357. A New Kind of Work: Articulating and Evaluating Excellence in Digital Scholarship
Program arranged by the MLA Office of Scholarly Communication
With the proliferation of scholarly practices broadly defined as “digital” comes the challenge of evaluating such work within existing disciplinary standards and structures. How are faculty members, chairs, and administrators negotiating this challenge? What constitutes excellence for different types of projects? How do we know it, define it, refine it, and promote it in our institutions?
Presiding: Victoria E. Szabo, Duke Univ.
Cheryl E. Ball, West Virginia Univ., Morgantown
David F. Bell, Duke Univ.
Alison Booth, Univ. of Virginia
Raymond G. Siemens, Univ. of Victoria
Julie Sykes, Univ. of Oregon
Introduction: A New Kind of Work (5 minutes)
1. What is your specific field (ex. literature, languages, cultural studies, rhetoric and comp,, etc.) and your relationship to these questions as a campus leader? As a scholar?
2. How would you define the range of scholarly practices encompassed by the digital in the MLA community? At your own institution?
3. What’s the attitude you are encountering amongst your faculty and upper admins about digital scholarship?
Part 2: How We Articulate and Evaluate Excellence (35 minutes)
4. How are you addressing the question of evaluation of digital projects at your institution, within departments and programs, etc.? Are there formal processes, procedures, guidelines?
5. What works with the existing Evaluating Guidelines sponsored by the MLA? What is missing? Are other guidelines helpful? (key areas might include standards for peer review, establishing equivalences between “old” and “new” product forms, sustainability, collaborative production processes etc.)
6. Does digital scholarship challenge standard rubrics for evaluation along research/teaching/service? How have you handled this question at your institution?
7. Are there other competencies and impacts you have had to consider as newly important in grappling with the digital?
8. What else needs to be done? Anything else you’d like to add?
Part 3: Questions/Comments/Discussion (15 minutes)
- DHCommons – model for peer review
DHCommons is a hub for people and organizations to find projects to work with, and for projects to find collaborators.
- ORE Review Events (ORE) for Excellence in Digital Scholarship (proposal from Alison Booth)
- Job Ad from College Art Association and Society of Architectural Historians – Researcher to develop Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure in Digital Art and Architectural History