Public intellectuals & the future of information, Erica Stone (Deconstruction)

In her TED talk, Erica Stone raises the issue of public access to academic researches that are done due to public money but distributed privately. She suggests that the research papers should be freely available to the public not only in its original version, but also it should be “translated” into the language that is understandable to masses. This process, according to the speaker, can be accomplished through republication of research papers in open-access journals and in popular media.
Stone critically explains the current research publication systems. According to her, once scholars write and peer review an academic paper on the research findings (that is done due to public or private money), they publish it in academic journals. Then, for-profit companies resell it to universities and libraries through journals as well as database subscriptions (e.g. we can access to those databases because NU library purchased subscriptions). Stone highlights this moment saying: “if the public is funding academics’ research, but then we have to pay again to access the results, it’s like we’re paying for it twice”. Although it might sound very simplistic explanation, indeed, it is a reasonable argument. What is the point of public funding if it is not freely available to the public at the end? So, there should be a payback process, as the speaker says, instead of feeding a monster.
Although this issue tends to be solved through some open-access databases such as Google Scholar, the speaker claims that simply giving the research report cannot be complete access to the public. She suggests that research results should be translated into popular language through mass media so people could understand and implement it in a real life. Also, according to the speaker, this would allow to people to recognize university’s identity based on researches that they conducted rather than only knowing them by degree programs or football teams that they have. Though I agree that most research reports are unavailable to the public in terms of clarity (easily understandable) and popularity, I assume that very important researches that really matter get spread anyway. On the other hand, again, who knows, maybe there are countless number of useful researches that we are not even aware of or understand.
The speech is convincing and clearly explain what she advocates. She effectively gives examples from her own experiences and statistical information. Up to know, I have read several articles that raise the same issue and suggest almost the same solutions. However, although it highlights only expected outcomes of her claim but not possible negative consequences, this speech is more concrete, much more optimistic and solution-centered rather than empty critiques.

2 thoughts on “Public intellectuals & the future of information, Erica Stone (Deconstruction)

  1. Hello, Abdul_Azim! I think you have made a great job! However, you should be careful when you write your post, because you have an unnecessary sentence, which breaks the logic, and a sentence, which repeats twice.
    Despite, in my opinion, your deconstruction answered main questions, which are important in this kind of writing. In order to improve your post, I advise to look more critically. You talked only about advantages of the speech. I suggest to add some ideas about possible imprivements of the speech. In addition, I recommend you to describe some techniques of her speaking, which have made the speech “convincing” for you. Thank you, Abdul_Azim! Good luck!

    Like

  2. Nice deconstruction post. You summarize the author’s speech clearly and methodically, and after each main idea you pause to analyze and evaluate (“Although it might sound very simplistic explanation, indeed, it is a reasonable argument. What is the point of public funding if it is not freely available to the public at the end?”)

    Two minor mistakes:
    understandable to ___ masses. (article)
    The speech is convincing and clearly explain what she advocates. (subject verb agreement)
    5/5

    Like

Leave a Reply to davidphilip Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s