My Paper on Scholarship and Blogging Is Now Up:

It's for the Berkman Center conference, and it's called Scholarship, Blogging and Trade-offs: On Discovering, Disseminating, and Doing.

Chris Albon (mail) (www):
Good paper and especially timely for me because for the last week I have been mulling over whether or not I should blog on my Ph.D research (which I start in the fall).

The paper brings up some interesting points, not the least of which is the tradeoff between blogging and traditional publishing mediums. Ideally (as you say) there would a way to make blogging a valuable contribution not only to the receivers of the information but also the producers (their careers especially).

I have often wondered if blogging on a topic (such as my research) would let me better understanding the topic, and if true, whether this method of learning is an efficient use of time.

The major conflict I have to resolve currently is the cost-benefits of blogging. As a long time "internet publisher" (in one form or another) it seems like a waste to spend 5+ years researching a topic without sharing this information with as many people as possible. Yet, in my current position (a lowly pre-first year Ph.D student) I struggle to find direct reasons why blogging is helpful to my thesis or my future career.
4.24.2006 5:29pm
ralph.m (mail):
I think you've been blogging too much--the paper is far too informal. And the conclusion, "I wish I knew the answer" is unbecoming of you as a scholar. I prefer not to read scholarship that is a long question--I typically read for answers. Maybe it's just that I hate "blegging." You discuss your community of readers as if, if one blogs, one has a community of readers. Actually there are a few blogs with a community of readers, and a billion with no readers.
4.25.2006 3:55am