In abundance: Networked participatory practices as scholarship

“In an era of knowledge abundance, scholars have the capacity to distribute and share ideas and artifacts via digital networks, yet networked scholarship often remains unrecognized within institutional spheres of influence. Using ethnographic methods including participant observation, interviews, and document analysis, this study investigates networks as sites of scholarship. Its purpose is to situate networked practices within Boyer’s (1990) four components of scholarship – discovery, integration, application, and teaching – and to explore them as a techno-cultural system of scholarship suited to an era of knowledge abundance.

Not only does the paper find that networked engagement both aligns with and exceeds Boyer’s model for scholarship, it suggests that networked scholarship may enact Boyer’s initial aim of broadening scholarship itself through fostering extensive cross-disciplinary, public ties and rewarding connection, collaboration, and curation between individuals rather than roles or institutions.”

URL : In abundance: Networked participatory practices as scholarship

Related URL :

Digital humanities pedagogy

“Academic institutions are starting to recognize the growing public interest in digital humanities research, and there is an increasing demand from students for formal training in its methods. Despite the pressure on practitioners to develop innovative courses, scholarship in this area has tended to focus on research methods, theories and results rather than critical pedagogy and the actual practice of teaching.

The essays in this collection offer a timely intervention in digital humanities scholarship, bringing together established and emerging scholars from a variety of humanities disciplines across the world. The first section offers views on the practical realities of teaching digital humanities at undergraduate and graduate levels, presenting case studies and snapshots of the authors’ experiences alongside models for future courses and reflections on pedagogical successes and failures. The next section proposes strategies for teaching foundational digital humanities methods across a variety of scholarly disciplines, and the book concludes with wider debates about the place of digital humanities in the academy, from the field’s cultural assumptions and social obligations to its political visions.

Digital Humanities pedagogy broadens the ways in which both scholars and practitioners can think about this emerging discipline, ensuring its ongoing development, vitality and long-term sustainability.”


Annotation as a New Paradigm in Research Archiving

“We outline a paradigm to preserve results of digital scholarship, whether they are query results, feature values, or topic assignments. This paradigm is characterized by using annotations as multifunctional carriers and making them portable. The testing grounds we have chosen are two significant enterprises, one in the history of science, and one in Hebrew scholarship. The first one (CKCC) focuses on the results of a project where a Dutch consortium of universities, research institutes, and cultural heritage institutions experimented for 4 years with language techniques and topic modeling methods with the aim to analyze the emergence of scholarly debates. The data: a complex set of about 20.000 letters. The second one (DTHB) is a multi-year effort to express the linguistic features of the Hebrew bible in a text database, which is still growing in detail and sophistication. Versions of this database are packaged in commercial bible study software. We state that the results of these forms of scholarship require new knowledge management and archive practices. Only when researchers can build efficiently on each other’s (intermediate) results, they can achieve the aggregations of quality data by which new questions can be answered, and hidden patterns visualized. Archives are required to find a balance between preserving authoritative versions of sources and supporting collaborative efforts in digital scholarship. Annotations are promising vehicles for preserving and reusing research results.”


Towards an Interoperable Digital Scholarly Edition

“Recent proposals for creating digital scholarly editions (DSEs) through the crowdsourcing of transcriptions and collaborative scholarship, for the establishment of national repositories of digital humanities data, and for the referencing, sharing, and storage of DSEs, have underlined the need for greater data interoperability. The TEI Guidelines have tried to establish standards for encoding transcriptions since 1988. However, because the choice of tags is guided by human interpretation, TEI-XML encoded files are in general not interoperable. One way to fix this problem may be to break down the current all-in-one approach to encoding so that DSEs can be specified instead by a bundle of separate resources that together offer greater interoperability: plain text versions, markup, annotations, and metadata. This would facilitate not only the development of more general software for handling DSEs, but also enable existing programs that already handle these kinds of data to function more efficiently.”

URL : Towards an Interoperable Digital Scholarly Edition

DOI : 10.4000/jtei.979

Academics and their online networks: Exploring the role of academic social networking sites

“The rapid rise in popularity of online social networking has been followed by a slew of services aimed at an academic audience. This project sought to explore network structure in these sites, and to explore trends in network structure by surveying participants about their use of sites and motivations for making connections. Social network analysis revealed that discipline was influential in defining community structure, while academic seniority was linked to the position of nodes within the network. The survey revealed a contradiction between academics use of the sites and their position within the networks the sites foster. Junior academics were found to be more active users of the sites, agreeing to a greater extent with the perceived benefits, yet having fewer connections and occupying a more peripheral position in the network.”


Let’s Put Data to Use: Digital Scholarship for the Next Generation

“The ways in which research data is used and handled continue to capture public attention and are the focus of increasing interest. Electronic publishing is intrinsic to digital data management, and relevant to the fields of data mining, digital publishing and social networks, with their implications for scholarly communication, information services, e-learning, e-business and the cultural heritage sector.

This book presents the proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Electronic Publishing (ELPUB), held in Thessaloniki, Greece, in June 2014. The conference brings together researchers and practitioners to discuss the many aspects of electronic publishing, and the theme this year is ‘Let’s put data to use: digital scholarship for the next generation’. As well as examining the role of cultural heritage and service organisations in the creation, accessibility, duration and long-term preservation of data, it provides a discussion forum for the appraisal, citation and licensing of research data and the new developments in reviewing, publishing and editorial technology.

The book is divided into sections covering the following topics: open access and open data; knowing the users better; researchers and their needs; specialized content for researchers; publishing and access; and practical aspects of electronic publishing.

Providing an overview of all that is current in the electronic publishing world, this book will be of interest to practitioners, researchers and students in information science, as well as users of electronic publishing.”

URL : Let’s Put Data to Use: Digital Scholarship for the Next Generation

Alternative URL :

Scholarship 2.0: Analyzing scholars’ use of Web 2.0 tools in research and teaching activity

Over the past 15 years the Web has transformed the ways in which we search for information and use it. In more recent years, we have seen the emergence of a new array of innovative tools that collectively go under the name of ‘Web 2.0’, in which the information user is also increasingly an information producer (i.e., prosumer), by sharing or creating content.

The success of Web 2.0 tools for personal use is only partially replicated in the professional sphere and, particularly, in the academic environment in relation with research and teaching.

To date, very few studies have explored the level of adoption of Web 2.0 among academic researchers in their research and teaching activity. It is not known in what way how and how much Web 2.0 is currently used within research communities, and we are not aware of the drivers and the drawbacks of the use of Web 2.0 tools in academia, where the majority of people is focused either on research or on teaching activities.

To analyse these issues, i.e. the combined adoption of Web 2.0 tools in teaching and research, the authors carried out a survey among teaching and researching staff of the University of Breda in The Netherlands. This country was chosen mainly because it is on the cutting edge as far as innovation is concerned. An important driver in choosing the Breda University’s academic community was the fact that one of the two authors of this survey works as senior researcher at this university.

The purpose of our survey was to explore the level of adoption of Web 2.0 tools among the academic communities. We were interested in investigating how they were using these tools in the creation of scientific knowledge both in their research and teaching activity. We were also interested in analysing differences in the level of adoption of Web 2.0 tools with regard to researchers’ position, age, gender, and research field.

Finally, in our study we explored the issue of peer reviewing in the Web 2.0 setting. In particular, we investigated whether social peer review is regarded by researchers as a viable alternative to the current closed peer review system (single-blind or double blind).

We approached about 60 staff members, but only 12 faculty members completed the survey fully. This means that our results can only be regarded as exploratory, but we still believe that they represent a complementary perspective with respect to previous studies.”