rers. The inter- dependence of form and content in other areas of study teaches us that tools are not neutral. Although tools may begin as external objects, in learning to master their use we internalize them (Ong, 1982, p. 81). Thus they become perceptual agents - "new technologies for thinking," as Alan Kay calls them (1991, p. 140) - whose charac- teristics affect how and what we know and do through them. According to the Torontonian scholars Harold Innis, Eric Havelock, Marshall McLuhan, and others, and more recently Walter Ong, "writing restructures consciousness."9 Dis- covering how this happens (e.g. with e-mail) is a formidable task, however, since the new per- ceptual agent is itself a product of the mind it affects, and that altered mind is what attempts to understand the agent that has chan

we consider the future of CMC as a medium for scholarly commu- nication by discussing factors that threaten to impede its development as well as its potential to create a new and more highly interactive form of scholarship. Although CMC offers great promise, its development cannot be taken for granted. Systematic and organized efforts are required to integrate the use of CMC into the communication practices of an academic community. We recom- mend that professional academic organizations begin to undertake such efforts now. We also argue that CMC can have a more substantial impact on scholarship than that achieved simply in facilitating interaction. This new medium offers the opportunity to realize the advantages of oral and written discourse simultaneously, producing a text with "dialogic" qualities. Generated in on- going computer-mediated exchange between scho- lars, a dialogic text allows us to re-appropriate and preserve some of the interactive, conversational qualities of knowledge production lost since the development of printed text.

makes possible the production of an altogether new form of discourse that could be of consider- able scholarly value.

Given the dramatic rate of diffusion and the intense levels of interest in these capabilities that we have witnessed in connection with our six years of experience with COMSERVE, it is our opinion that if established professional organizations do not move to incorporate computer-mediated com- munication, new CMC-based professional organ- izations may soon emerge•

The venerableLISTSERV email lists such as mediev-l (founded in 1992) and other medieval-focusedlistservs are early instances of the digital democratization of scholarship, conducted as anasynchronous and geographically dispersed conversation.

In effect, their exchange of corre- spondence (e-mail) publicly on lists over global networks constitutes participation in a new form of publication. This dimension is central; such network communications systems as Bitnet and the Internet offer new modes of publication, often but not always with counterparts in print media.

he has read. The purpose of a humanistic list is not to encourage fan mail; it is to transmit ideas cleanly and clearly with as little interference from social conventions designed for face-to-face meet- ing as possible. That, of course, means that we have to d

can figure out how to contact anyone else on the system, or even who is available for contact, so I have undertaken to provide telecommunications resources

My own experience with the system suggests that it is better than the telephone because communications can be captured to disk and kept for reference; because the receiver of a question has time to check his/her responses; because once a message or file is sent, it is delivered immediately to the recipient's account; and because the system is funded on a subscription basis by the institu- tions, and users are not normally charged for the distance a message travels. I have used Bitnet and Internet to put together conference programs; to help write a major grant application with three other people spread over two continents; to locate and receive software one-half hour after I realized I needed it; to trade ideas and information with others working on similar projects and to learn of publication opportunities for projects on which I was currently workin

y. Writing and talking are not merely tools of our trade; they are our product and our raw material and the subjects of our investiga- Patrick W. Conner is Professor of English at West Virginia University where he teaches and researches Anglo-Saxon language and literature. He is the author of Anglo-Saxon Exeter (Boydell and Brewer, 1992) and the editor of The Abingdon Chronicle, volume 12 in the Collaborative Edi- tion of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (forthcoming). He is also creator of The Beowulf Workstation, a HyperCard application to aid students in studying Beowulf. tion

The ideal seminar, whether traditional or electronic, is a kind of long conversation, con- vened by a single person but conducted by everyone for mutual enlightenment. Its purpose is not so much to convey facts as to further under- standing of its subject, to train the minds of its participants, and so to help create a community of scholars. It is a pedagogical structure in which every member is both teacher and student

ListServ lists are sometimes called "discussion groups," and McLuhan has made the term "global village" almost unavoidable. As I have indicated, I prefer to call HUMANIST an "electronic semi- nar" (henceforth "e-seminar") and so invoke the academic metaphor of a large table around which everyone sits for the purpose of argumentation, in

Because e-mail is restricted to verbal expression, it tends to favor those with highly developed rhetorical skills (Spitzer, 1986; Adrianson and Hjelmquist, 1988, pp. 91, 96), and because it is particularly good for lively argument, it serves well the need of scholars to reach consensus

On the practical level, HUMANIST and similar groups have demonstrated that we can certainly take advantage of the new medium for traditional scholarly and academic purposes. Experience with HUMANIST suggests that the new medium, care- fully managed, may be just what is needed to foster widespread humanistic discussion and collabora- tion in a world largely indifferent to its goal

ote, we have used speech and gestures for some 50,000 years, writing for 5,000, printing for 500, the telephone for 100, but e-mail for less than two decades (1985, p. 11; Rice, 1987, p. 69). Thus it is not surprizing that although the sociology and social-psychology of groups constituted by it have been repeatedly studied during this period,4 our knowledge is s

d to our immature understanding of the new me

Nonetheless, the costs of disseminating one’s best work on an SDG are considerable.Academic success demands that scholars make contributions to the body of knowledge intheir research area. However, electronic outlets like SDGs provide little basis upon which tovalidate this success. SDGs have not been in existence long enough to instill confidence intheir institutional permanence. This is further complicated by ambiguous copyright law andcitation conventions, making the establishment of one’s claim to original ideas unclear.Unlike electronic journals, it is still unclear how institutional rewards will be distributed forthe kind of collaborative electronic scholarship takes place in ListServ-based communities.Unless lists gain more of a scholarly legitimacy, it is likely that little of traditional academicvalue, or that which can compete with the more traditional forms of scholarly production

In commenting on the development of H-Net, a consortium of close to 100 scholarlydiscussion groups with a collective membership of over 50,000 participants, Peter Knupfer,the organization’s associate director explained the value of the SDG.Knupfer (1996)notedthat SDGs have brought the information revolution to the desktops of working scholarsaround the world. SDGs have not only increased the opportunities for scholars to conversewith each other, they have pried open previously restricted fields of editing and informationmanagement. Through SDGs, the Internet is best exploited as a collective enterprise byacademics and teachers who mediate an environment many regard as forbidding and hostile.As an example of this power, H-Net is particularly illustrative of how an internationalconsortium of scholars can use these electronic networks to advance humanities and socialscience teaching and research

When the moderator takes an active role, the rates ofparticipation and user satisfaction are significantly higher

Online scholarly collaboration needs to be carefully designed, and SDGs are most useful asa collaborative medium if the group has a specific task to accomplish, a deadline to meet, anda shared cultural or knowledge base

Commentator Kat Nagel outlined a life cycle that every list seems to go through. First thereis initial enthusiasm and evangelism (where people complain about the infrequency ofpostings). This is followed by a period of growth and then community (with lots of threadsand information and willingness to help). When the number of messages increases both involume and in diversity, a certain discomfort arises (often marked by complaints that the listhas lost its central purpose). Finally, if a group of purists emerges and is allowed to ‘‘flame’’(attack ad hominem) and act self-righteously, while others leave to form groups of their own,then a complacency develops, or worse stagnation and death. If, however, the self-righteousare minimized and a balance develops between community and diversity, then a list will reachmaturity

The depth of interactivity varies widely among discussion groups. Some groups are likecocktail parties with many conversations (threads) competing. Some, like formal seminars,focus around specific topics. Some are like notice boards in the local grocery store wheremessages are pinned and left for others to read and comment on. And some groups merelyfunction as newspapers, disseminating electronic journals or computer programs, advertisingconferences or job vacancies. Many people are content to just read and listen, even in themost interactive groups, while a relatively few dominate conversations

One of the earliest nonscience scholarly uses of this technology was the listHumanist,

McCarty saw a kind of electronic seminar, whosepurpose was ‘‘not so much to convey facts as to further understanding of its subject, to trainthe minds of its participants, and so to help create a community of scholars.’’

In some ways, the exchange of correspondence publicly over these networksconstitutes a new form of publication. The posting on a list frequently resembles a letter to theeditor where someone conveys their opinions on a subjec