Digital scholarship


Published on

A presentation I did for George Siemens and Stephen Downes CCK11 course. I am still working on this and will modify over the coming months

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Digital scholarship

  1. 1. Digital Scholarship Martin Weller
  2. 2. Book on Digital Scholarship
  3. 3. Blogging as microcosm of digital scholarship
  4. 4. Blogging is… Social
  5. 5. Blogging is… Democratic
  6. 6. Blog posts can be..
  7. 7. Tech Politics Footie
  8. 9. Professional Informal
  9. 10. To no-one To 1000s
  10. 11. Some questions <ul><li>Do they represent 'proper scholarship' (whatever that is) </li></ul><ul><li>Are they central or peripheral to practice? </li></ul><ul><li>Are they applicable to all domains? </li></ul><ul><li>Are they more useful for some scholarly functions than otters eg teaching? </li></ul><ul><li>How do we recognize quality? </li></ul><ul><li>Do they complement or replace existing channels? </li></ul><ul><li>Should we reward them through official routes such as tenure? </li></ul><ul><li>Should bloggers use institutional systems or separate out their blogging and formal identities? </li></ul>
  11. 12. Digital scholarship is a shorthand for…
  12. 13. Digital gives common format
  13. 14. Network gives frictionless distribution Social network gives new means of connecting
  14. 15. Openness is a way of working that facilitates connections
  15. 16. The Boyer view of scholarship <ul><li>Discovery </li></ul><ul><li>Integration </li></ul><ul><li>Application </li></ul><ul><li>Teaching </li></ul>
  16. 17. < > Give me your views
  17. 18. Tenure and reward
  18. 19. 3 legged stool
  19. 20. How do we recognise dig schol?
  20. 21. <ul><li>enthusiasm for the development and adoption of technology should not be conflated with the hard reality of tenure and promotion requirements in highly competitive and complex professional environments. Experiments in new genres of scholarship and dissemination are occurring in every field, but they are taking place within the context of relatively conservative value and reward systems that have the practice of peer review at their core.” </li></ul><ul><li>Harley et al 2010 </li></ul>
  21. 22. <ul><li>Cheverie et al (2009): “While this community talks about ‘publication’, the language used implies that digital scholarship is of significantly lesser value, and word of mouth to younger colleagues discourages digital scholarship in the hiring, tenure and promotion process </li></ul>
  22. 23. Senior people don’t get it
  23. 24. Outsourced evaluation <ul><li>Waters (2000): “ to a considerable degree people in departments stopped assessing for themselves the value of a candidate as a scholar and started waiting for the presses to decide”. </li></ul>
  24. 25. Recognising digital scholarship <ul><li>Recreating the existing model </li></ul><ul><li>Finding digital equivalents </li></ul><ul><li>Generating guidelines that include digital scholarship </li></ul><ul><li>Using metrics </li></ul><ul><li>Peer-assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Micro-credit </li></ul><ul><li>Developing alternative methods </li></ul>
  25. 26. <ul><li>Heppell (2001) “we continually make the error of subjugating technology to our present practice rather than allowing it to free us from the tyranny of past mistakes.” </li></ul>
  26. 27. How might we recognise digital scholarship?
  27. 28. Publishing Research Authoring Submission/Review Rejection/Modification Publication Distribution
  28. 29. Parties Funder Author Publisher Libraries Reader £ £ £
  29. 30. Business <ul><li>$23 billion STM publishing </li></ul><ul><li>Reed-elsevier $1.5B profit 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>UK 2007, writing = £1.6B, peer-review = £200M editing = £70M </li></ul><ul><li>Library costs for journals increased 302% from 1986-2005 </li></ul>
  30. 31. The squeeze <ul><li>Funders mandate </li></ul><ul><li>Libraries withdrawing from Big Deal </li></ul><ul><li>Open Access </li></ul>
  31. 32. Open Access <ul><li>Green/Gold routes </li></ul><ul><li>Rights </li></ul><ul><li>Citation </li></ul><ul><li>Openness allows new connections </li></ul><ul><li>Commercial publishers = $3400 per article. Non-profit organisations, = $730 (Clarke 2007) </li></ul>
  32. 33. New models <ul><li>Zero cost journals </li></ul><ul><li>Added value </li></ul><ul><li>Levels of peer review (PLoS) </li></ul>
  33. 34. Why don’t you publish open access?
  34. 35. Network weather
  35. 36. Imagine… <ul><li>Teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Conference </li></ul><ul><li>Authoring </li></ul>
  36. 37. How might network weather impact your discipline?
  37. 38. Conferences <ul><li>Amplified </li></ul><ul><li>Online </li></ul><ul><li>Backchannel </li></ul>
  38. 39. The new conference archive
  39. 40. To make a conference viable you need people to attend and pay fees To attend people need to get funds from their university or project To justify this they need to give a presentation A presentation needs to be peer-reviewed so they can include it on their CV People only attend conferences that offer this
  40. 41. Alternative formats <ul><li>Barcamp </li></ul><ul><li>Pre-presentation </li></ul><ul><li>Voting </li></ul><ul><li>Produce something </li></ul>
  41. 42. Would you attend a non-traditional conference?
  42. 43. What does it all mean?
  43. 44. A failure of ownership
  44. 45. Technology engagement is key
  45. 46. Potential to radically change practice
  46. 47. Digital scholarship gives alternatives where there were none previously
  47. 48. “ it was a revolution. And we all know what happens in a revolution. You see what goes, you see what stays, you see what comes. Martin Amis
  48. 49. “ We should determine what goes, what stays, and what comes.
  49. 50. These are exciting times!