Archive for July 17th, 2007

17
Jul

Sometimes Good Enough Is Good Enough

   Posted by: Jeffrey    in Academia, Functionality

I applaud Chris Garrett's post today, Forget About Perfection, Just Do It. If we wait to blog or write or publish until everything is perfect, we may well miss the opportunity to have anything ever written at all. Chris' guides include keeping momentum, the benefits of now versus later, striking while still being original, and reducing opportunity cost. They are all valuable. 

Even if we want to be seen as an authority, which is a theme I am beginning to come back to again and again, then we still need to start someplace. If I did not begin writing about expertise last week, I would not have noticed the pattern I just noticed and now have a third reference to it in this post. Now I have something else to say and develop about it, as I have the beginning of some track record in this area (cf. Chris' momentum, benefits now, etc.). 

A number of years ago, when I was working on a graduate degree in English and American Literature at Hunter College, one of my classmates and future professional colleagues, Karen Graham said a profound statement that I come back to again and again. While we were struggling to finish our theses, she said (perhaps borrowing from a faculty member), that sometimes good enough is good enough. Excellent point. Sometimes we have to write and get it done and out the door as there are other things in life that demand attention, time, and resources. I may want to write the perfect blog post or Great American Novel or most sublime philosophical point that will have friends and colleagues alike in profound awe for years to come, but if I waited until then, I may as well remain illiterate.

After all, perfection is a long time in coming.

Technorati Tags: Chris Garrett, Karen Graham, Great American Novel, authority, expertise

No Comments
17
Jul

Scholarly Authority and Expertise Characteristics

   Posted by: Jeffrey    in Academia

I recently wrote a little on what constitutes being an expert, and just this evening, when I was catching up on some reading from the pile of magazines and newspapers I keep on one of my bookshelves, I read the Chronicle of Higher Education from June 15, where what to a surprise but an article by Michael Jensen on The New Metrics of Scholarly Authority (sorry, requires a subscription). While I am not claiming that he is an expert in the area of expertise and authority (though he certainly appears to be one), he did produce a really interesting list that e referred to as Authority 3.0 within the Web 3.0 world (where technology and networks are more present and immediate than now). I think his list is well worth considering, and have quoted it intact:

In the Web 3.0 world, we will also start seeing heavily computed reputation-and-authority metrics, based on many of the kinds of elements now used, as well as on elements that can be computed only in an information-rich, user-engaged environment. Given the inevitable advances in technology, remarkable things are likely to happen. In a world of unlimited computer processing, Authority 3.0 will probably include (the list is long, which itself is a sign of how sophisticated our new authority makers will have to be):

  • Prestige of the publisher (if any). Prestige of peer prereviewers (if any).
  • Prestige of commenters and other participants.

  • Percentage of a document quoted in other documents.

  • Raw links to the document.

  • Valued links, in which the values of the linker and all his or her other links are also considered.

  • Obvious attention: discussions in blogspace, comments in posts, reclarification, and continued discussion.

  • Nature of the language in comments: positive, negative, interconnective, expanded, clarified, reinterpreted.

  • Quality of the context: What else is on the site that holds the document, and what’s its authority status?

  • Percentage of phrases that are valued by a disciplinary community.

  • Quality of author’s institutional affiliation(s).

  • Significance of author’s other work.

  • Amount of author’s participation in other valued projects, as commenter, editor, etc.

  • Reference network: the significance rating of all the texts the author has touched, viewed, read.

  • Length of time a document has existed.

  • Inclusion of a document in lists of “best of,” in syllabi, indexes, and other human-selected distillations.

  • Types of tags assigned to it, the terms used, the authority of the taggers, the authority of the tagging system.

I think this is a great place to begin considering what may or may not make one authoritative (beyond star power, gossipability, and the kind of money it takes to buy the sources of news itself). This list accounts for primary sources, affiliation, reputation, and even peer-reviewability. I pay attention to these now, and am not sure how Web 3.0 will make them any easier to navigate or maintain for those seeking authority. I do appreciate seeing the conversation begin, regardless.

I can only wonder how a non-academic could ever navigate this list. Ahh, that is what Google is for, isn’t it?

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

No Comments
Back to top