digital scholarship
There were several interesting points in this week’s readings, and they seemed to hit a bit closer to home than some of the other articles we’ve read. The AJH’s experiment with hypertext essays, for instance, is something we might all reasonably do in the next couple of years. When I first looked at the samples I was a bit disappointed, because I thought “these look more like traditional text…why not just make it a full-on website?” Then I realized that 1) I apparently am used to the “look” of websites (even something as simple as a background color) and more importantly, 2) these actually are a great bridge between traditional scholarship and new media. And I think that’s absolutely necessary in a time of transition such as this, when scholars are more willing to use the Internet as a tool, but not so open to completely rethinking the concept of scholarship presentation itself. That said, I thought these attempts were good, and that the strongest, as a user, had solid structures (metadata/menus/navigation).
One thing that stuck in my mind was the mention that the Arnold S. site included “the kinds of discoveries and reflections more traditionally relegated to the margins of research.” Here it seems like hypertext/web use could push the boundaries of scholarship conceptually (and where we might find the most resistence). Of course the possibility of expanding to include secondary/sideline kinds of research (and also new sources) is appealing, but I wonder if it could endanger or shift the standards of scholarship? Might we at some point get confused between blogging and presenting scholarship?
Finally, I was glad to read Bell’s essay because it reflects some of the concerns I’ve had. It responded well to the Hermalin essay, which seemed a bit idealistic and was clearly written from the scholar’s point of view, without taking into consideration the realities of the publishing industry. I was not aware of the booklike technology that Bell mentions and would be interested to find out more. But what most resonated with me was Bell’s discussion about reading itself, and I’m very curious to know what kinds of psychological studies are going on about how people interact with computers. Because I do think that reading online is different, and I think those differences change how we read. It is taxing and somehow more tedious, to me anyway, and it just doesn’t carry the same weight. I don’t remember what I’ve read as soon as the lines have scrolled up off the page. But then, I am of a transitional generation, and I’m sure people who grow up online will have a much easier time of it. I just don’t like or trust virtual text…give me a good old fashioned table of content, an index, and page layout. Then I’ve got something whole to work with, and it’s easier to keep that whole in mind as I’m reading. For some reason it’s much harder to keep the context and the thesis/point in mind with something digital, or else I just haven’t learned to take online reading seriously.