Recently, a number of my favorite bloggers (Collin Brooke, John Walter and Jeff Rice, among others) reacted to a recent piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education, a piece called "Master (or Mistress) of Your Domain," by Michael Bugeja. The article promotes what Bugeja terms "academic branding," the use of the web to promote one's academic pursuits by using the marketing and outreach potential of the Internet. This branding is, as Collin has noted, already going on, though it seems to be happening in a different way than Bugeja describes. I don't have much to add in that regard, as I think the many takedowns and/or cautionary assessments of Bugeja's piece are worth agreeing with and leaving alone.
But I do want to raise one objection. Bugeja celebrates his model of branding because it preaches what he practices. His first example, in fact, is his current website, a site that promotes his new book, Interpersonal Divide: The Search for Community in a Technological Age. According to the website's marketing efforts, the book argues, as so many others have (yawn) that the Internet is a harsh mistress, yada yada, and a danger to the value of community. I haven't read the book - I might at some point, as I often like highlighting these sorts of arguments in order to demonstrate the current limitations when it comes to thinking mediation and technics - but I have read the website. And having done so, here's my objection: The website sucks.. No, I'm serious, the design looks like something put together circa 1996, not something put together to sell a book published nearly a decade later. It's almost entirely built around antiquated tables, the number of span tags are almost blinding, and it still uses the deprecated tags <i> and <b> rather than the correct markup tags <em> and <strong>. If this is an example of successful, well-done academic branding on the web, I weep for the future of academia's brand potential. And for a book dealing with the destructiveness of the Internet, in which the author theoretically demonstrates that his unique knowledge and insight helps us understand how the Internet works in deleterious ways, the web site couldn't be more at cross purposes, as it demonstrates that the author in fact has very little knowledge of the web as a technology, and doesn't even take the time to learn more before writing about it.
Thankfully for Bugeja, I may still grab a copy of the book for the reason noted above, but had I serious interest in the subject matter, that interest would have vanished by the time I finished skimming his front page.
Comments (3)
Yes yes yes yes. I almost said something about this, but held back because I tend to be too snobby about that kind of stuff. Goodness knows, I'm not perfect myself, esp when it comes to remembering to tag correctly, but the sites I looked at looked old old old. -cgb
Posted by collin | August 8, 2005 7:52 PM
Posted on August 8, 2005 19:52
Great points. I want to forget about texts (and online essays) like those Bugeja puts out there....but I just can't. The writing is so badly informed, as you note, both at the information and at the technological levels, that one can only question the editors at OUP for publishing this. And then, one may not have to either. The basic is what works and what most folks buy (easy to understand; easy to accept). I just look at his sample "course" material:
http://www.interpersonal-divide.org/material.html#Wiki
And I see how basic his pedagogical move is: question and answer. "What do you think about wikis" which ends in the very non-bold move of "hey, set up a mock wiki for everyone to play with; you can even rewrite the student newspaper!" Sounds like a variation of "write a letter to the editor" as argumentative writing. Geesh.
As basic as we want to be.
Posted by jeff | August 9, 2005 11:37 AM
Posted on August 9, 2005 11:37
Yeah, I wondered if OUP had anything to do with the website, but decided - with some hope - that they did not. Not that they're known for their technology studies, but still, I'm assuming they weren't involved. In fact, I'm tempted to say the site was done via frontpage or even MS Word, with the authoring information removed, if only because of the copious amount of span and style tags, which often happens with word html markups, but who knows. Whatever the inventional process, it's a disappointing product.
Posted by Kenneth Rufo | August 9, 2005 12:44 PM
Posted on August 9, 2005 12:44