Here's an interesting story from the Chronicle of Higher Ed. A communications professor submitted a book for review, and it was reviewed both through the typical anonymous reviewer approach, and it was posted on a blog for anyone to comment on.
They found that "comments from blog readers—often people he knew well—were far more critical than the comments from the anonymous reviewers." This was a plus--helped improve the book.
Negatively, "people who read bits of the book on a blog might have difficulty addressing larger points about the book's value as a whole. "You have to have the entire work in front of you if you're going to spend time thinking about it and giving real substantive comments."
In my own work, I've benefited greatly from the feedback that I've gotten on this blog. In fact, I've drafted an article based pretty much on blog posts. It's a good way to trot out ideas and get feedback on them.
I would think that the blog is better earlier in the project, when the ideas are just being developed, more so than as a formal review of writing.
Thanks Wayne for the link!
They found that "comments from blog readers—often people he knew well—were far more critical than the comments from the anonymous reviewers." This was a plus--helped improve the book.
Negatively, "people who read bits of the book on a blog might have difficulty addressing larger points about the book's value as a whole. "You have to have the entire work in front of you if you're going to spend time thinking about it and giving real substantive comments."
In my own work, I've benefited greatly from the feedback that I've gotten on this blog. In fact, I've drafted an article based pretty much on blog posts. It's a good way to trot out ideas and get feedback on them.
I would think that the blog is better earlier in the project, when the ideas are just being developed, more so than as a formal review of writing.
Thanks Wayne for the link!
No comments:
Post a Comment