were humble guides instead of high-status experts.  I hope that&#039;s the way it works out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I adore books.  As I librarian, I spend much of my life cataloging, processing, repairing, lending and reading them.  But I agree that they are no longer a viable vessel for academic knowledge.  </p>
<p>Scholarly knowledge is developing at an astronomical speed, and books&#8211;especially media and technology books&#8211;are frequently outdated before they hit the presses.  Not to mention the crippling cost to students, both financially (last semester&#8217;s book bill: $350) and in terms of copyright restrictions.</p>
<p>Why does it seem like many academics can&#8217;t see the future?  Personally I think it&#8217;s a love of status that&#8217;s holding us back.  It still means something to have a book or article published. There&#8217;s still a dividing line&#8211;and a career-making one&#8211;between the published and the unpublished.  </p>
<p>I have strong reservations about the online-only classroom, but in a lot of ways we seem to be going back to an earlier era of scholarship, when teachers were humble guides instead of high-status experts.  I hope that&#8217;s the way it works out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cathy Higgins</title>
		<link>http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2010/burn-the-boatsbooks/comment-page-1/#comment-173535</link>
		<dc:creator>Cathy Higgins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 01:23:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/?p=444#comment-173535</guid>
		<description>I agree with all of your points. Such a perfectly stated post which I will share widely, starting with a listserv I maintain for K-12 educators in New Hampshire. Thank you for your insightful posts. Love reading all of them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with all of your points. Such a perfectly stated post which I will share widely, starting with a listserv I maintain for K-12 educators in New Hampshire. Thank you for your insightful posts. Love reading all of them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

