2015-11-18 - Does Digital Humanities Scholarship Count?
Molly Taylor-Poleskey, Mark Algee-Hewitt, Matthew Jones, Nick Bauch, Nicole Coleman, Alan Harvey
Problem of recouping costs spent in “publishing” the work. Drawing on analogies for publishing books.
- Editorial guidance
- Peer review (content review; technical review)
Stanford Press doesn’t handle all design, they have a “consulting” role. Thought: I’d argue this doesn’t work if they expect DH publishing to take off.
“How (not) Like A Book”
Is there a parallel in book publishing, or is this something new?
We need a new DNA for digital publishing, mutating from book publishing.
- Peer Review
The book proposal was similar to most book projects, but took many turns away from print books including the digital assets, user experience, digital techniques.
What do we do with things that are not established genres? What if there are no clear competing titles? Or if there are thousands of titles (i.e., websites)? How do reviewers comprehend the genre?
- Web Archiving
The assumption of web archiving is it will go away.
Portuguese Web Archive as an example.
Form and function problem: the form and content also drives the argument.
What does the digital add that I couldn’t do in print medium?
Raise two issues on unique demands of digital humanities:
- Question, meaning, and challenge of peer review.
- What do we do with the collaborative model of scholarship.
The Pamphlets are the most widely cited and read thing Mark’s published, but receive the least amount of institutional credit.
The traditional system of review is shot through with hidden labor and gift exchange.
Central to academic hiring and promotion and tenure.
Footnoting is an essential technical practice that takes time, but doesn’t get you tenure.
In DH, also the free software sharing credit system.
- central for many non-TT career paths
- shot through with hidden labor, gift exchange, modes of surveillance (Github)
- diffused network of certification (self publishign, social media)
- technical labors celebrated, often sufficient.