Digital scholarship: Exploration of strategies and skills for knowledge creation and dissemination


Published on

This presentation identifies some key aspects of the new modes of scholarship of collaborative, trans-disciplinary and computationally engaged research, teaching and publication.

Cristobal Cobo Oxford Internet Institute,
Oxford University, England

Concepcion Naval,
University of Navarra, Spain

Published in: Education, Technology

Digital scholarship: Exploration of strategies and skills for knowledge creation and dissemination

  1. 1. Digital scholarship: Exploration of strategies and skills for knowledge creation and dissemination Cristobal  Cobo  Oxford  Internet  Ins2tute,     Oxford  University,  England     Concepcion  Naval,     University  of  Navarra,  Spain     1  
  2. 2. (Planned Obsolescence, Fitzpatrick., 2011) 2  
  3. 3. 348Two relevant dimensions: knowledge generation (wikis,e-science, online education, distributed R&D, openinnovation, open science, peer-based production, UGC)+ new models of knowledge distribution (e-journals,open repositories, open licenses, dataweb archive). 3  
  4. 4. •Todays initiatives in cyber- infrastructure, e-Science, e-Humanities or e-Learning emergedfrom a period combining technological advancesand economic-institutional redefinitions (Borgman, 2007) 4  
  5. 5. •Exponential transformation of information isremarkable from the quantitative perspective,but also there fragmentation of mechanisms tocreate, access and distribute information. 5  
  6. 6. •New modes of scholarship of collaborative,trans-disciplinary and computationallyengaged research, teaching and publication.(Burdick, et al, 2012). 6  
  7. 7. (i.e open Science Federation)•Digital scholarship communities collaborate indynamic, flexible/open-ended networks, exchangingin innovation, creativity/co-authoring. 7  
  8. 8. (i.e. BioMed Central, Public Library of Science)•Radical decentralization: Open values, ideologyand potential of technologies born of peer-to-peer networking and wiki-ways. (Benkler, 2006) 8  
  9. 9. drivers 9  
  10. 10. 1.  Technology: Coordination mechanisms ‒ exchange and codify tacit knowledge, simplifying its translation into more interchangeable resources (Heimeriks & Vasileiadou, 2008).(i.e. DOAJ, PeerJ, Rubriq)•EU Commission + ESRC: Accelerate open access..OA journals + databases facilitating mechanism ofopen peer revision + visibility/impact (avoid duplication). 10  
  11. 11. 2. Co-creation: Networking +Coordination +Cooperation+Collaboration. (Rheingold, 2012)The higher the level of negotiation the morecomplex the set of skills required.(i.e. Flat World Knowledge, Creative Crowdwriting)•Books > dialogical tool not simply“finished*published but open to dynamics +iterations (i.e. versioning, crowd-source, peerreviewed, remix). Burdick (et al., 2012) 11  
  12. 12. 3. Dissemination: New open-access policies (openrepositories/journals) almost anyone anywhere. (i.e. CreateSpace or Blurb)“If it doesn t spread, it s dead (Jenkins et al., 2010).4 R: reuse, revise, remix and redistribute. (Wiley, 2010).   •Do-it-yourself publishing: Blogs, photos + videos (Nielsen, 2011).Less clear distinction between popular and morespecialized scholarship (Burdick, 2012). 12  
  13. 13. •4. Co-Authorship/beta: From solitary genius toward thevirtually boundless community of digital scholars(Burdick, et al, 2012)).•~20 mill. papers +50years:Cross-disciplinary teams dominate solo authorsand frequently more cited than individuals(Wuchty, 2007) 13  
  14. 14. Will universities institutionalize approaches (learning andresearch) grounded in collaboration instead of celebrityand competition? 14  
  15. 15. Critique: Need to recognize distinction between DIY scholarship and high scholarship. • (i.e Wikipedia)•a) traditional practices of peer-review. Toassure the quality of knowledge creation /dissemination .b) Mode 2, post-normal science + technoscience 15  (Burdick, et al, 2012).
  16. 16. Is not easy to determine to what extent traditionaland new practices of scholarship will coexist.(i.e. Reinventing Discovery, Nielsem) 2011)•More appropriate institutional recognition are needed(i.e. A tenure evaluation system that recognizes thevalue of more flexible mechanisms of knowledgecreation and new publication formats). 16  
  17. 17. •The Stick or the carrot: academic mechanisms ofrecognition (in many cases) are limited to metricssuch as h-index affecting to possibilities tofacilitate peers based collaboration (Hirsch, 2005) 17  
  18. 18. The highly competitive environment (dysfunctional) enhance lack of partnership (Kanwar, Kodhandaraman, and Umar, 2010). (Adler and Harzing, 2009)Due to these elements of exclusiveness/individualism, knowledge-sharing in academicorganizations are often inefficient(Seonghee and Boryung, 2008) 18  
  19. 19. The shift in knowledge landscape is disturbing topeople familiar with the earlier paradigm .(Chesbrough, 2006) 19  
  20. 20. Appropriating these tools/practices requires a new setof skills (i.e. Curation, editing, modelling) to workacross an information ecosystem full of newintermediaries. 20  
  21. 21. New cultural practices: institutional flexibility (i.e.diversifying tenure track, re- understand conceptssuch as academic visibility or digital influence). 21  
  22. 22. @cristobalcobo   hJp://   22  Oxford  Internet  Ins2tute  Research  Fellow.