Electronic access to information is on the verge of becoming ubiquitous in the developed world. The changes this new medium has brought to education, to commerce, to culture, to communication will be the subject of studies, of discussion, of activism, of investment for many years to come. And electronic publishingóa crossroads of copyright, information, commerce, and technologyóis square in the middle of these changes and challenges. 

At the university, electronic publication addresses so many pressures that have been mounting since before the advent of the copier and fair use in the 1970s. University libraries are experiencing decreasing funding and rapidly rising costs for print journals (the traditional "scholarly record"). Meanwhile they suffer the irony that the university library both pays to support the scholars who produce the articles (via salary, facilities, etc.), and pays to purchase the fruits of those scholars once it's recorded for posterity. 

Given the existing campus infrastructure and all the free software available, the low startup cost for electronic publication (Bailey, 1994) naturally appeals to scholars, librarians, and administrators. The TRLN Task Force (1993), a coalition of university libraries, suggests that university libraries  become primary "nodes" for scholarly publication. Colloquia such as the Scholarly Communication Colloquium (2000) held at NC State University support the idea that copyright and publication of scholarly materials should remain in the hands of its producers. We are experiencing a higher level of organization among those who construct the scholarly record, who are bringing together of a range of interests to discuss the reinvention of the scholarly communication system (e.g., Sosteric, 1998; Kling and Covi, 1995). 

And yet what appears on the one hand to be an excellent step toward free and unrestricted access to knowledge everywhere, on the other hand is the source of much discussion, much concern, much trepidation. Libraries are actively reinventing themselves as they struggle to archive this rapidly changing "scholarly record" and to reposition themselves as the source for both authors and readers to exchange their ideasóthe potential publishers of the future. Meanwhile publishers see electronic publication as potential anarchy (Bailey, 1994) and are carving out their niche via licensing agreements that are far more restrictive to libraries than copyright or fair use ever was (Hayes, 1996; Hersey, 1997). 

Large-scale social forces are also at work, ranging from an overall flattening of university budgets nationwide to the value of the US dollar against European currency (Kling and Covi, 1995). Plus, we are all reacting to the cultural change that we are experiencing as electronic communications as a whole affects every aspect of our day-to-day livesónot only where we're going but also how we're getting there.

In the midst of all this change, relying on electronic communication to embody something so precious as the fruits of our labors and the record of our scholarly endeavorsóacross disciplines and through timeóhas brought issues of "perceived technological threats of depersonalization, of inauthenticity, of subjugation to the mechanical, and perhaps most centrally, of the substitution of quantity for quality" (Unsworth, in press, para. 6). Closer to home, questions still arise at the university regarding tenure value and other career rewards for electronic publication. 

Many journals, to address these issues, are moving only gradually toward electronic publishing, often publishing both electronically and on paper to help us bridge the gap of our uncertainty (Kling and Covi, 1995). Those publications that are entirely electronic, such as Meridian, no longer have 10s to 100s of copies on the back shelf ready for orders (Freeman, 1996)ówe have server space that must be continually maintained, with copious backups, to make sure that what is there today will still be there tomorrow (Boyd and Herkovic, 1999).

And so our uncertainty is a reasonable response to uncertain times óbecause so often these days what was there yesterday is not still here today. In our shift "from analog to dialog" (Tapscott, 1998), the library is reinventing itself and how we access scholarly communication is changing. And so is our day-to-day communication via email, our ability to collaborate at a distance, and the content of what we teach our students and how, regarding not only the uses of technology but also its implications. New questions of assessing quality of content, reader access, and much, much more arise every day. 

As if all this change isn't enough, some call for us to reinvent the notions of what it means to construct a communication system in the first place. This would involve not only new models of journals, libraries, and publishing, but also "new interpersonal and institutional mores, customs and practices, and a new basis for the economic conditions associated with communication" (Wilson, 1995). All these changes make constructing an overall picture of electronic communication extremely difficult. Too, on a practical, day-to-day basis, these changes present scholars and teachers with very real challenges on all fronts, and present our students with more to learn, both from the Internet and about it, and more to learn about using computers to get there. With all this change, no wonder we are trepidatious regarding something so intangible and changeable as electronic communication.

Despite the disconcerting nature of this change, some optimistically foresee a move toward a higher form of organization as scholars take back control and access to their work (e.g., Kling and Covi, 1995; Sosteric, 1998). By so doing perhaps we will experience a higher form of self-awareness in the way we communicate, among ourselves as scholars, as researchers, as practitioners, as administrators, as librarians, and as students, all of whom Meridian wishes to serve. We are certainly experiencing a new perception of our roles as our traditional forms of communication become obsolete.

And perhaps this is a major source of our trepidation, our uncertainty about just what our new roles will beówhat this change will bring us, in a very personal way. Just as we find the teacher becomes the student and the student the teacher, on the Internet and with other forms of electronic communication our role distinctions are gradually being erased. The separation of author and reader is blurring as electronic collaboration expands beyond the initial authorship of a paper to series of ongoing contributions and discussionsóa "living article" that reflects up-to-date thinking on a subject. The role of researcher and practitioner blurs as practitioners collaborate and document their observations, and researchers work directly, though perhaps remotely, in model schools to observe the effects of teaching techniques. 

And the sheer amount of information is expanding rapidly as we generate more and more contributions to the scholarly recordóin classic forms and in new experimental ones we have yet to conceive. With these experiments we have the opportunity to set precedents now that will affect our activities for many years to come (Kling and Covi, 1995; Gilster, 1997; Unsworth, in press). With so many changes, each of us must feel at least a little disoriented as we constantly find ourselves sorting out where we "want to go today." 

At Meridian we have long recognized that we are working with a sense of disequalibrium (Wilson, 1995; Gerler and Mason, 1998). As a board member with Meridian for its first issue, and now co-editor of the Winter 2000 issue, I have seen our contributors, board members, and advisers struggle to choose the best technical approach, the most comprehensive copyright policy, the most reader-accessible format, and on and on. We are stretching the envelope as we join in the attempt not only to share in constructing the scholarly electronic record but also to reach out and expand the record, to expand our readership and authorship, and to increase the electronic advantages in communicating both research and practice.

Along the way we have encountered practical questions regarding techniques for electronic peer review and appropriate design, and logistical issues such as copyediting, artwork, scholarly consistency, ergonomics, and the range of electronic capabilities and experiences of our readers and authors (Rowland, 1996). We have had a great deal of assistance from many individuals and organizations as across NC State University, including the University Attorney's Office, D.H. Hill Library and its many services and centers, and many major professors (Gerler and Mason, 1998), without whom our navigation of this new territory would have been far more tortuous.

And through all this Meridian continues to define and redefine its own role in both scholarly communication in general and also computer technology in the middle school in particular. We wish to be a bridge between researchers and practitioners of classroom computer technologiesótheir use for teaching, teaching their use, administrating the infrastructure that supports it, and experimenting and expanding its capabilities so that the constant change we experience will be for the better. We hope that through Meridian we can share our ideas, our experiences, our observations and predictions, not only in the area of computer technologies in the classroom but also of how well Meridian is addressing the needs of its readers and authors. 

To help reach our mission, Meridian is sponsoring a special upcoming issue for Summer 2000, calling for papers to explore the role of research for computer technologies in the middle school. As a prelude to this special issue, in this Winter 2000 issue we include a reprint of a chapter on Action Research, one of many methodologies we can apply as we try to understand how we teach ourselves and others. 

These are just two examples of many new steps that Meridian will take over the next several issues, as we try to better serve and better understand our readership and our authorship (Watson, 1999). Meridian is changing as rapidly as everyone and everything else that is connected electronically. We can only hope that we are changing to meet the needs of our constituency we hope to support, encourage, challenge, stimulate, and grow alongside with as we struggle with disequalibrium, and enjoy the satisfaction of helping to direct the changes we experience.

So that we may better adapt ourselves in this ever-changing milieu that is electronic scholarly communicationóand to help minimize the disequalibrium many of us feel in communicating without the touch of the paper to hand, the sound of the voice on the phoneóMeridiannow includes a survey asking our readers for feedback to help us gauge how well we are accomplishing our primary goal: serving our reader/authorship. Are we reaching both researchers and practitioners of computer technology in the middle school? Serving as a platform for communication of ideas? Encouraging research among all elements of our readership as we try to tap the potentials that we may find in computer technology? 

I hope that each of you will take a moment to send us some feedbackóa moment to join your voice to the construction of our electronic future, to share the role of reader and contributor, and to help make our own adaptability a constant. And I hope you will join me in supporting Meridian's efforts to continue to carve out an electronic niche for research and practice of computer technologies in the middle school within the broader issues of electronic communication. 
 
 

Bailey, Charles W. Jr. (1994). Scholarly Electronic Publishing on the Internet, the NREN, and the NII: Charting Possible Futures. http://info.lib.uh.edu/cwb/schpub.htm. Accessed 2/2/00.

Boyd, Stephen, and Andrew Herkovic. (1999, April 30). The Crisis in Scholarly Publishing: Executive Summary. http://www.stanford.edu/~boyd/schol_pub_crisis.html. Accessed 1/31/00.

Freeman, L. (1996). The university press in the electronic future. In R. P. Peek & G. B. Newby (Eds.), Scholarly publishing: The electronic frontier (pp. 165-180). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Gerler, Edwin R., and Cheryl L. Mason. (1998). The Electronic Meridian in Middle School Education. Meridian 1:1, http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/editor.html.

Gilster, Paul. (1997). Digital Literacy, excerpt reprinted in Meridian 2:2. http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/jul99/diglit/index.html. 

Hayes, B. (1996). The economic quandary of the network publisher. In R. P. Peek & G. B. Newby (Eds.), Scholarly publishing: The electronic frontier (pp. 121-132). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hersey, K. (1997, March 24). Coping with Copyright in the Electronic Age. Paper presented at the D.H. Hill Library, NC State University, Raleigh, NC.

Kling, Rob, and Lisa Covi. (1995). Electronic Journals and Legitimate Media in the Systems of Scholarly Communication. Electronic Journals and Scholarly Publishing, Special Issue 11:4. http://www.slis.indiana.edu/TIS/articles/klingej2.html.

Rowland, F. 1996. The need for management of electronic journals. In R. P. Peek & G. B. Newby (Eds.), Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier (pp. 254-250). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Scholarly Communication Colloquium. (2000, January 27). From Resources to E-Sources: Alternatives to Traditional Scholarly Journal Publishing. Colloquium held at D.H. Hill Library, NC State University, Raleigh, NC.

Sosteric, Mike. (1998). At the Speed of Thought: 1. Pursuing Non-Commercial Alternatives to Scholarly Communication. Research Library Issues and Actions Issue (special issue) 200. http://www.arl.org/newsltr/200/200toc.html

Tapscott, Don. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation (reprint). Meridian 1:1. http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/jan98/feat_6/digital.html.

TRLN Copyright Policy Task Force. (1993). Model university policy regarding faculty publication in scientific and technical scholarly journals: A background paper and review of the issues. Public Access Computer Systems Review, 4(4), 4-25.

Unsworth, John. (in press). Electronic Scholarship or, Scholarly Publishing and the Public. Forthcoming in The Literary Text in the Digital Age, ed. Richard Finneran. http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~jmu2m/mla-94.html. Text dated 1/7/00; accessed 1/31/00.

Watson, Patricia J. (1999). An Electronic Journal for Undergraduate Research: A Case Study in Audience and Systems Analysis. Master's thesis, NC State University. http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/etd/public/etd-1244173109933060/etd-title.html.

Wilson, Tom. (1995). "In the beginning was the Word..." Social and economic factors in scholarly electronic communication. ELVIRA Conference Keynote Paper http://www.shef.ac.uk/~is/wilson/publications/elvira.html. Accessed 2/1/00.