It goes over the old ground of non-seriousness, subversive tendencies and that awful article from the chronicle about how bloggers need not apply and then says:
But in another sense, academic blogging represents the fruition, not a betrayal, of the university’s ideals. One might argue that blogging is in fact the very embodiment of what the political philosopher Michael Oakshott once called “The Conversation of Mankind”—an endless, thoroughly democratic dialogue about the best ideas and artifacts of our culture.
Which naturally I agree with more :)
Before going on to something that Adrian Miles has talked a lot about:
So, how might a blog be peer-reviewed?… One can imagine a rating system in which visitors to a blog evaluate what they read and leave feedback—the significance of which is weighted according to what kind of reputation and background they have. A physicist’s views would carry more heft on a physicist’s blog than on a sociologist’s (and vice versa). Someone who has a reputation for leaving serious, informative comments will be ranked higher than the Web surfer who just glances at a few lines before jetting off to the next site.
Now I guess i don’t need to say why that wouldn’t work (if you do need an explanation just ask a digital native about it and watch their brow crinkle ;) but I think there are ways, Adrian has some great ideas.
Anyway, it begs the question… what impact might this have on, for example, my future job prospects. I doubt if there’s a whole heap of Profs out there reading this but would my blogging deter you from hiring me? Or would it be a bonus… or would it not matter at all.
It’s an odd feeling, isn’t it, to know that someone could get a damn good profile off you without much legwork… that in fact I’m forever in the process of constructing that profile for them, never really thought about it much.
Except for one thing… if they didn’t want be because of my blog(s) then begorrah I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near them either… so that’s OK I reckon :D