The International Studies Association Executive Committee has forwarded a proposal to the 
Governing Council that meets at the Association’s annual meeting that addresses blogging. The proposal and my take on it are discussed at my blog. The essence of it is to prohibit those involved in the editing of journals from blogging. The text of it goes beyond that, assuming/asserting that blogging is inherently unprofessional. That is not a message that the ISA should be sending out now or ever, really.
Will Moore takes a swing at the policy as well. I am sure others will do as well here and elsewhere.
The policy seems to be based on a heap of ignorance about blogging and what the profession thinks so consult Dan Drezner’s post about the blog-specific results of the TRIP survey.
For an old podcast where Dan Nexon, founder and ex-Ducker and current editor of ISQ, conversed with Dan Drezner, one of the pioneers in IR blogging, go here.
If you want to help defeat this proposal, contact the folks on the Governing Council who will be voting on this proposal in March. If you find allies among the GC, let me know so that I know who I can work with (email me at steve_saideman@carleton.ca).
And, of course, comment either here or at my blog on this policy, as I can use more/better arguments as well as more testimonies. And if you think this policy is a good idea, please do comment below and/or at my blog as that would help us prove that blogs can be constructive for folks to argue and such….
In doctoral seminar this morning the question came up of whether this is primarily about disciplining ‘unprofessionalism’ or basically a way for ISA journals, which are shifting to blog formats for their sites, to essentially enact “do not compete” clauses?
I don’t think this effort is that, um, strategic. I think it has to do with some past battles, including some that involve the Duck and some that don’t. The key, of course, is that the policy makes no sense on its own–it is not our job to make it coherent/logical but to prevent its passage.
Of course, it could be an example of the Chewbacca defense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14
Is this policy just a reaction to the outrage machine that the internet has become? ie *outrage* has so completly taken over most online areas that people arent generally going to bother anymore, and professional bodies will sanction against it, lest the outrage be turned on them for the internets daily minute of rage.
This is a serious question. Even though it might not look like it.
So the response would be for us all (humanity) to stop getting so outraged over nufink, and chill the **** out.
I don’t think the proposed policy has much to do with the ‘outrage’ factor; what prompted it is anyone’s guess (I have a couple of speculations but I have no idea if they’re valid or even plausible so don’t want to air them). And Steve S. and others are better placed to speculate than I am, anyway.
Chilling out is fine and I’m for it, but there isn’t that much ‘outrage’ in the corners of the Internet with which the people tabling this proposal are likely to be most familiar. The amount of unruliness, nastiness, exaggeration, profanity etc. at DofM, e.g., is pretty minimal. It is possible, I suppose, that if “bad stuff” is routinely occurring at a particular blog — any given blog w/ some readership — it may influence perceptions of the whole blogosphere, but as I say, I’m skeptical that that is what’s going on here.
The proposal itself is not very transparent. It’s basically — what I recall from reading it some hours ago — a bunch of verbiage about “professional conduct” and the statement that professional standards require that journal editors and editorial teams not blog anywhere except on the ‘official blogs’ of their journals. This proposition, IMHO, is rather absurd on its face. In any case, the proposal really doesn’t make an argument or give reasons; it’s just a string of assertions.
Your blogs and its stuff magnetize me to return again n again.
https://from.ae
online electronics shopping in uae