[iDC] Not your daddy's academic criteria

[Jon Ippolito]

Trebor has broached the reluctance of universities to recognize new  
media research before (http://rhizome.org/discuss/view/16886). I'm  
hoping this new publication will broaden the debate (apologies for  
cross-posting)--jon.

MIT Publishes U-Me's "New Criteria for New Media"

Academia's goal may be the free exchange of ideas, but up to now many  
universities have been wary--if not downright dismissive--of their  
professors using the Internet and other digital media to supercharge  
that exchange, especially in the arts and humanities. Peer review  
committees are supposed to assess a researcher's standing in the  
field, but to date most have ignored reputations established by  
blogging, publishing DVDs, or contributing to email lists.

In a signal that some universities are warming to digital scholarship,  
however, the winter 2009 issue of MIT's Leonardo magazine--itself a  
traditional peer review journal, though known for experimenting with  
networked media--has published a feature on the changing criteria for  
excellence in the Internet age. To make its point as concretely as  
possible, the feature includes the recently approved promotion and  
tenure guidelines of the University of Maine's New Media Department,  
together with an argument for expanding recognition entitled "New  
Criteria for New Media."

Rather than throw time-honored benchmarks for excellence out the  
window, "New Criteria for New Media" tries to extend them into the  
21st century. To supplement the "closed" peer review process familiar  
from traditional journals, U-Me's criteria recognize the value of the  
"open peer review" employed in recognition metrics such as ThoughtMesh  
and The Pool. As the name suggests, open peer review allows  
contributions from any community member rather than a group of  
experts, and all reviews are public; when combined with an appropriate  
recognition metric, the result is much faster evaluations than  
possible via the customary approach. "New Criteria for New Media" also  
urges academic reviews to reward collaboration in new media research;  
valuable roles include conceptual architect, designer, engineer, or  
even matchmaker (e.g., introducing two other researchers whose  
collaboration results in a publication).

Because the University of Maine hopes other institutions will adopt  
these criteria and adapt them to their own needs, it is releasing them  
under a Creative Commons (CC-by) license. (Due to a misprint by MIT  
Press, the Leonardo article highlights the authors' copyrights rather  
than the CC license; it's surprisingly hard to give things away in a  
print economy!) The new criteria have already been sought after by  
individual tenure candidates and cited in the Chronicle of Higher  
Education. You can find them in Leonardo's winter 2009 issue (vol. 42  
no. 1) or online at these links:

"New Criteria for New Media" (white paper)
http://newmedia.umaine.edu/interarchive/new_criteria_for_new_media.html

"Promotion and Tenure Guidelines" (sample redefined criteria)
http://newmedia.umaine.edu/interarchive/promotion_tenure_redefinitions.html

For more information, please email me or the Still Water lab at the  
University of Maine (http://newmedia.umaine.edu/stillwater/).