Scholarship is discussed below from both institutional and individual perspectives. The view I am starting from is that ‘scholarship’ refers to a set of epistemological and ethical practices that underpin the social construction of an enduring record of objectively validated knowledge. By this definition teaching and learning is not scholarship, although it may draw on scholarship and be done by scholars.
Group items tagged
Scholarly, digital, open: an impossible triangle? | Goodfellow | Research in Learning T... - 1 views
-
-
Hugely disagree. The first part may be reasonable enough, although I disagree with the notion of "objectively validated knowledge" as a necessary component of scholarship (how is it "objective"? how can it be "validated"?). But to claim that teaching is separate from scholarship is problematic.
-
-
Research in this area always runs the risk of collapsing into reflexivity, as digital scholars turn the lens of enquiry onto themselves, but grounded and critical research into situated practice in areas of research, teaching and public engagement where both scholarship in all its forms and digitality in all its manifestations are prominent is possible and should be pursued.
-
Is reflexivity a bad thing? In the social sciences it's a sine qua non.
-
-
There is an inherent tension between practices that aim to open up the social construction of knowledge to universal participation, and those which aim to deepen the understanding of specialist communities and establish a stable and enduring record. Nevertheless, it is the role of many scholars to be involved in both. To bring scholarship, teaching and public engagement closer together must surely be the aim, but first we need to understand the ways in which practice makes them different.
-
I mostly agree with this bit, although I prefer the proper reading of Boyer's model, i.e., that research, teaching, and "public engagement" (which falls into Boyer's category of Application) are -all- forms of scholarship.
-
JournalTOCs - 0 views
Trends in Digital Scholarship Centers | EDUCAUSE - 2 views
-
Although sometimes confused with digital scholarship centers, digital humanities centers are often specialized research centers led by a group of faculty and serving only select disciplines rather than a broad campus community. Also, libraries often play only a peripheral role in digital humanities centers.1 In contrast, libraries or IT organizations have a key role in digital scholarship centers.
-
This is important.
-
-
Digital scholarship centers can build institutional capacity to address emerging and future scholarship needs.
-
Considering options for presenting or publishing completed projects
- ...11 more annotations...
Data, a first-class research output - 0 views
-
" The Make Data Count (MDC) project is funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to develop and deploy the social and technical infrastructure necessary to elevate data to a first-class research output alongside more traditional products, such as publications. It will run between May 2017 and April 2019. The project will address the significant social as well as technical barriers to widespread incorporation of data-level metrics in the research data management ecosystem through consultation, recommendation, new technical capability, and community outreach. Project work will build upon long-standing partner initiatives supporting research data management and DLM, leverage prior Sloan investments in key technologies such as Lagotto, and enlist the cooperation of the research, library, funder, and publishing stakeholder communities."
The State of Open Data Report 2017 - 0 views
-
"Figshare's annual report, The State of Open Data 2017, looks at global attitudes towards open data. It includes survey results of 2,300 respondents and a collection of articles from industry experts, as well as a foreword from Jean-Claude Burgelman, Head of Unit Open Data Policies and Science Cloud at the European Commission. Its key finding is that open data has become more embedded in the research community - 82% of survey respondents are aware of open data sets and more researchers are curating their data for sharing."
For Google, Everything Is a Popularity Contest - The Atlantic - 0 views
-
PageRank and Classic Papers reveal Google’s theory of knowledge: What is worth knowing is what best relates to what is already known to be worth knowing. Given a system that construes value by something’s visibility, be it academic paper or web page, the valuable resources are always the ones closest to those that already proved their value.Google enjoys the benefits of this reasoning as much as anyone. When Google tells people that it has found the most lasting scholarly articles on a subject, for example, the public is likely believe that story because they also believe Google tends to find the right answers.
-
It’s as if Google, the company that promised to organize and make accessible the world’s information, has done the opposite. Almost anything can be posted, published, or sold online today, but most of it cannot be seen. Instead, information remains hidden, penalized for having failed to be sufficiently connected to other, more popular information. But to think differently is so uncommon, the idea of doing so might not even arise—for shoppers and citizens as much as for scholars. All information is universally accessible, but some information is more universally accessible than others.
« First
‹ Previous
41 - 51 of 51
Showing 20▼ items per page