Clio Wired (History 696)

Simply put, I think digital scholarship is defined it two parts.

1. The content of the work must pass the rubrics already established for scholarship in general.

2. To be considered digital, I think it needs to employ the use of technology and media in a way that otherwise would not retrieve the same result.

How's that for open and oblique?

ammon's two tiered criteria is identical to the one used by dr rosenzweig in the article for last week and the one I employed in my digital scholarship post... so i agree.

that brings to mind the question ken asked: would "universal accessibility"-which is something that could not otherwise be obtained by another medium-be enough to put the scholarship firmly in the category of digital?

To paraphrase Ken via Nona, I don't even know if we're at the "universal accessibility" stage yet. This isn't to say we never will be. But I think to put that as a determining factor of digital scholarship isn't enough at this point. But I'll keep thinking...Amy

I'm not sure I said "universal" although I might have gotten a little fervent. I think what I was trying to say, in a McLuhian fashion is that the medium holds something inherently unique. And while digital scholarship certainly offers techniques unavailable in other mediums, I do think that an ebook or even just an essay presented online constitutes digital scholarship. It might not take advantage of all the features digitizing work offers, but the presentation is inherently different and unique, especially with regard to dissemination.

I agree with Ken, but only to the point where that scholarly work can me manipulated and viewed in a way not offered in print (the 'Other') format. For one example, if you can do a word search or some such thing on an otherwise 'normal' article, then that could be considered digital. You can't word search your common text book. If the work is merely presented in a static format (like a non-searchable) pdf file or some other way, then it is no different than it's printed relative. It's just printed on the computer screen instead of paper. If it is not interactive in any other way that isn't already found in print, then it's not digital.

So I still think in order to be considered digital scholarship, it must be able to do, or be presented, in a way it would not otherwise be able to do.

I think I still have to be the voice of dissent. Well, maybe not dissent, but certainly polite academic equivocation.

To channel Dr. Kelly, "Why bother?" If all we're doing is throwing a Word document onto our personal webspace, or simply posting it as straight HTML, and claiming that by making it available on the World Wide Web that its "universality" makes it digital scholarship, then I think we are setting our bar rather too low. This does nothing inherently "different." Ammon, your example stated that an on-line document can be subjected to a word search, and so is digital scholarship. Well, while an index isn't a by word search per se, the function is roughly the same. Moreover, I would quibble over how "universal" a web document can be. To use it, the reader must fulfill the following qualificatons:

• A computer, or access to a computer
  
• A web browser that can "read" the format and code used to encode the document
  
• Familiarity with the language of the document - sure, someone in Hong Kong could point a browser to your essay, but he or she isn't guaranteed the ability to read it

I am not claiming that there aren't similar hurdles to accessing a printed essay in a journal, but I don't think a Web document is universal by definition, either.

The digital in digital scholarship isn't simply an adjective. It implies an entirely new way of working. If an on-line project doesn't allow the user a level of immersion/interactivity/operability that is lacking in traditional print media, than said scholarship isn't digital scholarship, it's scholarship that is available digitally.

For an encore, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I was waiting for someone to address this question in the way Matt just did. I've been wondering if we aren't going to allow simple text documents into the rubric, then how do we exclude them?

"Scholarship that is available digitally" is an interesting way to think about these types of works, when coupled with your assertion that "the digital in digital scholarship isn't simply an adjective." It is a shaky distinction, but I like it anyway. I think you are attempting to distance the content from the medium to an extent, but not in a way that ignores its existence. It is important to recognize that an essay presented in a bound journal is not the same as one presented in an online journal. I think the wordcount site exemplifies this difference well. That said, digital scholarship can, and should, imply new and creative mediums.

Just to quickly address a couple of points:

If I ever did use the term universal, I think what I was trying to identify the increased dissemination and availability of knowledge. Digital media circumvents many hierarchies, ones we might encounter: publishers, institutions, and "expert" review. However, there are hierarchies we living here might not realize, but in a country which restricts what sort of material its citizens have access to, the inherent differences in the Internet might be far more palpable.

I think PDF's can be text searched. But screw that proprietary stuff anyway!;^)

So, I think I am ready to come on board and stop advocating for Mephistopheles. I guess the point I'm willing to concede is ultimately semantics, but not unimportant verbal wrangling given our coursework. Part of me feels it's just a nice way of saying "bad digital scholarship" (which, of course, is still digital scholarship), but its better than saying nothing at all.

This is perhaps an overly simplified view but I guess what it comes down to for me is that I don’t really care, as long as it is good scholarship.

I’ve been suggesting to various folks here at GMU that my work in archaeology can make my dissertation better but that only holds true if I do it well and don’t lose sight of the fact that it is only a tool not an end in itself. The same could be said for digital scholarship of course. The medium is only a tool not an end in itself.

Is a good scholarly article of any less value if we post it to the web without any bells and whistles? If we are able to add on additional bells and whistles that add value, great. If not at least we have what we hopefully started with a good argument, well supported by evidence that has been subject of peer review. If I wrote an article but went off on bizarre tangents that caused the reader to lose track of my point then I would say that is ineffective i.e. poor scholarship. Similarly if we add so many distractions online that we lose sight of the point then that is also ineffective and hence poor scholarship.

What makes it digital? The medium, which means anything, can be digital if it is presented via that medium. Anything layered on top of that, when done well, is gravy.

ken probably did not use the word universal. and since that word seems to have been a point of contention (and very well it should have been because as matt pointed it out - universal, this medium isn't), i am even cool with throwing it out and replacing it with the possibility "far greater" accessibility.

ah... but we seem to have come to a consensus none the less.