Robbins Library Notes

Good morning, readers!

I came across these two articles while browsing through Bookforum.com a few days ago.

In the first article, “Knowledge Overload,” Ken Coates examines the explosion of scholarly publishing in recent years, arguing that this explosions makes it basically impossible for anyone to keep up with any scholarly research, except in very narrow sub-disciplines.  After offering examples of how the flood of information and knowledge results in little to none of it being assimilated and making a difference, he concludes by writing:

We have collectively created the equivalent of an academic monsoon over the past three decades, with no change in the forecast for the coming years. Without a major reconsideration of how we share and use information, how we keep up with the field, and how we recognize academic accomplishment, we will continue to add to the floodwaters, all the while spending less attention on whether or not anyone reads our work, listens to our presentations, or appreciates our professional contributions. Academe 2.0 offers tools to build more effective dikes and even to regulate the flow. But we need to realize that the lakes at the end of the bloated academic rivers – our faculty, researchers and students – have finite capacity, in terms of time and ability to assimilate information. Controlling the scholarly input is crucial to ensuring that we actually learn from and about each other, and ensuring that our academic work truly makes a difference.

What do you think, readers?

Scott McLemee, in “Print or Byte,” offers his views on how the current economic crisis will push academic publishing to a more digital environment, one in which print on demand and digital editions will become more common.  He argues, though, that this will not signal the death of the printed book, as some claim.  I like his predictions, and agree that print and digital media can co-exist.

Thoughts?