One of the topics online and at the ISA has been the gated-ness of academic writings. Journal articles are almost always behind a paywall so that ordinary folks cannot get at them. This is likely to change as many folks are now complaining and the threat of ditching academic publishers for the net may force the journal publishers into being responsive. We are already seeing more journals temporarily providing open access to various articles and issues.
But, I am afraid, my friends, that is almost entirely irrelevant. Why? Because why would any ordinary person want to read a jargon filled hunk of social science? That is, the academic articles we are produce are indeed intended to be read by other scholars, so paywall or not, these pieces are not accessible.
I am not advocating that journals and academics change the way articles are written. Peer review and all that have problems, but I do think we need an intra-poli sci conversation, presenting our research to each other.
What we need to do is provide supplements to that intra-academic discussion so that our work can be digested by those who have not been trained in social science. Folks should be required to provide, dare I say it, blog posts or something like it to journals when they submit their articles–a less arcane, more transparent, more accessible summary of the research paper that they seek to publish. Then, when the article gets published in the journal, the journal’s website would post the blog post. Yes, you can see abstracts already but they are too short (750 words is 3x 250 and 5 x 150), and they are not written for non-academic audiences.
Yes, it would require academics to develop their writing skills so that they can communicate beyond the academy, but most of us are getting public support one way or another. So, we should be obligated to disseminate.
The funny thing is that ungating will be easier than my alternative. Easier to get journal publishers to be threatened by the web and figure out ways to improve access than to get all academics to write 750 words more and in more everyday language. Even though the latter is far cheaper in $ spent than the former.
Good point. But I do think you ignore the problem of paywalls for institutions outside the very rich universities of the U.S. and Europe. At these latter institutions the problem of paywalls is usually marginal; we cannot read a few articles in less well-known journals here and there. Having worked in an institution in the Middle East not blessed with much funding, but indeed blessed with many very capable academics, the problem is very significant indeed; virtually no journal subscriptions are available. Removing paywalls is vital for these scholars, and indeed for increasing the likelihood that their far more diverse contributions will be heard.
That is a great point. I was thinking only of the public and not about scholars who cannot access these journals. My bad. thanks for the correction.
Exactly, though I think having IR and other social science folks provide readable blog posts–though a clever idea–would be a wash because most of us just can’t write that way. Consider APSA’s ponderous press-release about NSF funding: the first paragraph is almost unreadable (link below). They frame the issue favorably, but an average media consumer would spend no time trying to wade through the prose. It’s an academic’s understanding of journalism.
My own unoriginal solution involves incentivising those who can specialize in integrating and articulating their field’s research. Promotion and tenure, for example, could give real weight to publications in mainstream book publishers, magazines, websites and blogs. I know, I know: how do we know the work is quality or the outlets are legitimate? An important challenge, but it’s certainly not a devastating critique.
(https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/senate-delivers-a-devastating-blow-to-the-integrity-of-the-scientific-process-at-the-national-science-foundation-199221111.html)