Software Takes Command / Lev ManovichHere is a manuscript theorising digital culture published on the web in the manner of an open source technical development. The manuscript is not technical in nature but references technology development explicitly in a theoretical manner. Here are my thoughts says Manovich; comment and/or fix as you see fit and these moderated contributions will be integrated into the work for the greater good. Not only is a new area of study being promulgated "software studies" but theoretical ideas are being distributed through a different (though possibly a more appropriate mode) means of publishing, that is, open access self-publishing with the call for community feedback and contribution (à la web 2.0). This manner and act of publishing seems a logical leap for a theorist (once was programmer) in digital culture, in accord with the self-expression via the web as part of digital culture and in sync with the rise in the implementation of open access repositories in academic institutions. However, is a leap in practice such as this, one that the academic community, and researchers, are ready to accept, let alone a leap they might make themselves? If not, why not, and if so, what effect might those leaps have on scholarly communication patterns?
First things first, what is driving this desire to get information (in its nascent stage of expression) out online sans the application of the usual editing and publishing processes of academic publishing? The drive is the urge to get ideas out quickly, to claim them as your own, and yet also to allow others to lay claim to their own contributions as they build upon or comment upon the work. What is the difference between this style of publishing and the traditional style of scholarly communication? The traditional style of scholarly communication being: the development of a manuscript, surveyed by editors (with or without bias), thence vetted by peers (blindly or not), pushed for review (where required) and then reassessed and reworked by proofreaders. The difference between open access and traditional publishing is the time and the ability to undertake the dialogue with interested parties (and by interested that might mean those that agree or disagree) directly.
So, what effect does this change in timeframe and roles of engagement with audience have on the academic author and on the participants? The academic author must participate proactively, in the hope that the audience will follow and respond in kind. The academic author must bear the brunt directly of criticism or bask in accolades and the responsibility for the work and respond to the forces he/she unleashes, and, also drive the interest in the work, because there are no machines of the academic publishing industry generating advertising and stimulating review through its distribution channels. The author as savvy exploiter of the vast communication potential of the internet may derive what they can from the power of networking and networked communities of interest they are already tapped into. Is this level of direct involvement and control something that more academics want (and do the attendant research community want it too)? What then happens to those subject areas that are ill-suited to this pace of intellectual exchange? Are we looking at a tipping point in changes to scholarly communication? A glance back in time might compare this happenstance with the advent of printing and wider and faster distribution of academic works (and by works that includes pamphlets and the letters exchanged between individuals or transactions of societies of erudition). Exchanges between thinkers (and opportunities for those just wishing to listen) became readily available (and facilitated) outside of society drawing rooms and exclusive coffee houses.
Open access publishing is a well established convention of scholarly communication for computer scientists and physicists. This openness in publishing and to review is not however the most ready means to demonstrate their scholarly capacity to a panel of assessors looking for academic method and rigour in the current policy trend for measuring of scholarly outputs as a means to base funding allocation. So, these academics find that they must write historical articles, documenting the experiments and research and development work they have undertaken (incorporating the comments they may have drawn out by making their ideas freely available and/or openly accessible) and providing evidence of exchange in less formal fora. Has this stopped these academics from sharing their ideas openly in workshops and online? No, one assumes these academics simply rewrite their material for a different publication and audience. Curiously though, coincidentally publishers have become aware of the value of this fulcrum of intellectual exchange in these informal fora. The scholarly publishers have begun to formally publish these (traditionally unpublished and oft undocumented) ideas in workshop and seminar sessions in proceedings as a means of capitalising upon the value of that newness (and no doubt with a view to continuing to do so in whatever form). Has the academic publishing process been turned on its head (or turned inside out) or is it being jostled around? Why is the newness of ideas (nascent in form) valuable to publishers and the research community, but not valued as highly in the performance assessment processes? The debate about the privatisation of academic research and in the last ten to fifteen years and performance assessment regimes in the last ten years (and the rise of open access) is a complex economic and political discussion for another time.
In the mean time, the following are some of the assumptions underlying the open access publishing of an academic book under a Creative Commons licence; that the:
- research community will embrace this means of scholarly communication, given the nature of the approach and particularly, the subject matter
- quality of the manuscript is such that it is 'ready enough' for consumption, and the function of the work (means with which to enlighten) overrides form (means with which to convey)
- means of distribution via the internet (and viral marketing) optimises and/or increases exposure of new ideas in the relevant social networks
- channels for collective review on the internet are an effective means for highlighting academic works to those outside those immediate social networks
- ease of integration of e-books (whether published traditionally or via open access) with learning in a digital environment will be possible for readers in developed and developing countries to benefit from (though perhaps in different ways)
- publication as it evolves is just as likely (if not more likely) to make the course list in this discipline as one fixed in form and shaped through the traditional means of publishing
- citation count mechanisms cover traditional and open access published works, e.g., Web of Science, so the impact on scholarly thinking can be just as easily quantified (if that is desirable measure and aids with academic performance assessment)
In sum: bypassing the established channels for peer editorial review, publication and independent review is fitting not only for this proposed new discipline "software studies". Bypassing traditional publishing this way is a prompt to consider some of the problems with current academic publishing processes where many ideas are stifled (and potentially lost) by the drawn out process of traditional scholarly publishing (and its inherent biases). Academic insight, like freshly diced vegetables quickly, finely and precisely cut for swift consumption offers a different gustatory experience to that of savouring biting an uncut crisp apple, bite by bite, and licking the juice up as it makes it way down your chin.
Perhaps... the burgeoning of new disciplines in the digital humanities such as "software studies" might help to dispel the idea that humanities scholars ponder longer and relish the traditional publishing process more than their academic cousins in the sciences.
Perhaps... the evolution of this manuscript might help to contradict notions that speed of production is superior or reaffirm the notion that the means of communication should necessarily be being appropriate to the audience, and some improve over time with further review and contribution.
Perhaps... the old chestnuts about the nature of the discipline (and those attracted to them) and the meritorious dissection and evaluation of arts versus science; text versus performance; brevity versus depth; quantification versus qualification; mass versus minutiae; can be put to rest.
Perhaps... it is as simplistic as two social forces at work here: the demands of technology and the agents of change; and/or the demands of new knowledge and the place for tradition?
Watch this space. Somewhat ironic, potentially coincidental; the title of this text is about software - assuming - control. Is it really the software assuming control or is it simply human nature to find new ways to do the same thing?
Perhaps... a remix..
