Podcast or Perish with Ian Cook, Lori Beckstead, and Hannah McGregor
Amplified is an audio blog series about the sounds of scholarship from our team here at the Amplify Podcast Network. This month on Amplified, we sit down with podcast scholars Ian M Cook, Lori Beckstead, and Hannah McGregor to unpack the key provocations, or what the authors term the key ‘f**keries,’ of their forthcoming book- Podcast or Perish: Peer Review and Knowledge Creation for the 21st Century. We discuss their hot takes on collaborative writing, alternative forms of peer review, and why the trio claims scholarly podcasting is currently ‘unsound.’
[00:00:00] [Theme music plays underneath]
Stacey Copeland: Welcome to Amplified an audio blog about the sounds of scholarship from our team here at the Amplified Podcast Network, I’m your host, Stacey Copeland.
and a quick content warning here. A bit of swearing in this episode. So keep that in mind for any sensitive ears while you listen.
Podcast. or. Perish! [sfx: thunder]
This is the bold provocation by our guests on the podcast today as the title. Of their forthcoming book Behind this provocation are the dynamic trio, Lori Beckstead, Ian Cook, and Hannah McGregor, our own co-director of the Amplify Podcast Network. As you and many in the Amplify community are already aware, the use of podcasting as a tool for intellectual inquiry and the role of peer review in that process is a relatively new idea, but one that seems to be picking up speed each and every day. In Podcast or Perish – McGregor, Cook and Beckstead aim to map out not simply a rationale for the deployment of podcasting as scholarship and peer review, but also to explore some real-world workflows for such a practice.
On this episode of Amplified, I sit down with the trio to discuss their hot takes on collaborative writing, alternative forms of peer review, and what our authors term, the key ‘f*ckeries’ or perhaps provocations of their forthcoming book- Podcast or Perish: Peer review and knowledge creation for the 21st century.
So first one’s the hard one. Um, before I jump into the schpeel and rundown intro, if you could all just introduce yourselves.
[00:02:12] Ian Cook: Hello, My name is Ian m Cook and I am editor in chief of Allegra Lab.
[00:02:16] Lori Beckstead: Hello. I am –
[00:02:19] Ian Cook: will that do? sorry… [Hannah laughs]
[00:02:23] Lori Beckstead: Hello, I am Lori Beckstead and I am an associate professor. At the Toronto Metropolitan University School of Media, and happy to be here.
[00:02:33] Hannah McGregor: I’m Hannah McGregor. I’m an associate professor of publishing at Simon Fraser University and the co-director of this here project Amplify Podcast Network.
[00:02:44] Stacey Copeland: Particularly today, what I’m hoping to dig into with the three of you, is of course the topic of podcasting – scholarly podcasting, but also peer review.
I’ve been following along what experimentations of sorts you’ve been doing with Podcast or Perish that you are currently working on in process. So I’d love to hear, to start things off, basically the origin story of Podcast or Perish. You know, we talk a lot about podcasting, peer review here, but the three of you’re coming from maybe initial different approaches to the intersection of these two topics.
So I’d love to hear more about how the three of you came to collaborate on the topic of podcasting and as peer review.
[00:03:27] Hannah McGregor: I mean, this has gotta go to Lori cuz Lori did it.
[00:03:30] Lori Beckstead: Yeah. I guess I Invited you to when it came down to it, right? Yeah. So I was experimenting with peer review via podcast through the what I’ve called the Open Peer Review podcast.
And this was a way to allow someone who had written a draft of something to. Have a conversation with a peer about that draft and get some feedback. And so I was kind of envisioning it as an experiment to show how, how podcasting could be used in the traditional pipeline of academic publishing.
So I was experimenting with that, and of course I had come across Hannah’s work with Secret Feminist Agenda, which I think was, you know, one of the first that I came across. Anyway, a true experiment with podcasting as peer reviewable work. And so I contacted Hannah and then we had a, a meeting of the podcast academics, and Ian was there.
He was looking for people to interview for his book, which has just been published. Yay. What’s it called, Ian?
[00:04:29] Ian Cook: It’s called ‘Scholarly Podcasting: What, Why, How‘
[00:04:33] Lori Beckstead: and you and I had a great conversation for that book and I thought, you know, Ian seems like such a great guy and Hannah seems like such a great gal and we should collaborate.
And I just felt like that, like there would be some synergy there and boy was there ever.
[00:04:47] Hannah McGregor: Yeah, I think Lori really sensed that the vibes were right. And then we figured the rest of it out. Like we figured out the like fundamental disciplinary differences in terms of how we approach knowledge creation.
Like that came after it started with vibes.
[00:05:02] Ian Cook: Mm-hmm. So then maybe just because Lori mentioned the writing sessions and Hannah mentioned the vibes. The way our meetings usually start, we start to talk and then as soon as either Hannah or I say something clever, Lori presses the record. And so if Lori says something clever, then she forgets to press record.
But she’s the person who always records it and then does an automated transcript and sends it to us afterwards. And then we basically started to write every chapter in these like collaborative writing sessions. So we, after we’d made a plan, okay, we need something, you know, on this, you know, and we just sat together and we wrote .
Collaboratively writing in the truest sense is that we ended up forgetting whose words or whose, you know, so like you’d start to write, you’d rewrite your own stuff, you’d rewrite somebody else’s, and the end of it, it just became something, which was a really nice way of doing it. And I think it speaks to the sort of generous and collaborative way that we think peer review can be done as well.
[00:05:53] Stacey Copeland: Talking a Bit about your collaborative process here. I’d also love to hear more about how you ended up structuring the peer review approach for Podcast or Perish. You know, I was lucky enough to take part in some aspects of that open peer review process, and I know you write quite a bit about peer review and how to approach it differently in the book, but you also have actually enacted that and put it into practice- in how you’ve decided to peer review the manuscript as well. Could you maybe walk me through the thought process behind how you decided to approach peer review and, and maybe give some examples of how you name those different styles as well.
[00:06:32] Ian Cook: In terms of peer reviewing our book, we have four chapters and we have four different peer review, peer review processes for the different chapters. So chapter one, we put the manuscript online on a Google Doc. We sent it to a bunch of people. We emailed about it, we tweeted about it, and we just left it open as a free for all. Some people did it. We had some questions to guide people.
Some people used their names, some people did it anonymously and I dunno, 30, 40 people, something like that maybe commented or gave feedback. Some, a lot, like some people wrote really long things at the end. Some people just, you know, corrected our punctuation. Um, and, [ some chuckles] and it’s all fine. And then for the second chapter, Lori interviewed the book series editor, or rather had a conversation with the book series editor about chapter two.
And then we listened back to that. And then chapter three is the bunch of different examples of peer review. Uh, yeah, case studies. All the case studies we had, we wrote to someone from each of each of those case studies and said, Hey, could you take a look, look at the chapter, and then give comments? And did that.
And the final one, we asked grad students to do audio diaries basically of their reading of the, of the chapter. And so they either sent one long one or as it as it as it went. And so they’re all quite different ways of doing it. And I guess they fall into the different types of peer review that we have.
I would be lying if I could say I could name all the categories right now.
[00:08:03] Hannah McGregor: Oh, let’s try. Okay. [Ian laughs] Public, conversational, media adaptive, iterative, digital artifact… there’s two more – community accountable – and –
[00:08:20] Stacey Copeland: for 100 points,
[00:08:22] Hannah McGregor: what is the seventh approach?
[00:08:25] Lori Beckstead: Public review and a recirculating review. [ sfx:ding ding]
[00:08:29] Hannah McGregor: Recirculating review.
That’s the one that I forgot. Yeah, we didn’t use all of those approaches in our own review cuz they didn’t always make sense. But chapter one is like a pretty classic public review. Chapter two is conversational, like literally. Lori sat down and had a conversation and is a version of, of Media Adaptive, cuz it’s review that happened in a different medium that we thought was more appropriate for the book.
Chapter three is Community Accountable in the sense that we are like, okay, there’s this community of people engaging in these experiments. Let’s make our work literally accountable to them by letting them read and correct it before it goes out. And what do you think? Chapter four, what, what It’s, it’s, I mean, it’s media adaptive again,
[00:09:12] Ian Cook: and it’s community accountable.
[00:09:14] Lori Beckstead: That was where we asked the grad students to do sort of an audio diary reaction to it.
[00:09:19] Ian Cook: Because that chapter was more specifically about thinking beyond peer review, like what we wanted to change inside academia. Why we did all of this? Like what was the, what was the reason is that, uh, one of our arguments is that we think that once you become aware of the person or people who are creating the scholarly knowledge as a reviewer, we wanted to think about the approaches that would allow people to appreciate both the person and the work they do.
Cuz we believe that an appreciative review can be a better review. An appreciative review, it should be creative in the sense that it’s ongoing and open and unfolding into the world, that it should be communal, that it’s like part of a community with which we want to grow and thrive rather than individualistic, and it should be caring. So it should be created in a way where we’re always thinking about, yeah, how our review is understood, and then how it can be used. And we think if we explore and analyze and categorize these different approaches, then they can hopefully, Inspire people to create different review processes. Cause there’s not one best, you know, review process for everything. There’s different review processes that fit better. There’s sorts of different things that we make, and hopefully then we can have a more appreciative review system overall.
[00:10:37] Lori Beckstead: One thing they all have in common certainly is conversation through voice, and we feel that there is some affordances of conversation and voice that, you know, obviously collaborative discursive building – um, even the serial nature of of doing it through podcasts allows you to revisit, to incorporate response from a wider community who might be listening that they understand themselves as part of that knowledge creation. When those grad students gave us their reviews through their audio diaries, I have to say I had never experienced peer review like that before.
It was truly something completely different to listen to them. Uh, many of them, you know, would kind of flip on their recording when they had just read something. They were in the middle of reading it and would kind of say, okay, so, so this is really striking me as being, and they would kind of just extemporaneously talk about, you know, what their reactions were. And then a lot of them also kind of gave a summary at the end when they were finished reading it. And to get that kind of almost off the cuff reaction was so insightful and so helpful to us in terms of, you know, what was working and what might need to be changed. So, you know, we had the normal peer review.
We had, we had our editor review the book and we also had a, an anonymous reviewer review the book and did the standard, you know, peer review sheet. And those were helpful. But to have opened up this process to many more people and many more voices was incredible.
[00:12:08] Stacey Copeland: In the introduction to Podcaster or Perish, and I’ve heard, I think all three of you say similar statement to this in other forms across the years.
You know, you argue that peer review and the wider sphere of scholarly podcasting is currently “unsound”, um, which is a very bold statement to make. And you know, I love a good sound wordplay of sorts. [ Lori : We just wanted a pun , [ laughs] never gets old. Uh, so appreciate that. But still, this is a very bold statement to make that peer review and the wider sphere of scholarly podcasting is currently “unsound”.
I kinda wanna break that into two parts here for questions, to ask the three of you. So first off, you know, peer review and scholarly podcasting are two key ways that I think all of us are interested in the academy really advocating for discourse among peers for creating community. What about peer review do you find particularly unsound or maybe concerning right now in the academy in this particular moment?
[00:13:11] Ian Cook: Before I let one of my dear co-authors jump in in, and I’m saying this because I wrote this paragraph yesterday. [ chuckles] We need to distinguish between, um, peer review, the paradigm of peer review, um, the actual processes of peer review and the medium through which peer review is conducted. And sometimes all those free things come together. In creating an unsound peer review. Uh, but sometimes we have to also separate them analytically as well.
[00:13:38] Lori Beckstead: Lest you all think that Ian is, is really smart, [ all laugh] which is no, which he’s, he absolutely is. But that your spiel just then Ian actually came from one of our peer reviewers in the, uh, in the open Google Doc.
So it was a peer reviewer who were like, you know, you really need to consider this in the light of these three things. And we were like, yeah, we really do. So there you go. So thank you to that reviewer whose name was, I’m gonna go find it.
[00:14:06] Ian Cook: Thank you for the foot – thank you for the footnote, Lori . Yeah.
[00:14:10] Hannah McGregor: Yes. That lest was so mean, [ laughs]
[00:14:12] Lori Beckstead: wasn’t it? Aw but we have fun .
[00:14:20] Ian Cook: I’ll tell you what the four are. Then, then, then either Hannah can jump in and talk about the one she wants to vent about most. We said timeframes, academic labor, feedback and writing. Those are the four things that we think make peer review “unsound”.
[00:14:32] Hannah McGregor: Yeah, so, so some of these are just like obvious structure problems of what is not working with the way that we do peer review right now, and that is the vast majority of scholarly communication takes the form of published journal articles.
The vast majority of journals are pay walled journals that enact a double anonymous review. So that is the sort of norm of how peer review happens is like you send your article off to a journal, somebody probably using a database, sends it to two peer reviewers. Those reviewers have no idea who you are.
They fill out a form that the journal asked them to fill out. Send it back to the journal. The journal forwards it to you. There might be some light editorial intervention, but that really depends on the editor in question and what their capacity slash interest is in actually taking part in the process.
But since for both peer reviewers and editors, it’s unpaid work, um, that’s considered service to the profession. Uh, that work is often done very hastily off the side of somebody’s desk, with a sort of sense that like, well, we need to do this because otherwise all of these systems will grind to a halt. But like, certainly we don’t have the time to do it like thoughtfully or with care. And so you end up getting these reviews that are, let’s say, wildly varying in their helpfulness, like massively varying in their helpfulness. You might luck into a good, thoughtful, engaged review, but talk to any scholar and they’ve got stories of just like bonkers reviews. At best you’ve got stories of a review that was unproductive, but most of us have stories of reviews that were like overtly sexist or overtly racist or overt – like, and there’s no accountability. Built into it because of the sort of, um, prizing of anonymity. And you might get a review that is like absolutely wild. And then say to the editor like, how do I respond to this review?
And the editor will be like, well, it’s your job to satisfy that reviewer, or you can withdraw your paper. So you either figure out how to contort your scholarship into such a shape that it satisfies an absolutely wild set of expectations from a stranger or you withdraw your paper. If you do manage to please this stranger. Lucky you. Your piece gets published in a journal that is pay walled, that your own institution is paying thousands of dollars for a subscription to where if you’re the average humanities scholar, it will then proceed to be never cited, ever. Ta-da. You did it. Scholarship.
[00:17:29] Stacey Copeland: Tell us how you really feel, Hannah. [ laughter]
Yeah, I mean, this is partly why I’m really excited for this book to come out because I think you hear the voices of the three of you and these bold claims that are very much of the forefront of academic discourses right now around open scholarship, around advocating for more transparency in peer review processes, in how our work is actually published.
But isn’t really being put down on paper and published out there, uh, for us all to then be able to cite and say, look, this is also peer reviewed scholarship.
[00:18:06] Hannah McGregor: We are three assholes who really are willing to say the quiet part out loud. And I think that’s part of what made us good collaborators is that none of the three of us are like, Ooh, am I getting in trouble for saying that…
[00:18:19] Stacey Copeland: and so it brings me to the, the second part of the question then, you know. Moving from peer review as being unsound. To scholarly podcasting as “unsound,” which is much more intriguing to me because scholarly podcasting in this particular moment is getting picked up, you know, as knowledge mobilization , as a form of scholarship that is being taken up across the social sciences and humanities as well as in the hard sciences as credible output of work. Um, so I’m curious, you know, what is concerning you about scholarly podcasting at this particular moment and how it is, uh, perhaps unsound in the academy at large.
[00:19:00] Lori Beckstead: Well , as you might guess, we wrestled with the definition of what do we mean when we talk about scholarly podcasting? And so we did exclude some things. So universities are often using podcasts as a way to, uh, basically as a PR tool. So it might be an interview with a scholar, but really the university is using it as a, as a promotional tool. And so we excluded that from our definition. We ended up settling on that scholarly podcasting is a podcast that can be peer reviewable. Uh, and so at the risk of being very circular, what we, what we think that means is that the podcast was created in such a way that it understands that it possibly could be reviewed. Now, it is possible that the podcaster does not intend for it to be reviewed, but what they’re doing is they are including information that is easily citable, that’s accountable and that, so if a reviewer did come and have a look at it and decide to review it in a scholarly peer review kind of way, that is possible. What else am I missing from our definition?
[00:20:10] Hannah McGregor: Well, you’re not answering Stacey’s question. What’s, what’s unsound?
[00:20:14] Lori Beckstead: What was the question? [ Lori and Ian laugh]
[00:20:16] Hannah McGregor: Okay. I’m gonna try, I’m gonna start and say, Sort of the biggest, utmost obvious structural issue is that universities like the PR engine of podcasting, they like the publicity. [ Lori: Mm-hmm.] they like the quote unquote impact, but very few actual departments. Within universities will consider podcasts to be part of a scholar’s legitimate knowledge production. And thus, what ends up happening is that anybody interested in doing scholarly podcasting has to do twice the work because they have, they do the scholarly podcasting and everybody goes, yay! Oh, so innovative! And then they still have to write all of the conventional scholarship because that is the, the real thing. And Stacey , you know this because you had to. You, you had to write a conventional dissertation in a, you know, in a department that is interested in exactly these kinds of questions.
You know, it’s still like we can’t conceive the dissertation outside of its written form, and there’s no particular reason why scholarship needs to be written. So it really has to do more with like the ossification of systems within universities.
Why do we do things the way we do them? And you see this like, People are doing these experiments all over the place. At university presses and at smaller scholar run journals. There are lots of experiments happening with peer review because in the places in academia where like actual humans are like actually intervening, there’s, there’s thoughtful, interesting experiments.
The problem is when we run up against these, these systems that have just sort of, Frozen into place and that will actually need, you know, a system like what we consider to be real scholarship and non-real scholarship during the tenure and review process, there isn’t one person who sat down and said, I’m gonna come up with a way we do tenure and promotion.
It’s a system that has been in place for a very long time that. Has frozen into a particular form. Mm-hmm. And is gonna need some real shoving to get it to move.
[00:22:31] Lori Beckstead: It’s also a system that relies on ticking boxes. Right. Oh, well, did you publish in a journal? Okay, great. How high is the journal impact factor?
Right. Okay. So that’s better than one that isn’t. I think it’s just kind of a lazy system in a sense where it’s not looking a scholar in the eye and kind of thinking about what is actually happening here, what is meaningful about the work they’re doing? And so I guess what we’re suggesting is we can not necessarily look a scholar in the eye, but hear them in the voice, I think is the phrase I guess.
[00:23:00] Stacey Copeland: Oh, I hate, I hate looking people in the eyes, [ laughs]
[00:23:02] Lori Beckstead: yeah, that’s why we’re in audio, right?
[00:23:05] Stacey Copeland: Um, Yeah but to circle back to, uh, the definition of scholarly podcasting you brought up there, Lori, it makes me wonder, you know, how did you three grapple with actually defining scholarly podcasting than if you are looking to push back against definitions of what scholarship is? How did you grapple with, with that tension?
[00:23:25] Hannah McGregor: It’s such an ongoing-
[00:23:27] Lori Beckstead: Touche! [laughs]
[00:23:27] Hannah McGregor: So this is actually like, what constitutes scholarship is a conversation we had on Monday because so many of our reviewers were like, you are talking about scholarship a lot, and you never say what you think scholarly knowledge is.
[00:23:41] Ian Cook: Like we’re not certainly saying that only academics make scholarly podcasts cuz, you know, or only people who have a job inside the university or whatever make scholarly that definitely not, for sure. And at the same time is, I think the problem is that very often the imagination of what a scholar is and what a university is, is this very conservative idea, but it’s also a very bounded idea, right?
As if the, the knowledge that we produce is somehow existing within the metaphor of the ivory tower. It’s not true and it’s not been true for a very long time. We are engaged people out in the world who are constantly, you know, producing stuff that interacts with people who have nothing to do with the institution where we work and, uh, or worked.
And so I think most of us wouldn’t want to make a podcast, which then has, is branded by the university, right? Because then there would be some sort of control there. So it has to be free and open and, and there are terrible podcasts, which are institutional podcasts. And then are they scholarly in the sense that yes, they’re produced by scholars at institutions. So in some sense you could say, yes, they’re scholarly. This is why going back to what Lori said before, is that something which can be potentially peer reviewed, and that doesn’t necessarily mean people make it with that idea in mind, but it’s really interesting because then it’s like, okay, so that’s like knowledge creation process happening that can be interrogated and, and, and et cetera, et cetera, and so on.
Yeah, I think we’ve all, we wouldn’t want, I think, any of us for podcasting just to become another tick box.
[00:25:09] Hannah McGregor: Yeah
[00:25:10] Lori Beckstead: No.
[00:25:10] Ian Cook: So that then it, and we write about this in the last chapter where we sort of say, okay, like it would be terrible if now every single scholar at every single department felt, oh, I better put out a podcast because that’s gonna help me get a promotion, or that’s gonna help me get a job.
Please God know, like, uh, everybody should rather be producing scholarship which is meaningful in relation to the topic that they’re researching about or the theories that they use and et cetera, et cetera, and so on. So it’s about finding a way for scholarship in a podcast form to be recognized, and appreciated.
But without getting pulled into the structures that we find so problematic.
[00:25:49] Lori Beckstead: Recognized but not systematized.
[00:25:51] Ian Cook: Ooh, I like it. I’m gonna get that on a hat. [chuckles]
[00:25:54] Lori Beckstead: let’s, let’s put that on the book jacket.
[00:25:57] Hannah McGregor: They’re these sort of bureaucratic, like these neoliberal metric based box checking exercises that are a kind of system, but there’s also a really value dimen – valuable dimension of systematization that is necessary for scholarship to happen, which is to say what we think defines scholarly knowledge creation as opposed to other kinds of knowledge creation, is this idea of reviewability, which has to do with like you are creating your knowledge within some sort of context of other knowledge. That you are communicating it in a way that is transparent, such that somebody else could track down your citations, somebody else could reproduce your method, somebody else could, you know, can go in and see what you did and how you did it, and that it has some form of accountability to its audience.
And all of those are really vital to how we think about actually creating scholarly knowledge, right? That comes out of a context that it’s accountable to somebody else who’s asking questions. That your methods are transparent, that people can see what you did and can push back against particular ideas.
And that’s what differentiates scholarship from say, the Joe Rogans of the world, who the second you push back against their ideas can sort of throw their hands up and be like, well, I’m just asking questions. Right? Like, That scholarly knowledge isn’t just asking questions, it’s accountable for the ideas it puts out into the world.
[00:27:32] Stacey Copeland: Okay, so I think that is maybe one of the bold statements I wanna pull out there that I hope is one of the key sentiments that people take away from your book, which is that scholarly work should always be inherently and very deliberately tied to accountability and accountability among particular communities, whether that is the communities that you’re working with, whether that’s the communities that are the other scholars in your particular field. What other maybe key ideas or sentiments are you hoping that readers will take away from this work?
And also, when is it coming out? Because it’s still forthcoming. I know possibly end of this year? Question mark?
[00:28:19] Hannah McGregor: Yeah. Possibly end of this year question mark. Correct.
[00:28:22] Lori Beckstead: It’s listed on the publisher’s website, so we’re- it’s definitely coming, but we don’t know when. And we’re doing revision, so hopefully the next part of the process won’t take too, too long.
[00:28:31] Hannah McGregor: Ian, what are the other key- key f*ckeries?
[00:28:34] Stacey Copeland: Key f*ckeries? Is that how you want me to –
[00:28:36] Hannah McGregor: Key, key f*ckeries. [lori laughs]
[00:28:38] Ian Cook: What are the- what are the key f*ckeries . We want, the collective we, I think want to intervene in understandings of peer review in a way that legitimizes different ways of doing it, not only in relation to podcasting, but more broadly.
And when this takes place to have people start to question other conventions that we have in universities and and around them, questions around demonstrations of excellence around assessment and university applications. You know, these are all taken for granted things, which, you know, are highly problematic.
It’s not really subject of this, of this discussion, but we know, you know, like if you want to do a breakdown of social economic class, then you just look at like entrance exams to universities and you know, like we don’t wanna admit this, right? We don’t wanna admit that, you know, universities are.
Are geared up to taking people from, you know, upper middle classes who’ve gone to private school and prep, right? But, but we just say, oh, they’re better in their exams and all these sort of stuff. So I think the bigger thing is not that we think podcasting can save academia. Not that we’re trying to save academia, but we want to f*ck with academia and, and f*ck with it in a way that that allows for forms of knowledge creation to make the world a better place.
[00:29:54] Lori Beckstead: Drops mic [claps and Ian laughs]
[00:29:57] Hannah McGregor: Unfor- unfortunately, that is what we’re trying to do, which is pretty outrageous.
[00:30:02] Lori Beckstead: It’s actually quite a, a utopian book in that sense cuz Yeah, we do- yeah.
[00:30:07] Stacey Copeland: Well I can’t wait to, call this the key f*ckeries of Podcast or Perish. Thank you all for joining me for the hour to have this discussion.
I feel like we could just keep talking about all this stuff for the rest of the day. But – [ Hannah: yeah]. Uh, I gotta cut this down into something manageable, uh, for the audio record with, but seriously, thank you all for taking the time.
[00:30:27] Hannah McGregor: Amazing. thanks
[00:30:28] Lori Beckstead: Thank you Stacey . Thanks for having us.
[Theme music fades in]
[00:30:38] Stacey Copeland: A big thank you to Ian Cook, Lori Beckstead, and Hannah McGregor for joining us here on Amplified. You’ll find all the pre-order info on Podcast or Perish and additional materials mentioned in the show notes. If you have comments or additional thoughts on the ideas shared here today or other Amplified topics, please do reach out. We always love to hear from you and as we head into the summer months amplified will be taking a bit of a hiatus, but you can catch us at conferences like the I C A Podcasting pre-conference happening this May, 2023 in Toronto and various other events in the months to come. Make sure to follow us on Twitter or subscribe to our email newsletter for updates and to keep in touch. Thanks for listening to Amplified a podcast, an audio blog, about the sounds of scholarship coming to you from our team here at the Amplify Podcast Network.
[Theme music out]
Ian M. Cook is Editor and Chief at Allegra Lab. He is an anthropologist whose work focus includes urban India, scholarly podcasting, open education, and environmental (in)justice. His most recent book is ‘Scholarly Podcasting: What, Why, How’ (Routledge, 2023). More info can be found at: www.drianmcook.net
Lori Beckstead is an Associate Professor in the RTA School of Media and Director of the Allan Slaight Radio Institute at Toronto Metropolitan University where she teaches courses in podcasting, radio and sound studies. She is the on-again, off-again co-producer and co-host of The Podcast Studies Podcast along with Dario Llinares.
Hannah McGregor is an Assistant Professor of Publishing at Simon Fraser University, where her research focuses on podcasting as scholarly, systemic barriers to access in the Canadian publishing industry, and magazines as middlebrow media. She is the co-creator of Witch, Please, a feminist podcast on the Harry Potter world, and the creator of the peer-reviewed podcast Secret Feminist Agenda (WLUP). She is also the co-editor of the book Refuse: CanLit in Ruins (Book*hug 2018), and the co-director of Amplify Podcast Network.
Links and Resources
Podcast or Perish: Peer Review and Knowledge Creation for the 21st Century (Forthcoming) – https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/podcast-or-perish-9781501385209
‘Scholarly Podcasting: What, Why, How’ (Routledge, 2023) – https://www.routledge.com/Scholarly-Podcasting-Why-What-How/Cook/p/book/9780367439446
Podcast Studies – The Podacademics Networks – https://podcaststudies.org
Open Peer Review Podcast – https://oprpodcast.ca
ICA Podcast Studies Pre-Conference (May 2023) – https://podcastprecon23.pubpub.org
Intro + Outro Theme Music: Pxl Cray – Blue Dot Studios (2016)
Written and produced by: Stacey Copeland