Abstract
The ascendancy of the online journal format has catalyzed a revolution in publishing that is not unlike that of Gutenberg’s printing press (Bohlin, 2004). In my 6 years as part of the editorial team for Human Resource Development Review, I witnessed the transformation of the journal from a primarily print journal, with supplemental electronic delivery, to a primarily electronic journal, with supplemental hard copy delivery. The transformation was hotly contested in the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD), and yet, even those (such as myself) who fought strongly to maintain the primacy of the print version recognized that the days of hard copy journals were limited and that strategically shifting to an electronic delivery format was economically important for the viability of the sponsoring professional association (AHRD). 1
What has become apparent in hindsight, however, is that there may well be some unintended consequences of this shift in delivery format. We have taken for granted the online format, without questioning its impact on our scholarship. The changes we have experienced are not necessarily good or bad—they simply “are.” Yet we must interrogate these changes, and how they influence the nature of our scholarship and knowledge creation, lest we mindlessly accept the bad without mindfully seeking the good. Thus, in this, my last editorial as Editor in Chief of Human Resource Development Review, I problematize some of those consequences for the future of human resource development (HRD) and offer a call for scholars to more mindfully consider their information seeking behaviors in their daily lives.
In the last two decades, access to electronic journals has increased exponentially (Cooper, 2007). To keep up with the change in delivery format, librarians have been leading the effort to conduct journal usage studies which examine the implications of print versus electronic delivery of journals. Naturally, these studies have been done largely from the perspective of and for librarians. There is a growing body of literature that addresses both readers and readings in online contexts to help librarians manage their resources based on the use patterns of patrons (Tenopir, King, Spencer, & Wu, 2009). Such explorations of online information seeking behavior have begun to focus on getting “inside the head” (p. 287) of the library patron (Case, 2002). However, such an orientation has performative overtones from at least two goal-oriented perspectives. It seeks the goal of making the “customer” happy without necessarily considering what the scholar or field may truly need, and it seeks to meet performance expectations of university and library administrators. Yet, there are also major implications for scholars and the disciplines and fields in which they publish, and it is these issues which are not so frequently explored (theoretically or empirically). Although a broader exploration of these issues is warranted, I will limit my conceptual discussion here to the reciprocal relationship of convenience and performativity associated with electronic journals.
It is challenging to determine whether the convenience of accessing resource material online led to a performative orientation toward information behavior or the reverse—if a performative orientation led to a preference for convenience in information seeking. Nevertheless, these two factors associated with electronic journal access are interconnected and likely have a significant influence on the future of knowledge creation in academe.
A desire for convenient access to resource material is the overwhelming rationale provided by both students and faculty for converting to electronic journal sources (Connaway, Dickey, & Radford, 2011; Haglund & Olsson, 2008; Ollé & Borrego, 2010; Rowlands, 2007). This convenience factor is so prevalent that scholars frequently acknowledge that they simply “do not bother to get a journal article if it is unavailable in electronic form” (Haglund & Olsson, 2008, p. 56).
Indeed, scholars even identify journals that do not have online accessibility as “obscure” (Haglund & Olsson, 2008, p. 56). Such a label potentially reframes the credibility and reputation of the print-only journal as being of lower “quality” than online journals, warranted or not. As Connaway and her colleagues (2011) found, quality is no longer really considered with regard to articles found on the Internet. Instead, researchers from undergraduate, graduate, and even faculty ranks have begun to choose their resources based on convenience instead of quality.
Because of the apparent simplicity of using the web, it has become commonplace for scholars to conduct their searches for resource material independent from professional librarians (Liu, 2006; Ollé & Borrego, 2010). Libraries are at risk of becoming more like a coffee shop for reading, conversing, and studying than a valuable place to find information, resources, and expertise (C. Dunkle, 2 personal communication, July 2014). Nevertheless, research has shown that, in general, scholars of all levels and experience are not particularly skilled at conducting searches and managing the results (Haglund & Olsson, 2008). The vast amounts of information available on the web result in ambiguity of information (Weick, 1979) because scholars have access to more knowledge than they are able to effectively manage. This inundation with information conspires against researchers because, as even the popular press acknowledges, they simply do not have time to thoroughly investigate everything written on a given area of interest (Davidson, 2012), else they would have no time to actually conduct their research and publish their findings.
This access to vast amounts of literature may have a relationship to the changes in information seeking behavior observed among scholars (Tenopir et al., 2009). While the number of journal articles that scholars are reading has increased, the amount of time scholars are spending to read those articles is shrinking (Rowlands, 2007). Scholars are engaging in shallow reading with the goal of simply answering key questions relevant to a current project. Furthermore, when reading an online journal article with references hyperlinked to the abstract of the referred source, reading time (and inconvenience) is increased and readership of other journals may be significantly influenced by the references used in the first article read. 3 As a result, “They [scholars] ‘see’ an increasingly narrow view of their own discipline as a result of the accelerating growth in the literature” (Rowlands, 2007, p. 390) and the ability to easily access that literature. The quest for immediate gratification (Connaway et al., 2011) through the convenience of online access to journal articles has resulted in a performative attitude toward reading. Social scientists are particularly susceptible to this attitude as they tend to engage in more targeted searching online than browsing entire issues of electronic journals (Nicholas, Huntington, Jamali, & Watkinson, 2006). In other words, in general, reading is no longer done to keep up with knowledge in the field; it is done to accomplish a specific task (whether for research or teaching; Tenopir et al., 2009).
Taken from the perspective of librarians and administrators, the performative perspective of online journals also has financial implications. The assumption made by many is that surely digital collections are more efficient and less costly to operate. However, this belief that online resources are more cost-effective may be a myth (Wood & Walther, 2000). Ollé and Borrego (2010) noted that digital collections may have a higher cost in the long run. At the very least, hardware and software rapidly become obsolete and must be replaced. Furthermore, with each new change, library personnel and patrons must be trained.
The quest for convenience and the pressure for performativity have fundamentally changed the way scholars interact with information and create knowledge within the field. Digitization has been a wonderful tool for librarians and researchers, but without mindful application of that tool, it can become a weapon that privileges the shallowness of performativity and disparages depth of reflexivity on knowledge being created to inform practice and research. As collective representations of the scholars that constitute them, journals and fields/disciplines are at risk from digitization as a self-destructive weapon.
Of particular interest to journal editors is that journals are, for all intents and purposes, rendered invisible in the transition to online delivery platforms. Articles become more important than the journal as researchers search for articles instead of regularly reading certain journals (Rowlands, 2007). As an editor, I question whether or not our journals will lose relevance as scholars no longer subscribe to and browse 4 online journals the way that print journals were consumed. In some ways, this change in format does give power back to scholars (Bohlin, 2004) as their work is privileged over the journal in which it is published. However, I submit that in other ways more power is given to the publishers and the online database service corporations that choose how and which content will be made available in digital format. Power to the scholar may be an illusion.
The performativity that accompanies the new reading practices contributes to a loss of creativity among scholars (Rowlands, 2007). As researchers narrowly focus their searches of the vast amounts of literature available online, they lose the serendipitous exposure to articles that appear in the hard copy journals that they used to browse regularly. Browsing articles on a variety of topics conveniently available within a hard copy journal enables the natural cross-fertilization of ideas, which occurs far less frequently when individuals browse digital journals (Ollé & Borrego, 2010). This loss of creativity can result in stagnation not only of scholars but also in the field as a whole.
Conclusion
My first editorial as Editor in Chief for the journal looked forward to engaging in diversifying and digitizing the journal (Callahan, 2012). At the time, I looked at digitizing in the form of the online management system we were implementing for manuscript submissions. Certainly, that transition was a major milestone for the journal because the online management system made the day-to-day operations of the journal quicker, easier, and more effective for the editorial team, and generally more seamless and transparent to authors and reviewers. Since that first editorial, however, my interest in and awareness of the concept of digitizing has broadened in scope to include the very delivery format of the journal itself.
As I wrote this editorial, I was in the Arctic Circle with extremely limited Internet access. I struggled to find support for my ideas, feeling certain that surely there were some who had researched the very assertions I was making, but not able to access the Internet on which I had become so dependent for my scholarly resources. I realized that some of the very arguments I made in two earlier articles on e-learning (Callahan, 2010; Callahan & Sandlin, 2007) may hold true for the transition to online journals as well. As with online learning, many who research online journals look to the benefits that electronic delivery provides over print delivery without necessarily considering the unintended consequences of that delivery. Electronic-only access to journals may exacerbate the digital divide when sources of information become available only to those who can afford (or gain access to) high-speed Internet. Thus, a worthy area of study is who is privileged in the digitization of journals.
Connaway and her colleagues (2011) noted that the information seeking behavior of social scientists now mirrors that of the economically poor. They explain that, historically, research has demonstrated that the poor seek immediate gratification with regard to consuming information. Their research, and others referenced here, shows that scholars are now mirroring the same gratification orientation toward information seeking. What have we sacrificed in our quest for convenience? Have we unwittingly conspired against ourselves in an act of symbolic violence by seeking easier access to journal resources? Are we “knowledge poor” because we sought to be “information rich”? Did we sacrifice scope for convenience?
Of course, because of the rapidly changing environment with regard to online journals, studies of access and behavior quickly become dated. Clearly, more research needs to take place for us to better understand how the transition to online journals has influenced the way knowledge is produced. And, in the process, we need to think more mindfully about how we can engage in the types of behaviors that enriched predigitized scholarship while also maximizing the use of vastly increased amounts of information to which we now have access. How can publishers, libraries, database services, and scholars work together to find ways to take the best offered through all forms of written matter?
This is my challenge for the future of HRD, for Human Resource Development Review, and for scholars seeking to forge their identities in the field: Think mindfully about how electronic journals influence our practices of scholarship, and develop strategies accordingly that will enhance the long-term richness of the field.
Final Thoughts, and Farewell
Although my last editorial has focused on both questioning the consequences of the publishing revolution we are experiencing and offering challenges for the future, I cannot end my tenure as editor in chief without acknowledging the past. I will take these last few words to thank those many individuals who played a role in helping Human Resource Development Review continue to grow and have an impact on theory, practice, and research in the field.
The team at SAGE has always been so helpful; Cynthia Nalevanko has been so supportive with strategic visioning and positioning of the journal and Aparna Prusty always ensures that the journal is produced professionally and on time—even when we have made it challenging to do so! I appreciate how the SAGE team has worked with me to create policies and procedures that work for the publisher, the editors, the authors, and the reviewers.
The Editorial Board members of this journal are wonderful. After becoming Editor, I queried the Board members on which types of activities they would be interested and willing to perform on behalf of the journal. Although admittedly “performative” in some ways, this has made it easier for the editorial team to be targeted in making requests (such as reviewing, soliciting manuscripts, serving on awards committees, providing strategic suggestions, and the like); and, I think, it has certainly made for a robust and active Editorial Board. I want to thank each one of you for your service to the journal.
The reviewers have been the lifeblood of the journal. Without their excellent input and advice on strengthening manuscripts with potential, the journal could not have continued its upward trajectory. We now have an “Outstanding Reviewer of the Year” award to recognize the reviewer whose reviews were the strongest, timeliest, and most helpful of that year. But, the award recognizes merely a single reviewer; here, I want to thank all of you for the selfless reviewing service that you provide to the authors, the journal, and the field.
When the journal home was at Texas A&M, Minjung Kim was the Managing Editor; when the journal transitioned with me to Drexel University, Seth Jacobson became the Managing Editor. They are the tactical experts of the journal; their knowledge of working the complexities of the online management system is deeper than any other member of the editorial team. The journal is much better for having had these two individuals on the editorial team. There is not enough room in this issue of the journal to express my appreciation for their hardwork, gratitude for their professionalism, and pride in having had the opportunity to work with these two individuals.
And, finally, my thanks, and best wishes, to Julia Storberg-Walker who fully assumed her role as Editor on August 1, 2014 (the day after this issue went to press). Her attention detail has enriched the quality of the articles that have appeared in the journal and she has helped me reflect more deeply and strategically on the editorial process and the journal. Human Resource Development Review once again experienced a major change in the editorial process with the transition to a new editor. Just as my tenure began with a shift to an online management system, Julia’s tenure began with a change in the editorial team structure to manage the significant increase in submissions we now receive. Instead of a single Associate Editor, the journal will now have two Associate Editors.
To Julia Storberg-Walker and your editorial team, I wish you all the best in the frequently exciting, sometimes frustrating, always interesting, and never boring journey of producing “the theory journal” for the field of HRD.