collaborative research.pdf

(217 KB) Pobierz
78708010 UNPDF
University of Texas Press
Society for Cinema & Media Studies
Collaborative Research, Doc?
Author(s): Donald Crafton
Source: Cinema Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Autumn, 2004), pp. 138-143
Published by: University of Texas Press on behalf of the Society for Cinema & Media Studies
Accessed: 20/02/2009 08:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of Texas Press and Society for Cinema & Media Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Cinema Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
78708010.003.png 78708010.004.png
Vital than Universality," in MartinRieser and Andrea Zapp, eds., New Screen Media:
Cinema/Art/Narrative (London: BFI Publishing, 2002), 3.
11. Mary Ann Doane, The Emergence of Cinematic Time: Modernity, Contingency, the
Archive (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002), 29.
12. James Naremore, More than Night: Film Noir in Its Contexts (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1998), 220.
13. Pearl Bowser and Louise Spence, Writing Himself into History: Oscar Micheaux, His
Silent Films, and His Audiences (New Brunswick, N.J.:RutgersUniversity Press, 2000;
Bowser, Jane Gaines, and Charles Musser,eds., and curators, Oscar Micheauxand His
Circle: African-American Filmmaking and Race Cinema of the SilentEra (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 2001); and J. Ronald Green, Straight Lick: The Cinema of
Oscar Micheaux (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000).
14. James Hay,"PiecingTogether What Remainsof the Cinematic City," in David B. Clarke,
ed., The Cinematic City (London: Routledge, 1997), 212. Hay writes:
What concerns me ... is the tendency to see film practices (or other practices with
which it is seen to have a historical relation) as discrete, albeit changing, unities
and as a discrete set of relations producing a "cinematic subject" rather than un-
derstanding film as practiced among different social sites, always in relationto other
sites, and engaged by social subjects who move among sites and whose mobility,
access to, and investment in cinema conditions is conditioned by these relations
among sites. To shift strategies in this way would involve not only decentering film
as an object of study but also focusing instead on how film practice occurs from and
through particular sites-of
reemphasizing the site of film practice as a spatial is-
sue or problematic.
"Collaborative Research, Doc?"
Donald Crafton
The classic Warner Bros. cartoon The Big Snooze (1946) shows Elmer Fudd get-
ting fed up with the interminable chase after Bugs Bunny and tearing up his
"contwact with Mr. Warner." The implications of Elmer's breaking up the act slowly
sink in for Bugs. "But, Doc, we're like Abbott and Costello. Damon and Runyon!"
Even toons see the value of collaboration. But not very many scholars of film
and media studies do.
I began thinking of this during a series of e-mail exchanges with Prof. X, who
is working on a book that overlaps with my current project. I don't recall who
contacted whom first, but X learned of my interest and generously sent me a draft
of a chapter in progress. I was able to make some small suggestions for further
sources and to reflect on some of the arguments. In turn, X's scholarship opened
up new resources and interpretations for me. Furthermore, during the exchange,
we discovered that we have another unexpected overlap in research. I shared my
research notes; he followed
up at his local archive; we both learned something
we
did not know. Serendipity ensued.
138
Cinema Journal 44, No. 1, Fall 2004
Vital than Universality," in MartinRieser and Andrea Zapp, eds., New Screen Media:
Cinema/Art/Narrative (London: BFI Publishing, 2002), 3.
11. Mary Ann Doane, The Emergence of Cinematic Time: Modernity, Contingency, the
Archive (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002), 29.
12. James Naremore, More than Night: Film Noir in Its Contexts (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1998), 220.
13. Pearl Bowser and Louise Spence, Writing Himself into History: Oscar Micheaux, His
Silent Films, and His Audiences (New Brunswick, N.J.:RutgersUniversity Press, 2000;
Bowser, Jane Gaines, and Charles Musser,eds., and curators, Oscar Micheauxand His
Circle: African-American Filmmaking and Race Cinema of the SilentEra (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 2001); and J. Ronald Green, Straight Lick: The Cinema of
Oscar Micheaux (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000).
14. James Hay,"PiecingTogether What Remainsof the Cinematic City," in David B. Clarke,
ed., The Cinematic City (London: Routledge, 1997), 212. Hay writes:
What concerns me ... is the tendency to see film practices (or other practices with
which it is seen to have a historical relation) as discrete, albeit changing, unities
and as a discrete set of relations producing a "cinematic subject" rather than un-
derstanding film as practiced among different social sites, always in relationto other
sites, and engaged by social subjects who move among sites and whose mobility,
access to, and investment in cinema conditions is conditioned by these relations
among sites. To shift strategies in this way would involve not only decentering film
as an object of study but also focusing instead on how film practice occurs from and
through particular sites-of
reemphasizing the site of film practice as a spatial is-
sue or problematic.
"Collaborative Research, Doc?"
Donald Crafton
The classic Warner Bros. cartoon The Big Snooze (1946) shows Elmer Fudd get-
ting fed up with the interminable chase after Bugs Bunny and tearing up his
"contwact with Mr. Warner." The implications of Elmer's breaking up the act slowly
sink in for Bugs. "But, Doc, we're like Abbott and Costello. Damon and Runyon!"
Even toons see the value of collaboration. But not very many scholars of film
and media studies do.
I began thinking of this during a series of e-mail exchanges with Prof. X, who
is working on a book that overlaps with my current project. I don't recall who
contacted whom first, but X learned of my interest and generously sent me a draft
of a chapter in progress. I was able to make some small suggestions for further
sources and to reflect on some of the arguments. In turn, X's scholarship opened
up new resources and interpretations for me. Furthermore, during the exchange,
we discovered that we have another unexpected overlap in research. I shared my
research notes; he followed
up at his local archive; we both learned something
we
did not know. Serendipity ensued.
138
Cinema Journal 44, No. 1, Fall 2004
78708010.005.png
In fact, this happens all the time to me. Animation aficionados, in particular,
do not hesitate to reach out to others in the field. Filmmakers, scholars, archi-
vists, theorists, and fans mingle in a relatively unlimned state compared to those
in other subfields. But such dialogue happens more and more because whipping
off an e-mail is so easy (maybe too easy), and because many of us subscribe to
online forums, affinity groups, blogs, zines, and so on. If a colleague needs a
tidbit of information that we can easily provide, the good academic sport usually
provides it. If there is a viewpoint we strongly share or reject, that can trigger a
response too. Sharing and communicating has never been so effortless. What
impact will this have on the way we teach, do research, and publish?
In the sciences and social sciences, shared research has been codified into
academic principles for generations. We are familiarwith the strings of names at
the beginning of articles, as well as with the importance of (and the squabbles
over) the hierarchy of these author listings. Compare that situation to Cinema
Journal. I skimmed the index for the past five years and found that not a single
article was coauthored.' Of course, numerous coauthored books in film studies
have been published in the last decade, and we can think of several famous coau-
thoring teams. Further, CJ is not the only journal in our field. I am not including
anthologies, which frequently are coedited. But the standardmode of publication
for scholarly articles in film and media is the single-authored text.
I do not think this is a good situation. I must add that I have never published
a coauthored book or article myself, so the hypocrisy potential runs high. Still,
there are compelling arguments, which I shall sketch, for more collaborativere-
search in our field. There are also formidable obstacles.
As a preamble, let us look at the science journal model. I am not necessarily
promoting a "scientific method," which probably would be translatedinto pseudo-
science anyway, when I observe that we could benefit from many of the inherent
qualities of the science publishing mode. Typically, a senior researcher has pur-
sued a line of inquiry over an extended period. Junior associates may spend some
time on the project and move on to another, getting credit for their contribution.
The senior PI (I always think of Magnum when I see this designation for principal
investigator) provides continuity, direction, and leadership and may or may not
share the grunt work put in by the other authors.The funding is usually in the PI's
name. The other author(s) often are from other institutions and should represent
diversity in training and scholarship, ratherthanbe the PI's methodologicalapostles.
They spread the knowledge gleaned from the project to other schools and scholars
via publication, conferences, and teaching. Not only do they generate research
findings but they also look critically at their colleagues' work. Thus, internalcross-
checking and replication arebuilt into the system at a basiclevel. With more people
on a project, the work should also go faster.
Among the argumentsagainst the system is that the fundamental Fordist con-
ceptual model underlying these projects, with graduate students doing the work
and getting little glory, is replete with the potential for exploitation and abuse of
intellectual property. The system requires a lot of administrative oversight. It is a
bit like determining writers'credits on a feature film.
Cinema Journal 44, No. 1, Fall 2004 139
78708010.006.png
Another dissuasion is that the work produced is written to conform to a
strict style and protocol that most humanities-based readers find infelicitous
(read: boring). A challenge for collaborative researchers and authors in cinema
and media studies is to develop acceptable formats and styles for presenting
their findings.
But the advantages of collaborativeresearchare many. One of the most attrac-
tive is the possibility for scholarsfrom different disciplines andwith differentmeth-
ods to focus on a common subject, as occurswhen a studentof American history (or
Canadianor whatever) and a film historiancombine researchon the exhibitionand
reception practices of a specific region, or an economist and a media theorist col-
laborateto take a new look at the "stateculture apparatus." The prospects are even
more exciting when researchersfromdifferentnationalor ethnic culturesexaminea
common subject. For film historians, allianceswith specialists "outside"the field
should provide unexpected insights. For example, specialists in Europeanpolitical
science and in film could costudy the cinematic output of a particularnationality
withinits political contextat a particular time, such as Francein the 1930s or 1940s.
Or an art historian, a Sinologist, and a scholarof Chinese cinema could explore the
complicated relationof film and the visualand performing artsin this specific cul-
turalmilieu. In the televisual field, interconnectionsare obvious:linkswith special-
ists in mass marketing,public opinion, sociology,regulation, and policy, and-less
obvious, but intriguing-performance theorists and historiansof modem art. For
sound studies, recentwork combining researchin musicology, animation, the history
of technology, and the history of cinema is exemplary. And don't get me startedon
the need for historiansand archiviststo converse.
For film historiansin general, an awareness of the "bigpicture" is essential,
and that means two things. First, everyone must acknowledge that there is no
boundary between history and theory.Though for some this has been an example
of worlds colliding, the study of historiography, or the theory of writing history, is
the way to place one'swork in its broader context and to focus on one's mission as
a scholar.Such work frequently arisesfrom an introspectivecomparison to writing
in other fields. Second, popular culture is so contingent on internal and external
forces that the more of these we can identify, the more accurateour perception of
the subject will be. We cannot master all the necessary disciplines ourselves, and
that is where our collaboratorscome in.
The primary outlet for such research is now the SCMS conference. Un-
fortunately, even the preconstituted thematic panels tend to be developed so
that the authors work in vacuums. (The same is generally true for anthologies,
which putatively address a common theme but more often are independent and
loosely related papers.) A couple of years ago, I chaired a panel for which the
contributors discussed their topics well in advance and everyone read the oth-
ers' papers before the conference. The presentations complemented each other
and developed a line of inquiry, and there were internal references to the other
papers. It was generally regarded as one of the most effective and enthusiastic
panels at the conference, but it took a lot more effort and commitment than is
normally required.
140
Cinema Journal 44, No. 1, Fall 2004
78708010.001.png
Feedback from a presentation at SCMS is anotherform of inadvertentcollabo-
rativeresearch. By coincidence, a paper deliveredat the 2004 conference in Atlanta
retread part of the path that Prof. X and I had alreadygone down. This presenter (a
dissertator) benefited from factualinformationand feedback that he might other-
wise have not received (except maybe in the form of a futurebad review).
An underutilized opportunity for collaborativeresearch exists on the SCMS
forums (www.cmstudies.org/scms_forums.html). The mechanism for developing
this into a venue for sharedresearchis still a challenge for the organizers. To begin
with, perhaps, there could be callsforinformationon archivesrelevantto a person's
research (a personalized extension of CJ's Archival News column). At the very
least, we should announce members' worksin progress (including but not limited
to dissertations). I belong to a forum through another group in which we used to
get pleas from undergraduates for bibliographic sources for term papers (as soon
as possible, online, full text only, thank you very much). The moderatorhas since
stepped in to makethis a serious and useful forumwith some intriguing and highly
developed threadson factualand speculative topics. Toppeople in the field join in
the discussions. Something like this could happen on the SCMS forums.
In film and media studies, realistically, the odds are strongly against more
collaborativework based on the scientific model appearing in majorjournals and
as coauthored books. To some extent, this is a vestigial trace of the professor-as-
lone-genius myth. More pragmatically, it reflects the American academic system
for getting tenure.
As long as administratorssee themselves as academic gatekeepers, many will
expect to see workthatis researchedandwritten solely by the person under consid-
eration.At many schools, presenting only coauthoredarticlesor a coauthoredfirst
book at renewal or tenure time can be the kiss of death. This is unfortunate, and
reminds me of the excuse used by lazy administratorswhen reviewing the creative
workof filmmakers up for renewaland tenure. Of course, the administratorscould
surmountsuch challenges; its just morework. Certainlyyoung scholarsshould pro-
tect themselves by having their authoredwork clearly identified. Buttressing a coau-
thored book with single-authored journal articles is another strategy. For now,
though, most probationaryfaculty interestedin collaborativeresearchwould be well
advisedto pursue it as a sideline until they have tenure. Granted, every institutionis
different. If, for example,you are in a communications department that is comfort-
able evaluating collaborative research, you may be somewhatbetter positioned.
There is a movement on to encourage undergraduates to learn collaborative
research skills. In general, I think this is a good idea. In the professional worlds to
which many students aspire after graduation,jobs often require collective think-
ing and working with people in small groups. Also, undergraduates (and graduate
students, for that matter) respond to peer pressure. They want to succeed in the
eyes of their peers. So this instructionalformat is useful, but to augment, not re-
place, individual projects.
At my school, where group learning, as it is called, is strongly encouraged,
students complain to instructorsabout group members not pulling their weight,
about their grades being compromised by other students, and about the rifts that
Cinema Journal 44, No. 1, Fall 2004 141
78708010.002.png

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika:

Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin