Comments on: “I must side either with or against my section” http://savageminds.org/2006/01/04/i-must-side-either-with-or-against-my-section/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Wed, 23 May 2012 16:50:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » An Anthropological Daisy Chain http://savageminds.org/2006/01/04/i-must-side-either-with-or-against-my-section/comment-page-1/#comment-2839 Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » An Anthropological Daisy Chain Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:08:50 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=351#comment-2839 [...] I think it should be Savage Mind’s second foray into investigative journalism to uncover what kind of diagnosis Caton should have… Perhaps we should all do it together bourbaki-style so that we can subsequently be diagnosed with multiple personality disorder… [...] [...] I think it should be Savage Mind’s second foray into investigative journalism to uncover what kind of diagnosis Caton should have… Perhaps we should all do it together bourbaki-style so that we can subsequently be diagnosed with multiple personality disorder… [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Rex http://savageminds.org/2006/01/04/i-must-side-either-with-or-against-my-section/comment-page-1/#comment-2821 Rex Mon, 09 Jan 2006 23:19:38 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=351#comment-2821 Patricia points to another major issue surrounding AnthroSource and AAA journal more generally -- I think we are pretty far away from a time when AAA members are willing to give up a paper copy, and this fact has large implications for AnthroSource and the AAA's business models. Although Rachel is right that AnthroSource does do a lot of institutional subscriptions. And in general my impression is that it is a LOT cheaper than some Sage or Elsevier's online content packages. Although I don't actually know this. Patricia points to another major issue surrounding AnthroSource and AAA journal more generally — I think we are pretty far away from a time when AAA members are willing to give up a paper copy, and this fact has large implications for AnthroSource and the AAA’s business models. Although Rachel is right that AnthroSource does do a lot of institutional subscriptions. And in general my impression is that it is a LOT cheaper than some Sage or Elsevier’s online content packages. Although I don’t actually know this.

Report this comment

]]> By: rachel lee http://savageminds.org/2006/01/04/i-must-side-either-with-or-against-my-section/comment-page-1/#comment-2819 rachel lee Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:23:30 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=351#comment-2819 Just one small correction to Patricia's comments: AnthroSource *is* currently available to institutions on a subscription basis and has received an encouraging level of support, not only in the US, but also overseas. [full disclosure - I'm the Library Relations person at University of California Press, and I market AnthroSource to libraries...] Just one small correction to Patricia’s comments: AnthroSource *is* currently available to institutions on a subscription basis and has received an encouraging level of support, not only in the US, but also overseas.

[full disclosure - I'm the Library Relations person at University of California Press, and I market AnthroSource to libraries...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Entertaining Research » Blog Archive » History E-books! http://savageminds.org/2006/01/04/i-must-side-either-with-or-against-my-section/comment-page-1/#comment-2809 Entertaining Research » Blog Archive » History E-books! Mon, 09 Jan 2006 13:30:52 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=351#comment-2809 [...] Via Savage minds, we learn about this History E-book Project. A search for India returns 12 records which includes Basham, and Gandhi (Experiments with Truth). Book mark the page and have fun! [...] [...] Via Savage minds, we learn about this History E-book Project. A search for India returns 12 records which includes Basham, and Gandhi (Experiments with Truth). Book mark the page and have fun! [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Patricia http://savageminds.org/2006/01/04/i-must-side-either-with-or-against-my-section/comment-page-1/#comment-2798 Patricia Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:03:49 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=351#comment-2798 If the societies are very interested in retaining members they should investigate what other journals outside of anthropology are doing. Many science and medical journals now provide content online via web portals. Members [subscribers] get access to back issues and bonus materials as well as current editions, depending on the amount of OA involved. AnthroSource can be sold to universities on a subscription basis, with some of the revenue shared with sections, depending on impact. Even if the sections aren't that interested in the economics of journal publishing, perhaps the incredible changes within the publishing industry will make them become more proactive. Coupled with the MLA's new tenure recommendations, all of this is pointing towards drastic changes to come, whether or not sections and members are interested. What are other disciplines outside of anthropology doing about this? Should AnthroSource be repositioned in a way to help the sections regain or maintain memberships? Out-of-the-box thinking is needed when the status quo doesn't work anymore. If the societies are very interested in retaining members they should investigate what other journals outside of anthropology are doing. Many science and medical journals now provide content online via web portals. Members [subscribers] get access to back issues and bonus materials as well as current editions, depending on the amount of OA involved.

AnthroSource can be sold to universities on a subscription basis, with some of the revenue shared with sections, depending on impact. Even if the sections aren’t that interested in the economics of journal publishing, perhaps the incredible changes within the publishing industry will make them become more proactive.

Coupled with the MLA’s new tenure recommendations, all of this is pointing towards drastic changes to come, whether or not sections and members are interested. What are other disciplines outside of anthropology doing about this? Should AnthroSource be repositioned in a way to help the sections regain or maintain memberships? Out-of-the-box thinking is needed when the status quo doesn’t work anymore.

Report this comment

]]> By: Rex http://savageminds.org/2006/01/04/i-must-side-either-with-or-against-my-section/comment-page-1/#comment-2782 Rex Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:20:59 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=351#comment-2782 That does make a certain amount of sense, although maybe you shouldn't compare AAA journals to toilet paper in public :) Seriously, though, in the case of a grocery store they sell you Charmin at a loss to get you in the door, but make a net profit from your additional spending. I don't know what (if any) additional spending section members make that would offset a section's loss on a journal. I've been lately thinking about this, though: sections are relatively insensitive to their financial status, but very highly value membership in sections (for many reasons). They can run a little (or perhaps a lot? I don't know) in the red for a couple of years without many serious repurcussions. But a drop in membership is something they take very seriously. So what bothers them about AnthroSource is not really the economics of it (although I'm sure this bothers them more than a little bit) but the moral economy of it. That does make a certain amount of sense, although maybe you shouldn’t compare AAA journals to toilet paper in public :) Seriously, though, in the case of a grocery store they sell you Charmin at a loss to get you in the door, but make a net profit from your additional spending. I don’t know what (if any) additional spending section members make that would offset a section’s loss on a journal.

I’ve been lately thinking about this, though: sections are relatively insensitive to their financial status, but very highly value membership in sections (for many reasons). They can run a little (or perhaps a lot? I don’t know) in the red for a couple of years without many serious repurcussions. But a drop in membership is something they take very seriously. So what bothers them about AnthroSource is not really the economics of it (although I’m sure this bothers them more than a little bit) but the moral economy of it.

Report this comment

]]> By: AnthroDiva http://savageminds.org/2006/01/04/i-must-side-either-with-or-against-my-section/comment-page-1/#comment-2781 AnthroDiva Sat, 07 Jan 2006 17:01:19 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=351#comment-2781 Re - access to journals run at a loss which attract people to sections that depend upon membership dues only paid in order to access journals. It's called a "loss leader" just like your local supermarket offering a deal on Charmin to get you in the door. :-) Re – access to journals run at a loss which attract people to sections that depend upon membership dues only paid in order to access journals.

It’s called a “loss leader” just like your local supermarket offering a deal on Charmin to get you in the door.

:-)

Report this comment

]]> By: Patricia http://savageminds.org/2006/01/04/i-must-side-either-with-or-against-my-section/comment-page-1/#comment-2769 Patricia Fri, 06 Jan 2006 18:03:51 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=351#comment-2769 Rex-I'm not confused at all. The differences between STM and Humanities/Social Science publishing is the "end user". Biological and Pharma research's end results, whether funded by gov't. or private dollars are for-profit products that charge big-bucks for dissemination. New drugs, procedures, etc. are disseminated to for-profit businesses that then refine and sell results as products. Remember the Human Genome Project? This semi-gov't. venture's fueled private industry for at least 12 yrs. "Visible Human" -- another project that's trickled down into the private 'for profit' sector. Sure, lots of STM research is federally funded, but those grants are in the million dollar ranges. Many researchers in these fields figure out that retaining ties to private industry pays. Why did the NIH reign in its researchers last year from profiting on their work? Because those NIH people were finding collaborations in private industries lucrative beyond belief. Private industry pays big bucks for published research that's offered, at high price from private publishers. And the demand keeps growing. It is in the private sector's interest that publishing in their areas remains prolific. Money invested in these areas has incredible ROI and the screen between public and private sector is more transparent than many believe. In a sense the gov't. invests in this sort of research to 'fuel' private industry. On the other hand, humanities/social science research, although funded, has much less money to burn since its 'end user' isn't some profitable product, but rather in many cases more gov't. monies to fund social welfare programs here and abroad. This sort of information isn't nearly as attractive to private industry as what's available in hard science. The application of the information is tenuous, and ability to profit is much less. This hasn't stopped industry from copying anthropological tools and reinventing them as marketing enhancements. Ethnography, participant-observation, and the like are anthro elements that are being increasingly incorporated in modified form to enhance marketing of commercial products. But do private marketing and advertising firms read anthro literature? Probably not. Would they, if made available? Perhaps. Right now they publish their own research, which is more accessible than AnthroSource. Would other sciences benefit from access to AnthroSource? I think so. Addiction research, for one, is an area I think is out of touch with the social and cultural issues related to alcoholism and drug addiction. Most research done now isn't very insightful beyond the obvious. Again I think AnthroSource, and anthropology as a whole needs to rethink what its doing and how much or little its research impacts related fields, other scientific disciplines, and public and private sectors of society. As I've mentioned before, anthropology can do all the research it wants, but if no one is aware of it, reads it, understands it, and applies it, what really then is the point? Rex-I’m not confused at all. The differences between STM and Humanities/Social Science publishing is the “end user”. Biological and Pharma research’s end results, whether funded by gov’t. or private dollars are for-profit products that charge big-bucks for dissemination. New drugs, procedures, etc. are disseminated to for-profit businesses that then refine and sell results as products. Remember the Human Genome Project? This semi-gov’t. venture’s fueled private industry for at least 12 yrs. “Visible Human” — another project that’s trickled down into the private ‘for profit’ sector. Sure, lots of STM research is federally funded, but those grants are in the million dollar ranges. Many researchers in these fields figure out that retaining ties to private industry pays. Why did the NIH reign in its researchers last year from profiting on their work? Because those NIH people were finding collaborations in private industries lucrative beyond belief. Private industry pays big bucks for published research that’s offered, at high price from private publishers. And the demand keeps growing. It is in the private sector’s interest that publishing in their areas remains prolific. Money invested in these areas has incredible ROI and the screen between public and private sector is more transparent than many believe. In a sense the gov’t. invests in this sort of research to ‘fuel’ private industry.

On the other hand, humanities/social science research, although funded, has much less money to burn since its ‘end user’ isn’t some profitable product, but rather in many cases more gov’t. monies to fund social welfare programs here and abroad. This sort of information isn’t nearly as attractive to private industry as what’s available in hard science. The application of the information is tenuous, and ability to profit is much less. This hasn’t stopped industry from copying anthropological tools and reinventing them as marketing enhancements. Ethnography, participant-observation, and the like are anthro elements that are being increasingly incorporated in modified form to enhance marketing of commercial products. But do private marketing and advertising firms read anthro literature? Probably not. Would they, if made available? Perhaps. Right now they publish their own research, which is more accessible than AnthroSource.

Would other sciences benefit from access to AnthroSource? I think so. Addiction research, for one, is an area I think is out of touch with the social and cultural issues related to alcoholism and drug addiction. Most research done now isn’t very insightful beyond the obvious.

Again I think AnthroSource, and anthropology as a whole needs to rethink what its doing and how much or little its research impacts related fields, other scientific disciplines, and public and private sectors of society. As I’ve mentioned before, anthropology can do all the research it wants, but if no one is aware of it, reads it, understands it, and applies it, what really then is the point?

Report this comment

]]> By: Rex http://savageminds.org/2006/01/04/i-must-side-either-with-or-against-my-section/comment-page-1/#comment-2760 Rex Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:00:15 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=351#comment-2760 I think that Patricia is confused about several things -- most notably how the biological and physical sciences are funded. As I understand it, the research that we see in journals is funded by government agencies, not the pharmaceutical industry. My own (admittedly biased) understanding was that big pharma prefers to make its money by encouraging strict intellectual property laws to make competition illegal. Why invest money in research which might not produce a breakthrough when you can continue to charge high fees for known working product by making its generic equivalent illegal. Ditto with research -- why would a profit driven company allow its researchers to publish data that might let competitors get ahead? I do agree with Patricia, however, on the issue of author fees. Funding open access journals through author fees has been a successful strategy for some, but the size of grants and other funding in anthropology precludes this option for anthropology as a discipline (although the models of institutional fees or a cooperative system that Willinsky mentions might work). I think that Patricia is confused about several things — most notably how the biological and physical sciences are funded. As I understand it, the research that we see in journals is funded by government agencies, not the pharmaceutical industry. My own (admittedly biased) understanding was that big pharma prefers to make its money by encouraging strict intellectual property laws to make competition illegal. Why invest money in research which might not produce a breakthrough when you can continue to charge high fees for known working product by making its generic equivalent illegal. Ditto with research — why would a profit driven company allow its researchers to publish data that might let competitors get ahead?

I do agree with Patricia, however, on the issue of author fees. Funding open access journals through author fees has been a successful strategy for some, but the size of grants and other funding in anthropology precludes this option for anthropology as a discipline (although the models of institutional fees or a cooperative system that Willinsky mentions might work).

Report this comment

]]> By: Patricia http://savageminds.org/2006/01/04/i-must-side-either-with-or-against-my-section/comment-page-1/#comment-2758 Patricia Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:15:11 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=351#comment-2758 AnthroSource needs to get a new model. Open Source if great if you're PLoS [Public Library of Science] and have a multi-million dollar grant, but even PLoS makes author's pay fees for printing their work. If AAA section journals switch to this model, will author's pay? Will articles be shorter so there's less of a fee? OA is still working out plenty of bugs. In fact, the entire publishing industry [not just science] is in the middle of a generational paradigm shift. OA has been most successful in the 'hard' sciences, like biology. But biology is somewhat tethered to big business. The Pharma industry also has plenty of money to burn, so OA in that area is well funded. Anthropology isn't related to the same revenue-generating industries so underfunding is always an issue. One thing that Anthrosource can do is consider how it can open up the library to paid subscribers -- institutional as well as individuals outside of the AAA galaxy. Electronic library subscriptions at reasonable prices would do well in many universities. This creates a renewable revenue stream. But again it sounds like despite anthropology's 'holisticness' and all, many still live in some bubble. How can the word get out--that Anthropology is relevant to today's problems and a useful science--if its literature is hidden from all but a few? Sounds to me like someone at the AAA and AnthroSource needs to rethink why their really doing this online thing in the first place. To believe anything is ever truly "free" is foolish. AnthroSource needs to get a new model. Open Source if great if you’re PLoS [Public Library of Science] and have a multi-million dollar grant, but even PLoS makes author’s pay fees for printing their work. If AAA section journals switch to this model, will author’s pay? Will articles be shorter so there’s less of a fee?

OA is still working out plenty of bugs. In fact, the entire publishing industry [not just science] is in the middle of a generational paradigm shift. OA has been most successful in the ‘hard’ sciences, like biology. But biology is somewhat tethered to big business. The Pharma industry also has plenty of money to burn, so OA in that area is well funded.

Anthropology isn’t related to the same revenue-generating industries so underfunding is always an issue. One thing that Anthrosource can do is consider how it can open up the library to paid subscribers — institutional as well as individuals outside of the AAA galaxy. Electronic library subscriptions at reasonable prices would do well in many universities. This creates a renewable revenue stream.

But again it sounds like despite anthropology’s ‘holisticness’ and all, many still live in some bubble. How can the word get out–that Anthropology is relevant to today’s problems and a useful science–if its literature is hidden from all but a few? Sounds to me like someone at the AAA and AnthroSource needs to rethink why their really doing this online thing in the first place.

To believe anything is ever truly “free” is foolish.

Report this comment

]]> By: Kerim http://savageminds.org/2006/01/04/i-must-side-either-with-or-against-my-section/comment-page-1/#comment-2746 Kerim Thu, 05 Jan 2006 02:49:05 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=351#comment-2746 Wow. SM is doing investigative blogging! Great work! Wow. SM is doing investigative blogging! Great work!

Report this comment

]]>