There are many academics (and many professionals) in fandom. By that I mean, people who have some form of degree beyond the Bachelor's, who are working as teachers, librarians, computer sciences, lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, etc. Their main interest is fandom, and they do all the fanac possible. Some of them write meta or fan histories, etc.: I'd put some of these into the fan-scholar category (crediting Matt Hills for his definition). That is they are fans with academic training who used that training in their fan activities (fanthropology, fanfic symposium, metafandom, fan histories, glossaries, wikis, etc., the Encyclopedia of Arda, etc.). But their primary audience is other fans, fandoms.
Aca-fan is reserved (by Hills and in my usage) for academics who are fans who are doing scholarship on fandom. I'm not sure if Jenkins or Hill is currently active in fandom at the moment (I'd think J couldn't have the time) but they were in the past, and may still be.
The group of women I know are active in fandom, very productive, and are also doing scholarship in fan studies. Some are graduate students; some are junior faculty; some are independent scholars, but they are, like Jenkins, writing academic scholarship for their primary audience of academics. Ifd your analysis of fandom psychology is written primarily for a fan audience (i.e. you don't get professional credit or status from it), then I'd put you into the fan-scholar category (part of what Hill is saying is that academics need to acknowledge the scholarship of fans a lot more than we/they do--and I'm all for that. Laura Quilter is doing amazing things for feminist sf on the internet in ways that academics who have to publish or perish in academic venues could not do because it wouldn't "count.")
(I actually think Jenkins' latest book is more a popular academic work--drawing on his academic training but written with a more general audience in mind--college educated probably but not doctoral level training required--because he's making a much wider argument about the necessity for incorporating these literacies into educational programs--but that's me).
To complicate things, aca-fen can write for fans (the meta many of us do), as well as for academic audiences!
Now I doubt many on LJ or in a more general fandom community would use these terms--they come from an academic work, from an academic who was and may still be active in fandom, trying to break down the idea of academic scholars of fandom as "objective outsiders" who are studying the "passive" culture of fandom. Instead, in this argument, fen are perfectly able to self analyze, self critique, analyze work, write their own histories (and herstories), and make their own meaning.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: reposted to correct html: insider/outsider part 1
Date: 2007-05-27 11:13 pm (UTC)There are many academics (and many professionals) in fandom. By that I mean, people who have some form of degree beyond the Bachelor's, who are working as teachers, librarians, computer sciences, lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, etc. Their main interest is fandom, and they do all the fanac possible. Some of them write meta or fan histories, etc.: I'd put some of these into the fan-scholar category (crediting Matt Hills for his definition). That is they are fans with academic training who used that training in their fan activities (fanthropology, fanfic symposium, metafandom, fan histories, glossaries, wikis, etc., the Encyclopedia of Arda, etc.). But their primary audience is other fans, fandoms.
Aca-fan is reserved (by Hills and in my usage) for academics who are fans who are doing scholarship on fandom. I'm not sure if Jenkins or Hill is currently active in fandom at the moment (I'd think J couldn't have the time) but they were in the past, and may still be.
The group of women I know are active in fandom, very productive, and are also doing scholarship in fan studies. Some are graduate students; some are junior faculty; some are independent scholars, but they are, like Jenkins, writing academic scholarship for their primary audience of academics. Ifd your analysis of fandom psychology is written primarily for a fan audience (i.e. you don't get professional credit or status from it), then I'd put you into the fan-scholar category (part of what Hill is saying is that academics need to acknowledge the scholarship of fans a lot more than we/they do--and I'm all for that. Laura Quilter is doing amazing things for feminist sf on the internet in ways that academics who have to publish or perish in academic venues could not do because it wouldn't "count.")
(I actually think Jenkins' latest book is more a popular academic work--drawing on his academic training but written with a more general audience in mind--college educated probably but not doctoral level training required--because he's making a much wider argument about the necessity for incorporating these literacies into educational programs--but that's me).
To complicate things, aca-fen can write for fans (the meta many of us do), as well as for academic audiences!
Now I doubt many on LJ or in a more general fandom community would use these terms--they come from an academic work, from an academic who was and may still be active in fandom, trying to break down the idea of academic scholars of fandom as "objective outsiders" who are studying the "passive" culture of fandom. Instead, in this argument, fen are perfectly able to self analyze, self critique, analyze work, write their own histories (and herstories), and make their own meaning.
Hope this helps!