|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||
Many of us working on MOOs have done just that, created a new variety of job description. Much of the problem then for hiring, promotion and tenure has to do with pointing to the work we have done, explaining it in terms our evaluators understand, and self-promotion. As we noted in the introduction, the lines of service, teaching and research have become increasingly blurred as we move into MOO space. In fact, notions of evaluation in itself for many purposes becomes problematic. This does not have to be a bad thing. As Kiwi notes, "In business, 'problems' are called 'opportunities,'" a challenge to re-examine practice. However, if we are forced, over and over again, to continually define MOO, ontologically, instead of examining the discursive and social practices we enact, then we cannot move forward. Put another way, when we are asked to provide yet another "study" of the "environment" what it means, what it offers, we are left with words, not action. That is we cannot focus on the tasks necessary to development: the nuts and bolts of MOOing. We tell our writing students to "show" not "tell," we should do the same. We hope this hypertext, the logs of serious minds at play, will *show* rather than tell what MOO can do for respective institutions and departments. Doing so, we know full well, that our work/play on MOOs will find some audiences in total disagreement with the underlying pedagogical purpose, promise and possibility of MOO, while many more will find a home, work space, teaching space, professional space, on MOO.
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||
