Most recent ITEC Journal

[Tubadork]

Wow.... All this because of Bill's photobomb.

RC

The face that launched a thousand posts.

[Mark]

I think if the concept "professional" is taken away from the word "organization", T.U.B.A. (and it's little magazines-in-the-mail) will - once again - win the hearts of tuba players.

[Rick Denney]

Second, what Rick says is true: Inevitably, ITEA, like any membership organization, does and will serve mainly those who show up.

Well, that's not exactly what I said. I said that it is an open question with an answer that is not obvious. Should an organization serve only those who show up, or should it serve those who it would like to show up?

When I say the answer is not obvious, what I mean is that it is important to ask the question, and think carefully about the answer. That is my recommendation to the new board. Once they decide who they want to serve, then they can write down scenarios of how that service would be used by those target audiences. Once those scenarios are written down (and if the process is going to work, writing it down is important--that becomes the basis for consensus), then requirements for what the Journal must do (and the conferences, the membership services, and so on) can be articulated and written down.

Then, you bring in editors and authors who are experts in crafting and presenting information, and get them to respond to those requirements.

So, it's not just bringing in representatives of target audiences for the expanded board. It is also providing a directed, objectives-driven process to take their knowledge of that target audience and turn it into services for that target audience. Maybe it follows the process I outlined, or maybe it follows another process. Doesn't matter. What matters is that outcomes are connected to objectives, so that consensus doesn't happen by accident.

Even more important, and one that directly traces to both Dale's and Joe's comments, is that consensus does not equal lack of disagreement. If those who might disagree stay away for whatever reason, then those who remain do not constitute a consensus. In fact, that outcome demonstrates a lack of consensus. Consensus is when all the stakeholders agree with a plan that serves all the stakeholders. Stakeholders who are not present undermine any hope of achieving a consensus, if the mission is supposed to include those stakeholders. In any organization, some stakeholders are there only to be served, in response to paying dues. Other stakeholders achieve their specific goals by participating. Complaining that the former is not showing up is a violation of their appropriate role, which is to receive what others do in return for paying dues. Will a hobbyist write articles? Not often, and expecting them to is not what they need and it's not their role. Their role is to read articles written by those whose role is to write articles. That's why it's so important to understand those roles.

Rick "who deals with stakeholder consensus every day" Denney

[graybach]

"peer review"...??
"scholarly"...??

Seriously, it's a bunch of tuba players.

We make fart sounds into hug brass cones while we mash on buttons...It's funny, and (often) it's supposed to be funny. (I disagree with Harvey Phillips in this regard.)

Maybe (??) they're all dead now, but (from the "old days" of the TUBA Journal) I kinda liked the interviews of old farts who played in traveling bands, circus bands, etc. and pictures of weird old tubas. Could those those sorts of articles be supplemented by (as it is a print media) websites that have additional pictures or short movie clips that relate to the articles? ...probably.

Some might see this as "who cares" stuff, but I even recently enjoyed Dave Werden's project of comparing and contrasting the out-of-tune tendencies of various models of euphoniums. ' completely scientific? It can't be, but it's meaningful, informative, and interesting to folks shopping for euphoniums.

If something is interesting to YOU (the person who submits something, and does their best with it), it MIGHT (??) be interesting to other people.

Bloke,
THANK YOU. Well-put. The precursor to TUBA started when Bill Bell would hold court with a group of tuba enthusiasts in McSorley's Ole Ale House in NYC. We are a bunch of tuba players, and we like to have fun. What's academic about that? I vehemently disagree with the notion that our journal has to be "scholarly." I have always enjoyed the journal and have enjoyed watching how it has improved since I first started getting it in 1992. It has plenty of info and I use it as a tool to keep up with the tuba world. Is it a "fix-all?" No. I supplement my journal reading with Tubenet and some other websites. But I believe the journal staff does a great job at serving all involved even as the academic crowd tries to make us like every other instrument out there. I believe that part of our (tuba players) appeal is that we ARE different, our instruments and definitely our personalities. I remember my first Army Band Tuba-Euphonium Conference in which the announcer for the Army Band Grand Concert said that he was impressed with the friendliness and camaraderie of the tuba players, more so than other instruments.
I see no reason to be like everyone else. We are tuba players, and we should act like it. If that embarrasses you, play something else...
Gray Bach

[bisontuba]

Hi-
I think(?) TUBA was changed to ITEA to try to conform more to groups like the trumpet group -ITG AND--more importantly, to include our euphonium players in name. If baritone/euphonium/tenor tuba players don't mind being called tuba players, fine. But if you want inclusion, Int'l TUBA EUPHONIUM Assoc. gives euphonium players that. Maybe TubeNet need to change its name to EuphTubeNet or BariTubaNet or TenBassTubaNet or LowEndNet or TheFolkswiththeBigHornsNet or ..............

mark

[Michael Bush]

Do you guys understand that some people need there to be a scholarly element in the journal for their work?

I get it that you're probably also against tenure, but even if you eliminate tenure and go to a contract system in higher education (because something has to protect academic freedom) there is still going to be a requirement of peer reviewed publication in the evaluation process for renewal. Not everyone has this need. But a significant constituency does have it.

Given that in addition to serving your interests, the journal also has a constituency who need a peer review option, can you think of a better system than the current one where some articles are noted as peer reviewed? (I think it is safe to say that two different publications is not a viable financial option at the moment.)

[Michael Bush]

I personally don't care about providing (by paying membership dues or subscription fees) a venue for people to receive tenure points, I just would like more credible info and less of the blatant plagiarism in the "journals" and "newsletters," electronic or otherwise, I take the time to read.

Okay. Fair enough. The best mechanism I can think of for making sure info is (at least) credible is peer review.

Can you think of a single membership organization whose journal you can receive by subscription without being a paying member or a library (paying much more)?

[Michael Bush]

Can you think of a single membership organization whose journal you can receive by subscription without being a paying member or a library (paying much more)?

You lost me here... Not sure what you're asking. Clarify, if you'd like...

BUT, any organization I pay to join, whether the dues are $20 or $500, I expect them to be responsible with what info they present to their membership.

Well, it just sounded to me like you felt paying membership dues or subscription fees entitled you not to have to put up with peer reviewed articles, and that somehow receiving it without paying would make it tolerable. I see I must have misunderstood.

[TonyTuba]

I personally don't care about providing (by paying membership dues or subscription fees) a venue for people to receive tenure points, I just would like more credible info and less of the blatant plagiarism in the "journals" and "newsletters," electronic or otherwise, I take the time to read.

Okay. Fair enough. The best mechanism I can think of for making sure info is (at least) credible is peer review.

Can you think of a single membership organization whose journal you can receive by subscription without being a paying member or a library (paying much more)?

NABBA- The Brass Band Bridge is a free online newsletter and is great. That, like the Journal, relies on submissions for content. I suspect that if more diverse articles are submitted, more wold be printed.

Who cares what you call it. Fact is, ITEA does a whole lotta good in promoting the tuba and euphonium. It may not cater to exactly what YOU(in general, not specific to the responding quote here...) may be looking for. It may just not be able to. But it does move us forward.

[Michael Bush]

so...

...Who are the "peers" that will "review" it...and what will they review...??

How much siyuntifik stuff can there be in a few pages of stuff written about tuba playing 'n' stuff?

In peer review, an article (usually with the identifying information about the author removed) is sent to other scholars with relevant expertise (usually two) who send back anonymous comments about whatever issues they see (usually about method or the quality of the argument). Sometimes that's the end of it, one way or the other. Often the editor asks for revisions that take the reviewers' comments into account.

As to your other questions, I don't know particularly what the research agendas of tuba and euphonium professors and graduate students might include, and I don't know historically how many such pieces the journal has published, or might publish in the future. I'm sure others know.

[PMeuph]

Would be nice to see a tuba reseacher gain some international notoriety (Nobel perhaps?) for a discovery that could help everyone.

Or an Ig Nobel ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig ... ze_winners

[Rick Denney]

I personally don't care about providing (by paying membership dues or subscription fees) a venue for people to receive tenure points, I just would like more credible info and less of the blatant plagiarism in the "journals" and "newsletters," electronic or otherwise, I take the time to read.

It isn't your job to care about the needs of other stakeholders, but if you reject them as stakeholders, you are committing the same error you accuse of them, when you suggest they are ignoring you.

If you want to serve all the stakeholders, you first can't define them out of the stakeholder pool. It is completely possible to provide for scholarly articles (as in, articles written by scholars and reviewed by scholars according to scholarly standards), without undermining the service to other stakeholders.

The point of recognizing the different ways different stakeholders will use the journal (and the way they will use the organization, for that matter) is in understanding and accommodating where they are different.

(Whether the scholarly section succeeds in supporting academic development depends on the review standards. It would probably be ideal to have these in a separate publication, perhaps with a separate--and larger--subscription fee. These can be subscribed to by college music libraries, who provide the place where scholarly articles should reside. But it could also be a pull-out or special section in a general-audience magazine, I would think.)

Rick "who wouldn't mind reading the occasional scholarly article" Denney

[Rick Denney]

so...

...Who are the "peers" that will "review" it...and what will they review...??

How much siyuntifik stuff can there be in a few pages of stuff written about tuba playing 'n' stuff?

That is also not your job to determine, if you are not part of that stakeholder group. Again, you are trying to impose a separate agenda by defining who is and is not a stakeholder. With a justification no less easy to defend, they might define you out of the stakeholder population, by declaring that ITEA is an academic organization only. (Nobody wants that, of course--I'm just trying to reinforce the point that some stakeholders don't understand or care about the needs of different stakeholders, and they should not have to. But that doesn't cause those other stakeholders or their needs to cease to exist.)

I have my own beef about peer-review processes, having published extensively in peer-reviewed journals, even as a non-academic. And I take the point that there just isn't that much to study--in all fields the same questions get addressed again and again. But it's mighty hard to articulate what process might be better.

Rick "completing a review of four scientific papers today--as a peer" Denney

[PMeuph]

(Whether the scholarly section succeeds in supporting academic development depends on the review standards. It would probably be ideal to have these in a separate publication, perhaps with a separate--and larger--subscription fee. These can be subscribed to by college music libraries, who provide the place where scholarly articles should reside. But it could also be a pull-out or special section in a general-audience magazine, I would think.)

Rick "who wouldn't mind reading the occasional scholarly article" Denney

Good point! I would see it as preferable to put the scholarly articles online and to put the "general articles" in print. This way everyone would have access to all the resources they need and there could be advertising with the the printed version. This would also entice people to subscribe to the printed version.

(If anyone is wondering, online periodicals are still considered as equal to printed versions if they are peer-reviewed. Also, the online format allows one to add sound clips, videos and more musical examples)

[PMeuph]

(Whether the scholarly section succeeds in supporting academic development depends on the review standards. It would probably be ideal to have these in a separate publication, perhaps with a separate--and larger--subscription fee. These can be subscribed to by college music libraries, who provide the place where scholarly articles should reside. But it could also be a pull-out or special section in a general-audience magazine, I would think.)

Rick "who wouldn't mind reading the occasional scholarly article" Denney

Good point! I would see it as preferable to put the scholarly articles online and to put the "general articles" in print. This way everyone would have access to all the resources they need and there could be advertising with the the printed version. This would also entice people to subscribe to the printed version.

(If anyone is wondering, online periodicals are still considered as equal to printed versions if they are peer-reviewed. Also, the online format allows one to add sound clips, videos and more musical examples)

Your quotes are incorrect, PMeuph. Just an FYI...

Oups, my bad. Fixed it now. So, ironically, you are now quoting my incorrect quote of your message.

[Mark]

An olive leaf has been thrust out by the new prez (see other thread). Why are we still posting here (as if behind her back)?

I'm sure she is aware of this thread. I don't think moving this discussion to her thread would accomplish anything.

[king2ba]

Do you guys understand that some people need there to be a scholarly element in the journal for their work?

I get it that you're probably also against tenure, but even if you eliminate tenure and go to a contract system in higher education (because something has to protect academic freedom) there is still going to be a requirement of peer reviewed publication in the evaluation process for renewal. Not everyone has this need. But a significant constituency does have it.

Given that in addition to serving your interests, the journal also has a constituency who need a peer review option, can you think of a better system than the current one where some articles are noted as peer reviewed? (I think it is safe to say that two different publications is not a viable financial option at the moment.)

This right here is the problem! There are TONS of educational journals that the college crowd could send articles to for publication. The problem is, the topics that they want to write about are things that most of us that play the instrument don't care about so why would a general education person? Write stuff that is interesting and people will publish it....write crap and ITEA will publish it!

[Rick Denney]

It's not for you to define what I should care about nor what my job is or isn't. As a non-member, you also have no stake.

You are missing my point. I'm not insulting you, but rather suggesting that each stakeholder comes in with their own needs and their own intended uses. Prioritizing the relevance of stakeholders should be done by the elected board of the organization--that's their job. When you argue against someone else's intended use, you are committing the same error as them arguing against your use. The point of consensus and inclusion is to accommodate all stakeholders intended uses. Stakeholders are not necessarily those who are currently paying dues, but those whom the board would like to attract as members.

Rick "whose experience facilitating stakeholder input is unrelated to his experience publishing and reviewing scholarly articles" Denney

[Rick Denney]

Here's an observation:

If....you used to be a member

If....you haven't been a member for 20 years

If....the organization is still in operation or even thriving

Chances are you haven't been missed by the organization.

Possibly. But past presidents have invited my membership personally, so I assume the membership of people like me is still desired. But there are lots of hobbyists besides me.

And I'm not talking behind anybody's back. This is a public forum, isn't it? Dennis AsKew responded early on and I therefore assume all the ITEA officers are aware of it.

Rick "who doesn't have time to read all thread these days" Denney

[cambrook]

I think that part of the issue here is that there are journals and journals. To me, the ITEA publication is better described as a magazine, as it falls far short of what a "journal" should mean in an academic environment.
A proper journal such as Nature or the New England Journal of Medicine is peer-reviewed etc as outlined in previous posts.

Call me cynical, but I suspect that it suits a few people to have a journal that doesn't meet these standards. If I wrote an article I might be able to get it published in this magazine, but it may not be accepted by a proper journal. Even better - if my employer isn't familiar with the "journal", they might give me kudos and recognition as if I had a paper accepted by a proper journal.

Having said that, I don't where else one might get an article about tuba playing published. I think a part of the problem is the requirement for people to be published to earn "brownie points". I'm glad I'm not in that situation....

Cheers

Cam