Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

#ELearn14 Digital Scholarship


Published on

AACE E-Learn 2014
October 27-30, 2014
New Orleans, LA

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

#ELearn14 Digital Scholarship

  1. 1. Digital Scholarship and Impact Factors: Methods and Tools to Connect Your Research Laura A. Pasquini, Jenny S. Wakefield, Adalheidur Reed & Jeff M. Allen 2014 AACE E-Learn #elearn14 Virtual Brief Paper New Orleans, LA Department of Learning Technologies University of North Texas, USA AACE E-Learn #elearn14 October 27-30, 2014 Virtual Brief Paper New Orleans, LA
  2. 2. How can the scholarly field measure individual research impact with regards to their publications and presentations?
  3. 3. Digital Footprints Digital footprints emerge as we communicate and interact online over social media, content sharing platforms, and by using and subscribing to tools and services (Bodhani, 2012).
  4. 4. Will you be “Googled well?” asks Richardson (2008). Let’s find out.
  5. 5. How well will Google represent the researcher? {Good question.}
  6. 6. The Digital Scholar Movement Martin Weller a.k.a. @mweller … The Ed Techie 6
  7. 7. The Digital Scholar • Impacts for digital scholarship include the quantity of peer-reviewed online information sources, the growth of social, peer academic networks, and the variety and range of content to draw upon for research that has broadened to include drafts of publications, conference presentations, blog posts, video and audio (Weller, 2011).
  8. 8. Assessment of Research Performanace
  9. 9. Literature Review • What is shared through networks may not always be the true story. (Latour, 1986) • Challenge with assessing scientific performance at the individual level (Vieira & Gomes, 2011) • “move the evaluation from the power of the scientific journals to the quality of the single researcher (Castelnuovo, Limonata, Sarmiento & Molinari, 2010, p. 111)
  10. 10. Research Identity Development – The Platforms and Social Spaces
  11. 11. ORCID ORCID: Connecting Research and Researchers
  12. 12. Researcher ID
  13. 13. Scopus
  14. 14. Google Scholar Citations US/scholar/citations.html
  15. 15.
  16. 16. Mendeley
  17. 17. The Social (Media) Scholar Beyond these specific scholarly platforms, we have seen an increase in social networking use, academic blogging or microblogging (e.g. Twitter), and online sharing of images, videos, and audio for both data and research distribution.
  18. 18. Blogging Research (Chong, 2010)
  19. 19. Twitter Scholarship (Darling, Shiffman, Côté, & Drew, 2013)
  20. 20. Networked Research Collaborations & Opportunities
  21. 21. Academic research silos BE GONE! Flickr photo c/o dsearls
  22. 22. Flickr photo c/o vickel_n
  23. 23. “Academics should utilize these emerging platforms to increase their influence and reach beyond traditional publishing forums. These researcher identification and citation tools are not “just for geeks,” but rather a growing expectation for scholarship development and publication notation. It is a critical time to rethink how research is produced, distributed, and acknowledged.” (Pasquini, Wakefield, Reed & Allen, 2014)
  24. 24. How will you manage your research identity? Flickr photo c/o furiousgeorge81
  25. 25. Want to follow our research? Laura: @laurapasquini + ORCID: 0000-0002-0145-9070 Jenny: @jenny_wakefield + ORCID: 0000-0002-4740-0314 Adalheidur: @heidareed + ORCID: 0000-0002-7010-1531 Jeff: @drjeffallen + ORCID: 0000-0003-0551-0539 Thanks!
  26. 26. References Bodhani, A. (2012). Digital footprints step up. Engineering & Technology, Feb2012. Retrieved from Brey, P. (1997). Social constructivism for philosophers of technology: A shopper’s guide. Techne: Journal of the Society for Philosophy and Technology, 2(3-4), 56-78. [Web version] Available from: Castelnuovo, G. (2008). Ditching impact factors: Time for the single researcher impact factor. British Medical Journal, 336(7648), 789. Castelnuovo, G., Limonta, D., Sarmiento, L., & Molinari, E. (2010). A more comprehensive index in the evaluation of scientific research: The single researcher impact factor proposal. Clinical Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health, 6(2010), 1745-0179. Chong, E. K. (2010). Using blogging to enhance the initiation of students into academic research. Computers & Education, 55(2), 798-807. Darling, E. S., Shiffman, D., Côté, I. M., & Drew, J. A. (2013) The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. PeerJ PrePrints 1:16(1)
  27. 27. References (con’t) Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hewson, K. (2013). What size is your digital footprint. Kappan, 94(7), 14-15. Richardson, W. (2008). Footprints in the digital age. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 16-19. Viera, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2011). An impact indicator for researchers. Scientometrics, 89, 607-629. Winner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism ad the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18(3), 362-378. Weller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar: How technology is transforming academic practice. A&C Black.