Since its inception, I have been finding Pasts Imperfect to be adept at finding a good balance in presenting good scholarship in terms accessible and attractive to broad public. Kudos for that! However, I find the advice offered in this installment worrisome.
Embracing the identity of 'content provider' rather than 'public scholar' is not good advice... well, it may be good for capturing a few milliseconds of attention from a few more sets of eyes, but it is not good for scholarship. It makes one complicit in the commodification of education, which is the subversion of education. It leads inexorably to clickbaiting, sensationalism, presentism, and dumbing-down of 'content' for the lowest common denominator in the viewing public. The balance I praised in my first sentence depends on recognition that the 'widest possible audience' online is too wide. The scholarship part of 'public scholarship' still requires a public willing to read and think beyond sound-bites and dazzle. Such a public can be cultivated and expanded over time, but not by embracing worst imperatives of the Internet economy.
That’s exactly what Dr. Henry is suggesting. Students are going to go to YouTube, whether we like it or not, so why not provide them amazing and sound academic content? Please read the post again and see he is suggesting we DONT give into the attention economy and instead band together as scholars. His videos are amazing, Dr. Lubin, and used in thousands of classrooms across the country.
Since its inception, I have been finding Pasts Imperfect to be adept at finding a good balance in presenting good scholarship in terms accessible and attractive to broad public. Kudos for that! However, I find the advice offered in this installment worrisome.
Embracing the identity of 'content provider' rather than 'public scholar' is not good advice... well, it may be good for capturing a few milliseconds of attention from a few more sets of eyes, but it is not good for scholarship. It makes one complicit in the commodification of education, which is the subversion of education. It leads inexorably to clickbaiting, sensationalism, presentism, and dumbing-down of 'content' for the lowest common denominator in the viewing public. The balance I praised in my first sentence depends on recognition that the 'widest possible audience' online is too wide. The scholarship part of 'public scholarship' still requires a public willing to read and think beyond sound-bites and dazzle. Such a public can be cultivated and expanded over time, but not by embracing worst imperatives of the Internet economy.
That’s exactly what Dr. Henry is suggesting. Students are going to go to YouTube, whether we like it or not, so why not provide them amazing and sound academic content? Please read the post again and see he is suggesting we DONT give into the attention economy and instead band together as scholars. His videos are amazing, Dr. Lubin, and used in thousands of classrooms across the country.