Digital scholarship

Download Digital scholarship

Post on 06-May-2015

2.004 views

Category:

Education

1 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

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

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li>1.Digital Scholarship Martin Weller</li></ul> <p>2. Book on Digital Scholarship 3. Blogging as microcosm of digital scholarship 4. Blogging is Social 5. Blogging is Democratic 6. Blog posts can be.. 7. Tech Politics Footie 8. 9. Professional Informal 10. To no-one To 1000s 11. Some questions </p> <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> <p>12. Digital scholarship is a shorthand for 13. Digital gives common format 14. Network gives frictionless distribution Social network gives new means of connecting 15. Openness is a way of working that facilitates connections 16. The Boyer view of scholarship </p> <ul><li>Discovery </li></ul> <ul><li>Integration</li></ul> <ul><li>Application </li></ul> <ul><li>Teaching </li></ul> <p>17. &lt; http://www.wallwisher.com/wall/digschol1&gt; Give me your views 18. Tenure and reward 19. 3 legged stool 20. How do we recognise dig schol? 21. </p> <ul><li>enthusiasm for the development and adoption oftechnology should not be conflated with the hard reality of tenure and promotionrequirements in highlycompetitive and complex professional environments. Experiments in new genres ofscholarship and dissemination are occurring in every field, but they are taking placewithin the context of relatively conservative value and reward systems that have thepractice of peer review at their core. </li></ul> <ul><li>Harley et al 2010 </li></ul> <p>22. </p> <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> <p>23. Senior people dont get it 24. Outsourced evaluation </p> <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> <p>25. Recognising digital scholarship </p> <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> <p>26. </p> <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> <p>27. How might we recognise digital scholarship? 28. Publishing Research Authoring Submission/Review Rejection/Modification Publication Distribution 29. Parties Funder Author Publisher Libraries Reader 30. Business </p> <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> <p>31. The squeeze </p> <ul><li>Funders mandate </li></ul> <ul><li>Libraries withdrawing from Big Deal </li></ul> <ul><li>Open Access </li></ul> <p>32. Open Access </p> <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> <p>33. New models </p> <ul><li>Zero cost journals </li></ul> <ul><li>Added value </li></ul> <ul><li>Levels of peer review (PLoS) </li></ul> <p>34. Why dont you publish open access? 35. Network weather 36. Imagine </p> <ul><li>Teaching </li></ul> <ul><li>Conference </li></ul> <ul><li>Authoring </li></ul> <p>37. How might network weather impact your discipline? 38. Conferences </p> <ul><li>Amplified </li></ul> <ul><li>Online </li></ul> <ul><li>Backchannel </li></ul> <p>39. The new conference archive 40. To make a conference viable you need people to attend and pay feesTo attend people need to get funds from their university or projectTo justify this they need to give a presentationA presentation needs to be peer-reviewed so they can include it on their CVPeople only attend conferences that offer this 41. Alternative formats </p> <ul><li>Barcamp </li></ul> <ul><li>Pre-presentation </li></ul> <ul><li>Voting </li></ul> <ul><li>Produce something </li></ul> <p>42. Would you attend a non-traditional conference? 43. What does it all mean? 44. A failure of ownership 45. Technology engagement is key 46. Potential to radically change practice 47. Digital scholarship gives alternatives where there were none previously 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 49. Weshoulddeterminewhat goes, what stays, and what comes. 50. These are exciting times! </p>