Dave Bressan (History of Geology and Cryology and Co.) has posted a call for a new Accretionary Wedge episode with the grand theme of the geoblogosphere, geology, and society. David and I have corresponded on various topics, including this one, and so here I am in a kind of supporting role in this carnival. A few months ago, I put up a commentary on the geoblogosphere that I had written for the Geological Society's online discussions; Chris Rowan, of Highly Allochthonous, contributed to this piece, and it was our hope that it might stir things up a little in the relatively sedate worlds of not only the Society, but also the UK geoblogosphere in general. Alas, this hope was not to be fulfilled - the response was not one that required earplugs.
Having been scribbling away on Through the Sandglass for some twenty months now, and following as many science blogs as I can, I find the dynamics and issues around the whole process and product fascinating. I write the blog because I enjoy it and because I am put in touch with people that I never otherwise would have known, even vicariously. And I learn a lot in the process. This satisfaction is derived from a very modest scale of things - I note that a typical post on Pharyngula receives more comments than I have over the entire life of my blog; but then I also note that many of the comments on Pharyngula are not ones that I would want to publish anyway - I enjoy his posts, but have no desire to emulate PZ.
One of the many things that strike me about the geoblogosphere is its civility and objectivity. The more lurid and globally popular segments of the blogosphere as a whole are filled with vituperative, ad hominem - and often inarticulate and, of course, anonymous - rants. Not so with us geobloggers, which is a good thing - is this something that can be exploited constructively? There is, after all, much discussion (much of it vacuous) about the role of the blogosphere, and I've been doing a little probing around some of the (non-vacuous) examples of this. One of the "debates" is whether blogging is journalism - in my view, this question, as such, doesn't mean much since both blogging and journalism cover such a multitude of sins. But the question is interesting in terms of the relationship between blogging and journalism, within which lies a possible future vector for the responsible blogosphere. Read, for example, the piece (and the comments) on the BBC College of Journalism blog, titled "Blogs are not real journalism." And then consider this from one of the comments:
To say "blogging is not journalism" is a rather meaningless statement as it depends on what definition of "journalism" one picks, surely?
A rather important point is that in blogging about science the bloggers are often people who know far more about science than the journalists who cover it. This is one of the reasons why blog coverage of scientific stories is often far more accurate and informed than what appears in the mainstream media.
Indeed it seems to me, from reading the works of the mainstream media science correspondents, that the ones whose copy is generally more accurate are the ones who follow the science blogs. I wonder what that is telling us?
Then I came across a workshop put on earlier this year by the Harvard Kennedy School's program on Science, Technology, and Society (STS). Titled Unruly Democracy: Science Blogs and the Public Sphere, it's quite an intriguing series of talks and discussions - but, unfortunately, the sessions are documented only through a series of rather poor-quality videos - I've watched some, and they're interesting, but I'm afraid that I haven't had the stamina to complete the course. Being a bit of a luddite, I'd really like to be able to digest a written summary - the only one I can find is an entertaining discussion by Jessica Palmer (who was there) - well worth a read.
So there's a lot to talk about on this subject - David and I really look forward to your observations and, most importantly, ideas, for the geoblogosphere - where to go, how to add value, how to leverage the creativity and the passion of geobloggers. Out of the box, folks!
Aye. The Pharyngula style format is not so much about communicating with or educating the "unconverted".
I'd have to think really hard for a long time to come up with any ideas on improving the geoblogosphere, because it quite suits me as it is. I'd have to get into an entirely different frame of mind, and I haven't been reading those blogs which discuss the more general web communications ideas for a while. (You know, the one's which discuss "web 2.0" and marketing.) Jennifer Leggio and some of Jay Garmon's posts discuss such things - just two people off the top of my head. There is a whole industry out there centered around these things, so geobloggers may just need a little reading outside their chosen disciplines (in a discipline which they may find less than exciting) to get some ideas which might translate well into the geoblogosphere.
On the other hand, the overall climate needs a change for a larger swath of people to become interested in the sciences. Particularly in the U.S., it seems to me, but then I'm a bit U.S.-centric, and don't have any feel for what the climate is like elsewhere.
Posted by: F | July 13, 2010 at 05:47 AM
This, for several reasons, is an exceedingly timely topic, Michael.
And don't get disheartened: I think we are making steady progress in pushing blogs as a medium for outreach and discussion. Many more geologists are reading blogs, and the AGU and GSA, at least, are making pushes into blogging and other social media. And I have some ideas for the next step, but I'm looking forward to hearing everyone else's.
Posted by: Chris Rowan | July 13, 2010 at 08:12 AM
As a layman with a fervent interest in the physical and biological sciences, I greatly appreciate the knowledge and time that professional scientists like Michael and others put into their blogs. Whether it is called journalism or not, the point is that these efforts are communicating diverse facts and insights usually from people with real expertise inside their respective scientific disciplines. This is part of the beauty of the internet which has provided the explosion of information at our fingertips. I often find additional information to explore from the commenters also who provide feedback and additional insight that the bloggers may have not considered or were aware of.
Many parts of the internet have become wastelands of mediocrity, cultural polarization,political disinformation and places to exploit and display the worst of human nature.
I admit that I like many others have my own political and ideological biases and am sometimes drawn to those blogs like Pharyngula etc., especially when there are topical essays about what I see as the continuing worldwide assualt on science and rationality by a insular and regressive sub-culture who is intent on keeping civilization held back in the darkness of fundamentalist nonsense and obstinate, willfull ignorance.
Though I also recoil from some of the discussion and comments that are in these more controversial, often overtly ideological science blogs, I support the efforts of scientists and educators to continue the defense of reason against the onslaught of those that are trying to take civilization backwards.
It is comforting to have other places like Through The Sandglass on the internet where the observations, opinions, discoveries and facts of rational knowledge and science can be presented and discussed in an non-political, objective and civil manner.
Posted by: Jules | July 19, 2010 at 02:17 PM
Thanks, as always, for your thoughts, Jules.
Posted by: Sandglass | July 21, 2010 at 09:54 AM