But as they point out, academic writing, or "writing for our peers" carries certain expectations with it (and I might add I found this little list immensely succinct and helpful as a guide for what to "do" in an academic article....): references to theory (preferably current), references to empirical data with justification of its important, and a "spirited" discussion of the relationship between the first two. Nicely put!

Then there's the point about cultural capital - I'm not a big fan of Bourdieu but I find myself quoting or paraphrasing him more and more. So this point about cultural capital being the reward of the academic is really intriguing. If citation is part of the requirement of publication (as we've discussed in various classes), and blogging is the new wave of research, thoughts, and sources of information, then how can we forsee shifting "credit" for publication from these sources? What would it take to have that paradigm shift move throughout the academic publishing world? I understand their idea about challenging that system by simply self-publishing through blogging, but that doesn't bring tenure and promotion, does it? And can we change that system by simply subverting it?

Finally, I find myself very interested by the quote excerpted from Rebecca Blood (20), particularly the part about gaining confidence in her own opinions, ideas and perspective. I think that's what's still missing from my own academic work. I have a hard time believing that blogging can make that difference, but at the same time, putting ideas out there and getting feedback is the workshopping backbone of writing, right? I really do understand the idea of thinking better when I write, but I still have the very kinetic connection to writing with pen and paper.

It may come as a surprise to my classmates, but I made a career out of being a change agent. So it would be like me to embrace this different way of writing and thinking. Hmmmm.