HASTAC2011

271 views

Published on

Presentation at 2011 HASTAC Conference, Ann Arbor, December 2, 2011.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
271
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Threaten: collaboration, digital, unconventional, large presence of data, peer-reviewed?
  • Orient to audiences
  • Folks in tenure-track positions who want to innovate digitally – inside out?
  • Building knowledge in new media is not really quested; it’s building/articulating the argument.
  • Catalog vs. exhibitionTowards the cognitive humanities?
  • HASTAC2011

    1. 1. “Isn’t that a Tool?” Interpreting and Championing DigitalScholarly Communication in the Humanities Sophia Krzys Acord, Ph.D.Associate Director, Center for the Humanities and the Public Sphere Lecturer, Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law University of Florida
    2. 2. The Future of Scholarly Communication Project Funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Final Report: Assessing the Future Landscape of ScholarlyCommunication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines Diane Harley, Ph.D., Senior Researcher and Principal Investigator; Sophia Krzys Acord, Ph.D.; Sarah Earl-Novell, Ph.D.; Shannon Lawrence, M.A.; C. Judson King, Professor, Provost Emeritus, and Principal Investigator (January 2010) Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future. A Project Report and Associated Recommendations, Proceedings from a Meeting, and Background Papers Diane Harley and Sophia Krzys Acord (March 2011) Project Website and Associated Document Links: http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/scholarlycommunication Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley
    3. 3. Final Report/Databasehttp://escholarship.org/uc/cshe_fsc
    4. 4. Findings re: Publishing and PromotionGreat diversity!Variables: Age, institution, field, personalityWe see a dichotomous situation:• Electronic forms of publications consumed heavily.• Strong adherence to publishing in conventional, high- stature “print” outlets.Few new genres being submitted in T&P dossiers.Distinguish:In-progress communication VS. fully peer-reviewed archival publication
    5. 5. Why books and articles?• Passports to promotion• Proof of concept: A way of formally tracking ideas in a record of progress• Shortcuts to measure research inputs by measuring outputs (Christine Borgman)• Cognitive devices/genres (Janet Murray)• Translations /Framings of one’s research into the language of a field (in light of other objects, results, theories) (Karin Knorr-Cetina)
    6. 6. Producing scholarshipHistorian:• “…for me it isn’t just the data, but the thinking to go out and find these data elsewhere. For other historians, it’s as much about the interpretation as the data… Five historians can go to the same material and write different books. For us historians, it’s still more of the process of your personal relation with the data. The data never speak for themselves.”
    7. 7. The Digital Humanities: Let a Million Flowers Bloom
    8. 8. The challenge: Isn’t that a tool? Perceptions of What Perceptions of Digital Scholars Do Genres• Produce knowledge • Acquisition of skills• Develop a closely- • Data reasoned argument • Provide information• Prove/validate • Research technique something • Services to scholarshipHistorian: “When colleagues evaluate colleagues, they want to see the quality of the scholarship. If [the technology] does feed it, it’s going to show up in the quality of the scholarship.”
    9. 9. How is Communication Effective?Prof. Charles Goodwin (Applied Linguistics, UCLA)• To convince someone, we need to take into account what they know and their orientation to the material world.
    10. 10. The response/negotiation• Emphasize the traditional question – “What is the intellectual work here? What does it do in the humanities to push scholarship forward or say something about the nature of studying X?” [Historian]• Publish rigorously peer-reviewed work using, in parallel to, or about the digital work• Wait it out• Get a joint appointment• Find a more flexible institution
    11. 11. ‘Translation Rubrics’ from digital innovators• Explain how work has been demonstrably peer reviewed• Build your case early on – Department chair -> Dean – Bring colleagues in at every project stage – Draw on scholarly society documents• Articulate how this is scholarship – Relate it to past work. – How does it fit into larger narratives in the field? – Make the process of interpretation explicit• Minimize barriers of time and technical expertise
    12. 12. So, is it just a tool?Argument is the intellectual tool we use in order to prove that something is true, on the basis of evidence.Knowledge is the conclusion of the argument.
    13. 13. So, is it just a tool? Well, how is it used?Scholar-Creator• Procedural knowledge• Knowledge design (argument) as knowledge-makingDigital Genre/Project• Collection of knowledge• Presents meaningful possibilities (embodied argument)User• ? Situation for ‘knowing’?
    14. 14. Lessons from the arts: New ways of ‘knowing’?Knowing as a praxical activity, something we do.Sensorium of scholarship (J. Schnapp via C. Jones)• Dewey, J. and Bentley, A (1949) Knowing and the Known.• Noë, Alva (2006) Action in Perception.• Sutherland, I. & Acord, S. (2007) Thinking with art: From situated knowledge to experiential knowing. Journal of Visual Arts Practice, 6(2), 125-140. "Critical Art: Faculty of the Cornell University Department of Art," June 1-23; Hangzhou Normal University, Tsinghua
    15. 15. “Credit, Time, and Personality: Incorporating disciplinary needs and values into predictions about the future of scholarly communication” by S.K. Acord and D. Harley In: New Media and Society Special issue: Scholarly Communication: Changes, Challenges & Initiatives Edited by Nick Jankowski and Steve JonesOpen Peer Review: http://nms-theme.ehumanities.nl/

    ×
https://www.slideshare.net/skacord/acordhastac2011
www.slideshare.net
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-26
149840
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:G4BCRPERMWXP3GLPFB6OZWJ65ANTOYNG
<urn:uuid:b0f4154d-eb10-4063-b0fa-3045230158c9>
2017-06-28T04:19:03Z
108.174.10.19
text/html
sha1:HTSMD5367YDU76275N4RMPONP3BPGW2E
<urn:uuid:3f62b481-b9ac-4842-88e2-303a55ae2797>
https://www.slideshare.net/skacord/acordhastac2011
length
response
<urn:uuid:b685afd3-0e0a-456f-9a40-bceed4eafda6>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-235-10-19.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-26
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf