The document discusses digital scholarship, highlighting the significance of new strategies and skills for knowledge creation and dissemination. It emphasizes collaborative and trans-disciplinary approaches facilitated by technological advancements and open-access initiatives, which enable co-creation and co-authorship among scholars. The document also critiques the tension between traditional and emerging scholarly practices, calling for institutional recognition of new forms of knowledge dissemination.

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. (Planned Obsolescence, Fitzpatrick., 2011)
2

3. 348
Two relevant dimensions: knowledge generation (wikis,
e-science, online education, distributed R&D, open
innovation, open science, peer-based production, UGC)
+ new models of knowledge distribution (e-journals,
open repositories, open licenses, dataweb archive).
3

4. •Today's initiatives in cyber- infrastructure, e-
Science, e-Humanities or e-Learning emerged
from a period combining technological advances
and economic-institutional redefinitions (Borgman, 2007)
4

5. •Exponential transformation of information is
remarkable from the quantitative perspective,
but also there fragmentation of mechanisms to
create, access and distribute information.
5

6. •New modes of scholarship of collaborative,
trans-disciplinary and computationally
engaged research, teaching and publication.
(Burdick, et al, 2012).
6

7. (i.e open Science Federation)
•Digital scholarship communities collaborate in
dynamic, flexible/open-ended networks, exchanging
in innovation, creativity/co-authoring.
7

8. (i.e. BioMed Central, Public Library of Science)
•Radical decentralization: Open values, ideology
and potential of technologies born of peer-to-
peer networking and wiki-ways. (Benkler, 2006)
8

9. drivers
9

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 of
open peer revision + visibility/impact (avoid duplication).
10

11. 2. Co-creation: Networking +Coordination +Cooperation
+Collaboration. (Rheingold, 2012)
The higher the level of negotiation the more
complex 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, peer
reviewed, remix). Burdick (et al., 2012) 11

12. 3. Dissemination: New open-access policies (open
repositories/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 more
specialized scholarship (Burdick, 2012). 12

13. •4. Co-Authorship/beta: From solitary genius toward the
virtually boundless community of digital scholars
(Burdick, et al, 2012)).
•~20 mill. papers +50years:
Cross-disciplinary teams dominate solo authors
and frequently more cited than individuals
(Wuchty, 2007)
13

14. Will universities institutionalize approaches (learning and
research) grounded in collaboration instead of celebrity
and competition?
14

15. Critique: Need to recognize distinction between DIY
scholarship and high scholarship.
•
(i.e Wikipedia)
•a) traditional practices of peer-review. To
assure the quality of knowledge creation /
dissemination .
b) Mode 2, post-normal science + technoscience 15
(Burdick, et al, 2012).

16. Is not easy to determine to what extent traditional
and 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 the
value of more flexible mechanisms of knowledge
creation and new publication formats). 16

17. •The Stick or the carrot: academic mechanisms of
recognition (in many cases) are limited to metrics
such as h-index' affecting to possibilities to
facilitate peers based collaboration (Hirsch, 2005)
17

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 academic
organizations are often inefficient
(Seonghee and Boryung, 2008)
18

19. The shift in knowledge landscape is disturbing to
people familiar with the earlier paradigm .
(Chesbrough, 2006)
19

20. Appropriating these tools/practices requires a new set
of skills (i.e. Curation, editing, modelling) to work
across an information ecosystem full of new
intermediaries.
20

21. New cultural practices: institutional flexibility (i.e.
diversifying tenure track, re- understand concepts
such as academic visibility or digital influence).
21

22. @cristobalcobo
hJp://2ny.cc/ppts
22
Oxford
Internet
Ins2tute
Research
Fellow.