This journal has always been grounded in a shared commitment to our authors. From the beginning, we vowed never to sell scholarship and research that had been created by our authors. Unlike other peer-reviewed journals, we have also allowed our authors to choose the Creative Commons license with which they are most comfortable. Years of experience have also taught us that it is a kindness to let authors know when their contributions are not yet ready for Ada’s open peer review system. As a feminist journal, we have striven to also encourage all authors whose contributions are not accepted to revise and resubmit to Ada, but also to other journals we have felt might be more appropriate for their projects.
We also understand that the media our contributors write about is constantly evolving and changing. Submitting to traditional journals is often not an option for our authors, especially when time to publication can run from one to two years. Because Ada only accepts articles for a single, upcoming issue, we do not maintain a pipeline of issues. This has allowed us to publish very large issues — like Issue 3 (on feminist science fiction) and Issue 10 (a general issue). But it has also meant that there are times when we publish a smaller number of articles. We had several submissions with excellent potential for Issue 11, but given the tight turn-around time between open peer review and publication, we decided that the revisions they required were too significant to be ready for publication in time.
The contributions featured in this issue examine online spaces through critical theoretical lenses that look at how power hierarchies shape gender, technology and new media. Sasha Nicole Kruger’s “The Technopo(e)litics of Rupi Kaur: (de)Colonial AestheTics and Spatial Narrations in the DigiFemme Age” examines Rupa Kaur’s negotiation of an “unhomed” gendered identity through the visual space of Instagram. Drawing on the work of queer theorists, she explores how Kaur’s work serves as a critique of Indian/South Asian diasporas and their queer negotiations of nation and diasporas in the context of contemporary globalization. Kruger shows how Kaur’s art is read from a multiplicity of lenses and is based on the use of femininity as terrain to be (re) negotiated.
Joseph Reagle’s “Naive meritocracy and the meanings of myth” unpacks the notion of “meritocracy” by exploring geek investments in the idea of this meritocracy as well as feminist critiques. He notes how the now fixed idea of meritocracy as an oppressive hierarchy has roots in early computer tech open source geek communities that were in fact formed in order to contest norms by geeks who perceived themselves as being outside of the mainstream. Reagle’s article shows us how a strong sense of geek identity is manifested through the desire to form rules for a meritocracy that, while intended to be unbiased, ends up being exclusionary. Readers of this article may also wish to look at earlier articles in Ada that , like Bryce Peake, Maggie MacAulay and Rebecca Visser’s “Editing Diversity In,” Bryce Peake’s “WP:THREATENING2MEN: Misogynist Infopolitics and the Hegemony of the Asshole Consensus on English Wikipedia,” and Adrienne Shaw’s “On Not Becoming Gamers,” to name just a few.
Gajjala, R. & Stabile, C. (2017). Introduction: Issue 11. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, No. 11. doi:/10.7264/N3D50K81
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.