Panel B.7; New media Scholarship Stakeholders: Departmental, Editorial, and Authorial

Speaker #1: Catherine C. Braun, Ohio State University at Marion

Talk about tenure and promotion committee and how they evaluate digital scholarship

Question: how well do existing criteria work for evaluating digital scholarship

evaluating people who are already tenured and asking about the process and criteria

One case study is the focus of the presentation: Romantic lit prof


  • Originality: creative mind at play
  • Lucidity: people outside field can understand
  • Intellectual depth: Goes beyond easy answers, complex, raises new questions, goes beyond mastery, invites audience into conversation
  • Significant contribution to scholarship: advances field, fills gasp, but doesn’t have to be groundbreaking, can be “detail” work or an innovation

Looked at examples of online and digital scholarship (she showed us the examples they worked w/ all in online journals in web, flash, or shockwave form)

Web piece:
negative review, saw as non original and wondered why it was in hypertext form and not print (it looks like it could be print)

Flash piece w/ other media:
More positive, thought it was theoretical and includes surprising questions, liked ethos, thought it invited people into the conversation, better use of medium

Shockwave piece: Couldn’t access, needed to get media people in to download the piece (rules of his school). Did not meet the standards of academic publishing to him, but if it was art it worked.

Suggested a 5th criteria: does it make effective use of the medium?

Speaker #2: Cheryl E. Ball, Illinois State University
New Media Scholarship: Taxonomies, Heuristics, & Strategies to Connect (?) Authors, Editors, Departments, & Tenure Committees

Cheryl is working on two projects in the general area and has realized there are so many ways to describe our work and this is what the presentations is about

Presents a several interesting heuristics to analyze new media

Heuristic for Manifesto
Kairos Issue:

  • Readership
  • Form: is it in manifesto form
  • Media
  • Responses: is it provocative

CELJ just created guidelines for online publications

Presents her own Digital Scholarship Axis and the discusses how many axis should there be and where things fall

Asks how much work should we have to do to justify, how much are we willing to be the guinea pigs?

This type of work tends to take more time as one thinks about and works w/ the media

Speaker #3: Virginia Kuhn, University of Southern California
C&W 2008: revising new media (or “huh, it’s finished!”)

Talks about a huge multimedia collaborative project she did for the Kairos manifesto issue

Thorny intellectual issues

  • Scholarship (class it into question)
  • Comment on text/sound image (takes a long time)

Thorny logistical issues

  • compatibility (cross platform)
  • compression
  • uniformity but experimental

Her mantra site everything so you are not vulnerable to the charge of plagiarism

Discusses some citation issues w/in a new media piece—since he was working w/ Reznor’s piece which invited remixing the student didn’t site images

Rehearse your argument for your use of media in your work. Each decision must be conscientious

Measures (contingent):

  • conceptual core
  • research component: substantive research and thoughtful engagement, must use credible sources tat are cited, employ multiple approaches (sounds, text, image are all different approaches)
  • from//content: must serve conceptual core and each other, unencumbered by tech problems (similar to grammatical issues), design must be deliberate
  • creative realization: must use media principles effectively, should achieve goals it could not do on paper

Argues for templates for these reasons: it allows the intellectual work to come thought w/ less tech/media struggle

One example: immersive_Flow.sophie

Question & discussion
One concern in the CELJ was that if it was free it had not value, and then, conversely, textbooks, which makes lots of money, are not valued

Something to say?