Absolutely agree. Why not? As you say, there needs to be a bit of work around how to handle some aspects (one that springs to mind is how to reference sources effectively). It would also be of great benefit to neurodivergent people who find submitting written work puts them at a significant disadvantage. I'm sure there were equivalent mutterings when students started to submit typed copy rather than handwritten. And when I was writing my MPhil thesis (we're talking less than 30 years ago, so well into the era of computers generating nicely typeset material printed at high quality on laser printers), the custom was still to print everything single-sided and double line-spaced. A custom I successfully challenged...
Thanks, Paul – excellent point re: neurodivergence! Also, when I did my PhD (submitted in 2013), the custom was still to print everything single-sided and double line-spaced!
Effective referencing shouldn't be a problem. A few years ago, I experimented with the video article form with Anna Harris at Maastricht. We got this through peer review: https://jer.openlibhums.org/article/id/7652/. The idea is that you don't watch the thing start to finish, but rather hop around the timeline. It's just an experiment and not something anyone would particularly WANT to consume (just like most other peer reviewed work!), but it poses questions about video and its role in research. References are written in the journal's style, and we rely a lot on text, too – all things you could do better nowadays.
Also, Nvidia recently released an LLM to allow people to ask questions about a video (not only about the video's 'content', but things like 'what is on the table behind the speaker?'. I'm generally anti-AI (and certainly not keen on generative AI), but that particular application seems useful.
Absolutely agree. Why not? As you say, there needs to be a bit of work around how to handle some aspects (one that springs to mind is how to reference sources effectively). It would also be of great benefit to neurodivergent people who find submitting written work puts them at a significant disadvantage. I'm sure there were equivalent mutterings when students started to submit typed copy rather than handwritten. And when I was writing my MPhil thesis (we're talking less than 30 years ago, so well into the era of computers generating nicely typeset material printed at high quality on laser printers), the custom was still to print everything single-sided and double line-spaced. A custom I successfully challenged...
Thanks, Paul – excellent point re: neurodivergence! Also, when I did my PhD (submitted in 2013), the custom was still to print everything single-sided and double line-spaced!
Effective referencing shouldn't be a problem. A few years ago, I experimented with the video article form with Anna Harris at Maastricht. We got this through peer review: https://jer.openlibhums.org/article/id/7652/. The idea is that you don't watch the thing start to finish, but rather hop around the timeline. It's just an experiment and not something anyone would particularly WANT to consume (just like most other peer reviewed work!), but it poses questions about video and its role in research. References are written in the journal's style, and we rely a lot on text, too – all things you could do better nowadays.
Also, Nvidia recently released an LLM to allow people to ask questions about a video (not only about the video's 'content', but things like 'what is on the table behind the speaker?'. I'm generally anti-AI (and certainly not keen on generative AI), but that particular application seems useful.