Digital pedagogy and humanities increases “discoverability” across platforms.

Education changes with technology so that it is not just for the Academy, but bleeds across borders, becomes publically accessible.

Increasing discoverability is a public good.

We don’t form knowledge to hoard it.
{gift economy}

Considerations:
Traditionally, the more difficult it is to get into a journal, the higher its perceived value. Is this funky? What does all access publication do to the jurying of knowledge?

Fear about changing the scholarship because we may not understand the new markers of success. Success is less well defined (and less elitist?).

Requires voice flexibility: how can you speak to both an informed and uninformed audience?

Is knowledge that is not public is not knowledge?

SO: what if we engage with the public not as masters, but as a form of inquiry? This is like being an artist, you make, you show, the critics speak, you respond…

The creative process: make a mark, sit back and look at it, see what else it has to say to you, make a responsive mark, show it, analyze publicly, make another piece, repeat forever. The process of engaging human faculties as a grown up.

Not knowing and offering mastery, but knowing and offering inquiry. cool idea.

______

You publish not as master of all, but as author of your voice, and are reviewed / responded to like Greene Rausch–it becomes an exchange

call and response

change of established power structure (uh, this is radical)

not power over, but power within.