I'm watching this topic with some interest. Re the academic scenario and
funding, I can go with the feeling and what your saying about point 1, but
in simple terms to be called a spade, its best if the spade is actually a
spade. That is, if it is a peer reviewed doodah then it needs to follow the
doodah scenario (apologies for the technical language). I think it would be
better to have a section for non peer reviewed papers in addition to peer
reviewed, which is the intention I think.
The benefits are legitimacy for all and for some, being able to apply for
funding. It would be handy to have a legitimate side to the symposiums. In
the future, the symposiums could go big or small, but having legitimacy for
a component might be useful.
Legitimacy means hierarchy, and hierarchy imposes values, but then given
money might come into it, the imposition of values somewhere along the line
will occur as a matter of course. Hierarchies have the money, and seek
legitimation to dispense it.
I agree that a 'paper' can be many things. They could be research based
creative projects or just plain projects that would be presented, but if it
is submitted to the peer reviewed channel then it's peer reviewed. Which
means it might not make it.
Utilising the email list for intro of the 'paper' is a good idea. Simply
putting it on the web someplace doesn't work as well as having it come into
the inbox, in my experience. If readers have to go to a page, it is too easy
Collated and circulated prior sounds OK, but would be extra work for the
organisers and I can see this turning into pile of papers I must read before
the symposium, and turning up to the symposium with unread papers. Know what
Be interesting to see what others have to say.
From: su b <suballard(a)optusnet.com.au>
Reply-To: Aotearoa Digital Arts <ada_list(a)list.waikato.ac.nz>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:30:18 +1000
To: luke <lduncalfe(a)eml.cc>cc>, Aotearoa Digital Arts
Subject: [SPAM] - Re: [Ada_list] -emerge- - Email found in subject
well one of the things i want to suggest is that WE determine how it
the usual academic scenario is this: approx 2 months before a
conference you submit a written paper, this gets circulated around a
'peer review panel' who ...
(and this bit depends on the conference particulars)
1. decide if you can present - ie if it is up to 'scratch' (whatever
that might mean) - my sense is that we will not operate in this way.
2. give the writer feedback on the paper and suggest modifications/
other material etc.
3. are informed respondents when the paper is presented.
when 2. and 3. work they make for really good presentations and mean
that the conversations have already begun....
For academics in institutions, the peer review process gives a
legitimacy to the proceedings and means that it is often possible to
procure $$ to attend conferences - this is of course essential and i
don't want to undermine this for those of you lucky enough to be in
I am using the word 'paper' loosely here. There may be some really
interesting ways that we can use this feedback model as a tool for
critical peer evaluation of each other's pieces/ works/ presentations/
but again we also wanted to make this process optional (it can be
pretty daunting and doesn't work for everyone.)
Fibreculture (the australian networked media community list) requested
that anyone attending their conferences post a short 'position' paper
to the email list before everyone gets together - this works well when
everyone is engaged in (and comfortable with) written media but ADA is
more diverse than this.
I have also heard of wiki working well in this way (although i don't
really know how they work, or what they are...can someone help
Another option is that symposium material - papers / images/ texts/
etc are collated before the conference and circulated before we get
together and then we can begin chatting without the need for background
material to be presented, and we can use our time together to
experience time-based pieces (films/ performances/ etc...) - Adam has
suggested a PDF for this....a different kind of 'critical reader'...
On 13 Jun 2005, at 4:04 PM, luke wrote:
| discussion. And for those of us who want it,
we have included the
| opportunity for peer review - that is getting someone else to look at
| what you are doing: a critical reader - prior to the critical
| 'listeners' and participants at the symposium.
hi su - can you speak a bit more about how this works? i've never
before and it sounds like a great idea.
Ada_list mailing list
Ada_list mailing list
This communication - including any attachments - may contain legally privileged
information, and is confidential to the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient
you should delete the communication and contact the sender immediately. If you have
received this e-mail in error, you must not read, copy, disseminate, distribute or
otherwise use or disclose any part of this communication, or any information on matters or
persons to which it refers. WITT reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications
sent through its network.