Fembot Experiments »

November 6, 2013 – 10:05 am |

Congratulations to special issue editor Alexis Lothian on the launch of Ada, Issue 3: Feminist Science Fiction. The issue features an incredible collection of articles and interviews on feminist science fiction. Tweet it, Facebook it… but, most importantly, read it.
We are also pleased to announce that our next issue will be a …

Read the full story »
Books aren't dead

monthly interviews with authors of recent feminist books on new media, science, and technology.

Fembot Experiments

A platform for a range of experiments in feminist media criticism and production.

Open Calls

CFPs and job ads of particular interest to feminist media scholars.

Friends & Allied Projects

Feminist criticism and politics on and off the web

Unconference

A feminist get together that will focus on issues surrounding Fembot and Ada, including issues of funding, communication, and diversity.

Home » FemBlog

How will Fembot be Run?

Submitted by on August 1, 2010 – 6:04 pm 5 Comments

Clunky way of putting our first question. Let me try to frame it more elegantly. We don't want Fembot to replicate the problems of those early, heady days of academic web design, where people just took print-based information and slapped it onto a website. That is, we don't want Fembot to do what so many online journals seem to be doing, which is to just turn print journals into online journals, importing all the downsides of traditional journals in the process. More to the point, we have an opportunity not only to reinvent academic publishing — taking control of the means of production and making our scholarship open in the broadest possible sense — but we also have the opportunity to reinvent the organization overseeing publication. We've been struggling for some time to define what kind of administrative structure we'd need for this project. I think that we agreed that we don't want an editorial board that is seldom if ever consulted about the administration of the publication, that never interacts (no sense of community), and whose relationship to the process of editing and reviewing is pretty much a one-off deal (e.g. you evaluate the journal and then sometimes see a second draft). At the same time, we need to have an organization that will be understood to be legitimate within the academy so that our decisions about publishing (and the publications themselves) will carry the kind of cultural capital our contributors need for tenure and promotion cases. So in a nutshell, here's the first question. If we aren't an editorial board, what are we? The term “institute” was suggested, which gets us closer, imo, and “collaboratory” has also been thrown into the mix. Keep in mind that we want a structure that's transparent in its rules for membership (which will also give it more credibility); that is grounded in collaboration rather than isolated intellectual labor; and that won't be too taxing in terms of work load for individual members. Ideas?

5 Comments »

  • Carol Stabile says:

    I’m okay with Institute, btw.

  • Kim Sawchuk says:

    I love these ideas. I also wonder how we build a sense of collaborative connectivity with each other and with our different milieus. I am a part of a vibrant collection of feminist scholars at Concordia, sometimes struggling to keep the very word alive in the institution, and to a lesser extent in my Department. I assume that many of my feminist colleagues would love to be connected to the fembot effort: many of us are self identified feminist-technoperverts. Can I inform them of the fembot-initiative and can we set up vibrant nodes/hubs/modules/clusters in our local crucibles, and bring them on board in some way?

    To build towards a symposium, and create a track record of activity, can we take some preliminary steps to mini-symposia, afternoon seminars, virtual lunches, late afternoon cocktail events using the possibility of ‘skype’ (or whatever) to get to know each other?

    Can we also set this up so we can present work in progress?

    • Karen Estlund says:

      I think having local hubs/nodes/etc would be a great way to help us build a more vibrant community. Please do inform folks at Concordia and others you may know and invite them to participate.

      I also like the idea of presenting works in progress and that may be something that we can figure out as part of the workflow modules and differing levels of review or types of materials that could also be tied to the portfolio. I want to make sure we scope the project for the start-up grant to emphasize the journal aspects, but I think an essential part of the community will be the ability to review each others’ work.

      The virtual mini get togethers could be fun. I’ll need to think a little more about the logistics.

      Thanks for the great ideas and keep them coming!

    • Carol Stabile says:

      Preliminary Steps to Mini-Symposia

      Kim (I think) — why don’t we rev up some events for the coming months? maybe a series of midday events (which could accommodate a range of time zones) so that we can talk about works-in-progress or what we’re confronting at our own institutions, etc.? What do other people think? I’d be grateful for a feminist audience for some projects I’m working on and am sure others would be as well. Skype’s not going to work for multiple venues (if we have multiple participants), but there are other techno-fixes we might consider using (podcasts and live chat, maybe; videoconferencing if some of us have access?). My brain is fried at this point on Friday, but I’ll think on this over the weekend.

  • Michelle Rodino-Colocino says:

    I’m thinking of words we’d like to use, as a tentative way to reference our work as a more community-oriented, interactive, participative “editorial-board-that-does-so-much-more.” So far, we’ve got editorial institute or just “institute.” I’m also thinking of drawing on language from CSA (community-supported agriculture) movement, collective action models and community/participatory research methods: So here are some suggestions, please chime in with your thoughts on these, add other terminology or sources for language, and mix and match as inspired:
    Instead of “editorial board,” Fembot members belong to an:
    Institute
    Collaboratory
    Editorial Institute
    –Importing CSA language:
    Community-supported research board (CSR instead of CSA)
    Feminist-supported research community (these are kinda wordy)

    –A few additional questions for the group: Is it “editorial” or “board” you find misrepresents the goals and philosophy of Fembot? “Editorial” seems to miss much of what we want to do as an interactive, collaborative, democratic community. “Board” also seems a bit dead and not to interactive. But there might be institutional value (ie for legitimacy in the eyes of the academy) in keeping one of these more familiar terms.

    Perhaps emphasizing the peer review aspects of our work would balance our interest in being legit w/ our interest in pushing boundaries?
    examples:
    Peer review community
    Peer review network
    Review collective
    Review collaboratory
    Editorial collaboratory

    Thoughts?

Leave a comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also Comments Feed via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> 

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.