'Press Publish': A Summary

Thanks once again for all those who participated in the series on academic blogging. We’ve heard from 14 academic bloggers whose answers to four questions I asked are quite diverse, but not without a few common threads. The interviewees were:

1. Ben Witherington
2. Jim West
3. Mike Bird
4. Anthony Le Donne
5. Scot McKnight
6. Mark Goodacre (preamble, why/when, benefits…)
7. Stephen Carlson
8. Nijay Gupta
9. Chris Keith
10. Peter Enns
11. Peter Head
12. James McGrath
13. Tim Bulkeley
14. Joel Watts

Each were asked four questions: 1. When and why did you start blogging? 2. What are a few of the benefits you see in blogging? 3. Should more academics be blogging? 4. What advice would you give an academic who is thinking about starting?

In summary, most initially began blogging without too much strategy, often at the recommendation (or example) of another. Most would recommend other academics consider blogging, though many added qualifications to this (e.g., if you can be interesting). Commonly cited benefits of blogging include the promotion of dialogue, the cutting edge nature of content, and the ability to engage the public (esp. mainstream media) in matters related to biblical studies, archeology, etc. Most also warned that blogging is extremely time consuming. Following from this was the common suggestion that one not blog alone (i.e., create a team blog).

Some specifics that stood out to me include Mark Goodacre’s advice not to get stuck navel-gazing about whether or not to start a blog. Just try it. James McGrath’s positive take is perhaps the one with which I most agree. Peter Head’s interview was by far the most negative, but I think he rightly points out a number of issues with blogging, like them or not. Joel Watts shared how blogging spurred his own personal thinking and development.

Of course, there are many other gems in the interviews, too. What else stood out?