Arse backwards, I'm afraid.
It is peer reviewed. Literally thousands of fellow bloggers, such as yourself, read it every day. Any errors, overreaching, whatever are quickly brought to Glenn's attention.
Depending upon your field of study, I have seen disertations that were significantly made up of footnotes. Many medical studies, for example, are merely collection of all prior studies on a given topic with an analysis thrown in for good measure.
About that day job... I've known many tenured professors who had an hour of office time each week, and their classroom time, and that was it. Indeed, in research institutions, even the classroom time vanishes as the prof is engaged in some research project or another. In any case, a tenured college professor only has to put eight hours a day in if he chooses to.
it has a reputation in some quarters for academic dishonesty Nice snarkiness. Your reputation, on the other hand, is invisible, because your "about" is singularily uninformative.
"regards it as scholarship because it's part of an ongoing experiment in communications and technology"
Rather self-explanatory, no?
Is blogging the same as publishing a law review article? No. But it's comparable to many other things that pass as scholarship for a law professor. And, certainly, much more widely read than probably any book or article ever published by a law professor.
Wow, interesting issue. On the one hand, blogs do present a new structure to communication, and the practical negotation of that structure is no doubt instructive. And certainly I would like to think that I contribute to blogging in a manner that is productive, occasionally rigorous, and frequently interesting. But on the other hand, by the standards articulated here - isn't every bulletin board post and email, every porn download and cspan feed, an example of communication scholarship? As artificial as the standards for effective scholarship may be, I'm not sure this particular expansion (Burke's casuistic stretching) is one academics should be too keen on.
Yeah, "peer review" as a technical term doesn't mean that people get to criticize your work after you've published it. It means that your work doesn't get published unless your peers deem it worthy. In fact, it's distinguished from editor review; even in a non-peer-reviewed journal the editor has to make a decision; in a peer-reviewed journal the editor sends it to an external reviewer (more or less, I think).
Anyway, isn't it the case that many law journals aren't peer reviewed.
Brian Weatherson, whose blog contains a lot of serious work related to his (mine, and FL's) academic field, doesn't try to call it scholarship--I think at some point he suggested that it might count as service. I hope that the more philosophy posts on my blog may get noticed and possibly improve my reputation or, in a fantasy, advance a debate, but I wouldn't think they could substitute for publications.
(As for the idea that it's an experiment--I have several suggestions for what the control might be, but probably only my ideological compadres would find them funny.)
Worth noting: blogging is a medium.
I see no reason to think that blogging is inherently scholarship or not scholarship. Doesn't it depend on the content?
If that's the case, I don't see how Glenn's hackitude in anyway qualifies. Is James Carville a scholar? Sean Hannity?
My blogs got in the way of my scholarship so I had to stop :(