Typically I like to at least try to have some sort of a central theme to these posts, if not most things that I write. However I think for this I'll just come out and say it, there probably will not be much of that in this post. Had I read the book the entire way through I think that would have been attainable, but having only read the chapter on texts and chapter on Universities, I'll try to do my best to relate on topics that I hadn't given much though too before.
Texts- A large majority of this chapter related to how we can utilize digital technology to enhance reading. Fitzpatrick commented that one of the major problems that we have run into is the fast that we still always associate reading with books. Even when we have attempted advancements in the field of reading, it always comes back to books. For me personally I struggle to think about how it wouldn't come back to books. After all, I think the Printing Press is one of the top five inventions of all time. Up there with the likes of the wheel, gun powder, the internal combustion engine and the Baltimore Orioles. (couldn't help but plug them as its Opening Day-Maybe it'll finally be our year...wishful thinking right) For centuries the book has functioned so smoothly and seamlessly that we didn't often question its functionality (at least to my knowledge) Only with the advent of computers, the loss of attention spans and the constant connectivity have we started to question why the book has lost its luster. For me, its certainly hard to abandon the format. Yes I am a fan of physically holding a book and watching the pages get that gentle bend as you read them, but more so the functionality of it is simply engrained so deeply that it is hard to change. Even before I read Fitzpatrick's explanation of her students complaints and struggles about hyper texts I too questioned the usability of it. Sure, it'd be cool to have a bit more interaction with what were reading, but I think that changes the entire experience. It would be extremely difficult to discuss the story if you and your peers all reading and manipulated the plot in various ways. After some thought I consider the book experience to be similar to that of riding a roller coaster, where as the HyperText is more similar to driving a car. Certainly everyone can learn to drive a car, but we all have our different strengths and weaknesses with that skill. As for riding a roller coaster, we all go on the same ride, and experience the same loops, turns and twists, and then can relate to the terrifying experience together. That feeling of being out of control is what many people find so appealing about Roller Coasters. Likewise, that escape and being out of control while reading is what attracts so many people, in my opinion. I'm all for attempting to better things whenever possible. But I'm an even bigger fan of if it's not broke, don't fix it. Many are claiming that in fact the book and reading is broken, thus we have to fix it. For me I just don't know if thats the case. I think thats more so a result of systemic problems rather than the function of an age of reliable technology. That may be a debate for another day though. University- I'll admit, I hadn't given this much thought before I read part of Fitzpatrick's book and I certainly am no expert on this topic. One of the parts that really hit home for me in this was Fitzpatrick reflecting on the mission of a University. Although it wasn't necessarily her central premise, I thought it was a unique way to look at this. She brought up the point that many Universities write off their Press's because its not part of the central function of purpose of their University. I think to fully understand this we would have to come to a conclusion about what is the certain purpose of a University in general. Not specific to any one university, but just universities as a whole. I don't know that I even have a real concrete idea of what I believe is a Universities central mission. I know that I believe many parts are important, but at the same time this involves quite a bit of thought. Still for me I believe spreading and developing knowledge while preparing students to their next challenges should be a central focus of a University. Fitzpatrick argued that many Universities and University Press's have run into conflict over this very issue and its often a tricky spot for where the Press falls into this mix. Young professors and Scholars typically run into issues moving up the academic food chain if they run into publishing issues-thus the Press function. As far as for the actual students, the Press is often not in their frame of mind. If its not a central focus for the students, its typically well off the focus of the higher ups as well. I believe one way to bring both the Press and the mission together would be to generate more of a connection between the students and the Press. Certainly professors need to publish papers, but wouldn't it be awesome (and this probably already happens to some extent at places) if those university presses were able to highlight exceptional student work. This would both aid the students resume, introduce them to upper level scholarship and help promote the mission of the University. This would put a larger connection between the University as a whole and the Press. Now I'm not saying that they should publish students work in the same level of journals that the Professors are seeking, but perhaps Quarterly journals focused on various topics. Then share those with like minded Universities and perhaps even promote some collaboration between Universities and their students. Frankly, I'm not sure that this totally helps with the budget issues, but it would promote a greater connection between the two where the press would then be more like a department, rather than off to the side business.
1 Comment
Aaron
4/3/2017 01:37:32 pm
Good thoughtful post.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Adam RudyHistory Teacher, Cross Country and Track Coach, Runner, Amateur Blogger Archives
September 2017
Categories |