[research] Ever wonder what bad scholarship is really like? This is it
There's a lot of different ways in which you can screw up as an academic, from doing sloppy research full of methodological flaws and bad analysis (maybe so you can quickly monetize it as a popular book), to deliberately plagiarizing and denying other researchers credit for their work in an academic economy where people's reputations and jobs depend on being credited.
However, those are really just procedural issues in the end. There's also scholarship that is bad because it goes completely against the very purpose of scholarship, which is to advance knowledge for the good of the public that pays your salary. (In my book.)
From a bunch of people on Twitter, meet Joseph Henry Vogel, a professor of economics at the University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras who has patented a method to stop students from sharing textbooks with each other so that the publishing industry can get more money out of them.
The idea is simple. As part of a course, students will have to participate in a web-based discussion board, an activity which counts towards their final grade. To gain access to the board students need a special code, which they get by buying the associated textbook.
Students who don’t pay can’t participate in the course and therefore get a lower grade.
The system ensures that students can’t follow courses with pirated textbooks, as tens of thousands are doing today. Lending books from a library or friend, or buying books from older students, isn’t allowed either. At least, not when the copyright holders don’t get their share.
Vogel’s idea leaves the option open for students to use second-hand textbooks, but they still have to buy an access code at a reduced price. This means publishers can charge multiple times for a book that was sold only once.
Needless to say, publishers are excited about gaining more control in the classroom.
This is bad, bad way for an academic at a public university to spend the tax money that allows him to do his research. Joseph Henry Vogel's invention is bad not because the research behind it was flawed*, or because Joseph Henry Vogel is a bad person in some way. It's bad because it tries to solve an issue in a way that not only does not contribute to the good of the public (propping up anti-student legacy publishing models is not a contribution), but actively works against the public and is proud of that. As TorrentFreak notes, there's nothing admirable about a solution to "piracy" that prevents university students from sharing knowledge, and students without deep pockets from helping each other learn.
ETA: The patent itself is interesting reading too. It's especially creative in the way it distributes blame for the high prices of text books (piraaates) and the way it considers remuneration for the "inventor".
*Although this invention is fatally flawed. If the students don't crack that code themselves, somebody on the internet will help them out. I have no idea why any publisher might think this code will be uncrackable, unlike every other code in the whole of history. This invention will result in very little extra income for anyone, but a lot of useless enforcement costs. This entry was originally posted at http://unjapanologist.dreamwidth.org/54431.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
However, those are really just procedural issues in the end. There's also scholarship that is bad because it goes completely against the very purpose of scholarship, which is to advance knowledge for the good of the public that pays your salary. (In my book.)
From a bunch of people on Twitter, meet Joseph Henry Vogel, a professor of economics at the University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras who has patented a method to stop students from sharing textbooks with each other so that the publishing industry can get more money out of them.
The idea is simple. As part of a course, students will have to participate in a web-based discussion board, an activity which counts towards their final grade. To gain access to the board students need a special code, which they get by buying the associated textbook.
Students who don’t pay can’t participate in the course and therefore get a lower grade.
The system ensures that students can’t follow courses with pirated textbooks, as tens of thousands are doing today. Lending books from a library or friend, or buying books from older students, isn’t allowed either. At least, not when the copyright holders don’t get their share.
Vogel’s idea leaves the option open for students to use second-hand textbooks, but they still have to buy an access code at a reduced price. This means publishers can charge multiple times for a book that was sold only once.
Needless to say, publishers are excited about gaining more control in the classroom.
This is bad, bad way for an academic at a public university to spend the tax money that allows him to do his research. Joseph Henry Vogel's invention is bad not because the research behind it was flawed*, or because Joseph Henry Vogel is a bad person in some way. It's bad because it tries to solve an issue in a way that not only does not contribute to the good of the public (propping up anti-student legacy publishing models is not a contribution), but actively works against the public and is proud of that. As TorrentFreak notes, there's nothing admirable about a solution to "piracy" that prevents university students from sharing knowledge, and students without deep pockets from helping each other learn.
ETA: The patent itself is interesting reading too. It's especially creative in the way it distributes blame for the high prices of text books (piraaates) and the way it considers remuneration for the "inventor".
*Although this invention is fatally flawed. If the students don't crack that code themselves, somebody on the internet will help them out. I have no idea why any publisher might think this code will be uncrackable, unlike every other code in the whole of history. This invention will result in very little extra income for anyone, but a lot of useless enforcement costs. This entry was originally posted at http://unjapanologist.dreamwidth.org/54431.html. Please comment there using OpenID.