Please see About Scholarly Communications on the site here.
Author’s note: The following notes will be available in the future in pdf format.
Friday October 24, 2014 404/File Not Found: Link Rot, Legal Citation and Projects to Preserve Precedent
- Readings here
- Agenda, speaker list, white paper here
- See the Twitter Archive #linkrot here
- Trip report by Michael L. Nelson here
NOTES: Thursday, October 9, 2014
ARL Fall Forum 2014: Wanted Dead or Alive—The Scholarly Monograph
Please see these articles detailing the day:
Please see this Twitter Archive of the day:
The outline for the day helped to provide focus on the scholarly monograph, challenge the thinking in the room about the scholarly monograph and discuss the changing nature of scholarship.
Keynote: by Laura Mandell @mandellc
The theme of Laura Mandell’s keynote address to the ARL audience was predicated on her new “book” entitled Breaking the Book. She argued that the monograph – long form argument – is a closed system. Scholarship in the digital age should look and act differently. The monograph as a “lens into a subject” is being replaced by a virtual research environment. Digital scholarship lends itself to “evolving discourse.” Interactive tools for text now allow for ongoing scholarly conversations around argument and themes. These tools provide “live windows” to mine the literary canon in new ways.
As she advises Digital Humanities scholars, she recommends that current students in the humanities always publish an article about their DH project in traditional sources – as many societies and institutions are still using the monograph as the artifact for hiring, promotion and tenure. It will be up to scholars in all fields to rethink “fixed budgeting models” and learn how to work across budget lines. Might the scholarly monograph become a “dynamic digital edition?” The examples below may suggest what new models may look and act like.
Dr. Mandell mentioned the new title by Walter Isaacson The Innovators as a monograph, written for 15 years collaboratively. [How I Wrote It: Walter Isaacson, on “The Innovators”
by Neal Thompson on October 13, 2014 and The Women Tech Forgot ‘The Innovators’ by Walter Isaacson: How Women Shaped Technology
Dr. Mandell referenced Mind Your P’s and B’s: The Digital Humanities and Interpretation by Stanley Fish (January 23, 2012).
Dr. Mandell cited the following examples as new digital scholarship.
- We are all children of Algeria
- The Rhetoric of Text Analysis
- Planned Obsolescence by Kathleen Fitzpatrick
- Stanford Shared Canvas
New tools for digital scholarship:
Panel: Monograph and Current Scholarship
The second session on “The Monograph and Current Scholarship” was a panel discussion form the points of view of the scholarly society with Timothy Burke (American Historical Association) ; History professor, now Digital Humanist Stefan Tanaka; and David Shulenberger, Vice President for Academic Affairs, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
Dr. Tanaka spoke of the lack of “deep reading” and our “convergence culture” as impacting teaching. His own scholarship is evolving to history without chronology. Stories from data.
Dr. Burke suggested we “tunnel inside the monograph to go beyond the book.” Scholarly work includes peers, critics, and all data and included media. History, humanities and librarians need to create environments that increase the culture of inspiration – and do it without a net!
But, he acknowledged that the monograph is the standard by which scholars are measured (#fortressmonograph.) Societies in each discipline will need to determine its’ own conventions and accepted proof of scholarship.
David Shulenburger noted that the monograph is a humanities phenomena. If universities want to encourage interdisciplinary fertilization that is affordable and sustainable, we may need to own up to the fact that it will be the next 40 years of scholarly communications that will broaden all research. In these increasingly complex research environments, libraries will be the labs. He seconded the idea that we are all doing it “without a net.”
Panel: Monograph in the Global Environment
Representatives presented on national strategy (UK), higher education strategy (AUS) and university strategy (AUPress) to provide support for the scholarly monograph. All three strategies included of the importance of digitization, monographs published as ebooks and all monographs being available in open access.
UK: Presentation from JISC on innovations to support scholarly monographs. UK has a National Monograph Strategy.
Australia: National program Excellence in Research Australia with a concentration on open access textbooks. What would advertisements in an engineering textbook look like?
Canada: Athabasca University Press All of the books published from this press are in digital format open access. What would 1% of a university budget supporting open access look like?
Questions raised by this session included: Could a true digital monograph culture generate more interactive thinking and scholarship than journal activity does? How do you incorporate peer review into a dynamic product?
Panel: At-Scale Strategies to Support the Monograph
Elliott Shore detailed an old idea revisited – direct author subvention (new model.) An Open Access program for digital monographs as the first publishing choice would enhance the visibility of scholarship and integrate humanities scholarship on the web. How can long form be more visible on the web? See AAU-ARL Prospectus for an Institutionally Funded First-Book Subvention
The OSTP memo that seems to be driving federally funded scholarship is bring players like AAU, AUPL and ARL together to have a national strategy conversation. This may lead to a national repository – SHARE – a national agency for public access – CHORUS – and a national registry for researchers – ORCID.
Mellon Foundation: Open Library of Humanities Receives Mellon Funding
Donald Waters asked what would a scholarly monograph need to be published Open Access on the web? Funding – How much does it cost to publish a scholarly monograph? We need a baseline of costs. (Model Hypothesis.org ) Features and tools will be needed for scholarly interaction with primary powers users and readers. Web based annotation standards needed.
Chad Gaffield “This is not about technology. This is not about the money. Our discussion is not about the book – it is about insights from scholarly output. Humanities needs to have skin in the game and have more attention placed on humanities scholarly output.” “We should not prop up outdated systems, but place our efforts to advance knowledge and sharing.”
Brenda Johnson noted all entities are needed for successful “publishing” of scholarly product. University presses, scholarly societies, funders like Mellon Foundation, and editors. Editors add value to the process beyond peer review. Editors are tasked with finding readers, finding awards – they bring additional reach to the author and their work.
Barbara Kline Pope summed up two salient points that statistics for ebooks are rising; scholarly monogrpahs need to be part of the digital landscape. Discovery and well defined platforms are essential to these statistics. Please see NAS excellent AcademyScope as a model in presenting new titles and editions published.
OAPEN-UK. (2015). Retrieved from http://oapen-uk.jiscebooks.org/
Isaacson, W. (2014). The innovators.
McPherson, P., & Shulenburger, D. (2010). Understanding the cost of public higher education: In the case of higher education costs, diametrically opposed views have persisted over time. why? Planning for Higher Education, 38(3), 15.
National Academies Press. AcademyScope. Retrieved from here.
Perkins, L., & Morrison, H. (2005). Open access: Perspectives from SSHRC and NRC. Retrieved from here.
Shoemaker, A. (2011). Is there a crisis in international learning? the ‘three freedoms’ paradox. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(1), 67-83. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2010.549458
Showers, B. (2014). A National Monograph Strategy
Shulenburger, D. (2011). The future of the US research university. Research Library Issues: A Bimonthly Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC, (274), 1-10. Retrieved from here.
Shulenburger, David. (2010). Higher learning, greater good: The private and social benefits of higher education (review). BALTIMORE: The Johns Hopkins University Press. doi:10.1353/rhe.0.0132