Obviously in addition to being a poet, you’re also a scholar and I know that your scholarly research dovetails closely with the poetry you do but you also, I think a really nice job of demonstrating why those two genres or those two forms need to be separate or what each one can bring different questions to the fore or allow you to explore different ideas.
Do poetry and scholarship need to be separate? I'd be interested in hearing her argument
A Companion to Geoffrey of Monmouth introduces Geoffrey’s oeuvre to first-time readers and provides a synthesis of current scholarship, all while offer-ing new readings of his work. This volume also seeks to bring Celtic studiesand Galfridian studies into closer dialogue, especially given the importanceof Wales to Geoffrey and his work. To that end, many of the essays are writtenby specialists in Welsh history and literature, whose voices have at times beenhard to discern in the general din of Galfridian scholarship. We have also askedcontributors to focus on all of Geoffrey’s work, and not merely the Arthuriansections. Geoffrey has been well-served by Arthurian scholarship, and we haveno desire to replicate many of the excellent recent studies in that field.7 Instead,we hope a holistic approach to his work will reveal subtleties often overlookedin scholarship that concentrates primarily on the Arthurian portions.
A fairly concise statement of the aims of this book
One challenge is whether – or how – this conversation becomes generative of traditional scholarship, such as a more linear, peer-reviewed article.
Comment by amidont: There is, truly, so much potential in these tools and approaches toward asynchronous, distributed reading and writing. One question I have, already, is how such distributed forms of production-consumption further dissolve notions of textuality and authorship so entrenched within traditional notions and practices of scholarship and empirical research. The flattened hierarchies, especially, threaten the institutionalized power structures which have tightly controlled the design, review, and dissemination of scholarship and research.
nenggih antukkira nukil saking kitab. Akya ngulumudin lan saking puniku, tefsir Ibnu Ngabas ngélmu khak kang dén rasani, kang wus takhsis nenggih, masalah paéssan.
Serat Pamejang Ngelmi merupakan contoh bagaimana pujangga Jawa melakukan translasi pemikiran Ihya Ulumuddin dan tafsir Ibnu Abbas terutama dalam tema etika (paesan).
Muchrecent scholarship on card indexes and factuality falls into one of two modes: first,scholars have excavated early modern indexes, catalogues, and the pursuit of ‘facts’to demonstrate information overload prior to the contemporary ‘information age’ as wellas the premodern attempts to counteract the firehose of books and other information(Blair, 2010; Krajewski, 2011; Mu ̈ ller-Wille and Scharf, 2009; Poovey, 1998;
Zedelmaier, 1992). All the same, a range of figures have tracked and critiqued the trajectory of the ‘noble dream’ of historical and scientific ‘objectivity’ (Appleby, Hunt and Jacob, 1994: 241-70; Daston and Galison, 2007; Novick, 1988).
Lustig categorizes scholarship on card indexes into two modes: understanding of information overload tools and the "trajectory of the 'noble dream' of historical and scientific 'objectivity'".
Scholars have experienced information overload for more than a century [Vickery, 1999] and the problem is just getting worse. Online access provides much better knowledge discovery and aggregation tools, but these tools struggle with the fragmentation of research communication caused by the rapid proliferation of increasingly specialized and overlapping journals, some with decreasing quality of reviewing [Schultz, 2011].
Both the cult of learning around Dante and the cult ofignorance around Newton are phenomena of the vicious spe-cialization of scholarship.
p. xxiv
Hutchins seems to indicate that the "vicious specialization of scholarship" is in part to blame for the emergence of the "two cultures" delineated by C. P. Snow later in the decade.
“Normally, a dictionary just tells you what words mean – and of course we do that – but the scale of the project gives us the space and opportunity to say what we’re not sure of too,” he said. “This is important because it leaves the door open for further scholarship and it gives the reader choices rather than dictating to them what to think. The dictionary can be a catalyst for more research and this is what makes the dictionary a living thing.”
We need more scholarship which leaves open thinking spaces for future scholars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pSGniUOyLc
Digital humanities aka Humanities Analytics
5:54 Simon DeDeo mentioned Alastair McKinnon the philosopher in the 60s did a stylopheric study of Kierkegaard pseudonyms - Kierkegaard's Pseudonyms: A New Hierarchy by Alastair McKinnon https://www.jstor.org/stable/20009297
Tools for supplementing research and scholarship
core audience is Ph.D. students
More recent ad-ditions to the website include a “jigsaw puzzle” screen that lets users viewseveral items while playing with them to check whether they are “joins.” An-other useful feature permits the user to split the screen into several panelsand, thus, examine several items simultaneously (useful, e.g., when compar-ing handwriting in several documents). Finally, the “join suggestions” screenprovides the results of a technologically groundbreaking computerized anal-ysis of paleographic and codiocological features that suggests possible joinsor items written by the same scribe or belonging to the same codex. 35
Computer means can potentially be used to check or suggest potential "joins" of fragments of historical documents.
An example of some of this work can be seen in the Friedberg Genizah Project and their digital tools.
Since many Geniza studies begin their research with Goitein, the same documents are ex-amined repeatedly (occasionally even receiving several editions), but others that Goitein hadnot cited remain ignored.
Initial Herculean efforts by a particular scholar in an area can overshadow the study of corpora thereafter. As a result, it can be fruitful to examine the holes they left behind.
“In the beginning of my engagement with Geniza studies, I innocently supposed that I didnot need to deal with the original of a document already mentioned by another scholar. To-day, it is clear to me that the Geniza scholar must examine the original even for a docu-ment that has been fully published (even by Goitein), not to mention a document only men-tioned.” See S. D. Goitein, “The Struggle between the Synagogue and the Community” (inHebrew), in Hayyim (Jefim) Schrimann: Jubilee Volume, ed. Shraga Abramson and AaronMirsky (Jerusalem, 1970), 69–77, 71 n. 8 (my translation)
Geniza studies rule of thumb: ALWAYS consult the original of a document when referencing work by other scholars as new translations, understandings, context, history, and conditions regarding the original work of the scholar may have changed.
As Goitein is reported to have said: “A good editionis the highest form of interpretation.”
Editorial conventions may differ from publication to publication, but they are usually avariant of the so-called Leiden System. See Schubert, “Editing a Papyrus,” 203
philology’s strongest tools: the ability to compare versions of the sametext.
Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, The Powers of Philology: Dynamics of Textual Scholarship(Chicago, 2003), 3
This looks like an interesting read on philology and textual scholarship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leiden_Conventions
Classical scholars met in 1931 to establish a set of convention and sigla (symbols, brackets, etc.) for indicating the conditions of texts, editorial corrections, and restorations in inscriptions, papyri, manuscripts and other writing contexts.
L’Empire des fiches
The Empire of Cards sounds like such an interesting epitaph for a well-practiced scholar. https://books.openedition.org/pressesenssib/6247
Free money that is given to your.
Gross, Ronald. The Independent Scholar’s Handbook. Ten Speed Press, 1993. http://archive.org/details/the-independent-scholars-handbook-how-to-turn-your-interest-in-any-subject-into-.
A complaint more specific to the quantity of books was articulated in 1522 by the jurist Giovanni Nevizzano of Asti (d. 1540) who observed that the great number of available books made it hard to find the books one needed. Proper selection among the many books available was crucial because “if a scholar does not have the books required for his subject, he does not enjoy the privi-leges of a scholar.”20
This same sort of quote is often repeated in the present while vitiating against the corporate publishers who own most of research publishing and charge for it dearly.
Presidents Emerging Scholar
Daf Yomi—a study program launched in the 1920s in which Jews around the world read one page of the Talmud every day for 2,711 days, or about seven and a half years
An interesting concept.
Every serious (academic) historical work includes a conversation with other scholarship, and this has largely carried over into popular historical writing.
Any serious historical or other academic work should include a conversation with the body of other scholarship with which argues for or against.
Comparing and contrasting one idea with another is crucial for any sort of advancement.
Talmudic scholars no longer depend on the conventional modernist language of ‘authorship’ and ‘work’. Instead, they can speak of ‘tradents’, who ‘re-anthologise’ existing ‘lemmata’ and ‘microforms’, sometimes anonymously, within the context of a culture of extraordinary textual memorisation and the ubiquitous synchronous interactions of written and oral modes of text. We have a lot to learn from them, because Tibetan religious literature is in some important respects closer to Medieval Hebraic literature than to modern literature.
The idea of tradents, authors who re-anthologize prior work and scholarship, explicitly without attribution of authorship, is incredibly similar to the ideas behind oral mnemonic traditions seen in Greek epic poetry and Yugoslavian guslars as discovered by Milman Parry.
The professionalisation of academic writing has forced us “to substitute the more writerly, discoursive forms, such as the essay, for the more measured and measurable –largely unread and unreadable – quasi-scientific journal article”
I wonder if it would be useful to distinguish between research and scholarship, where formal research is but one type of scholarly practice?
If we look at a journal as a channel for promoting scholarship then there's no reason that we can't include essays as a category of writing.
Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel
It's interesting that the concept of open scholarship does not appear here (unless I am missing it worded differently). Where is the place to recommend the recognition of open pedagogy and practices as being equally importance as research and service?
For example see the University of Windsor's Open Educational Practices Hub section [on Open Scholarship] where there is a series of posts/interviews about issues of (https://uwinopenlearn.ca/blog/category/open-scholarship/).
I agree with everything in this post; I want to listen to more academic work in audio formats but find the process quite unsatisfying.
Either I find my attention drifting, or I’m switching between apps to try and capture the essence of something I’d like to come back to later.
I’m hoping that things like Momento help get us closer to the ability to capture information from audio sources, but this would need to be built into ebook readers or the operating system itself, in order to be more broadly useful.
It’d also need to be more reliable with respect to the quality of the machine learning transcription. At the moment it’s just useable, and requires a bit of interpretation.
an iterative process of knowledge production through reference, review, and refinement
After reading Chapter 5, "Annotation Expresses Power" in Remi and Antero's book, Annotation, I know there is more lurking behind this idea of scholarship as a "great conversation", iterating and refining, but also inscribing, foreclosing, opening, diverting, eliding, obscuring, (dis)empowering, apologizing, justifying, (de)mystifying, and in so many other ways being so much other than a collective project toward greater enlightenment...
Annotation, in the ATI project, helps scholars to make their knowledge claims more transparent and publicly accessible to academic communities.
This is an important why to put the value of openness into practice. Annotations are critical to those concerned with values-enacted scholarship.
By building blogging, Twitter, flickr, and shared libraries in Zotero, in to our research programmes – into the way we work anyway – we both get more research done, and build a community of engaged readers for the work itself.
This is linked to the concept of an open scholar: Burton, G. (2009, August 11). The Open Scholar. Academic Evolution. https://www.academicevolution.com/2009/08/the-open-scholar.html
The open scholar is someone who makes their intellectual projects and processes digitally visible and who invites and encourages ongoing criticism of their work and secondary uses of any or all parts of it–at any stage of its development.
Morgan, A. C., Way, S. F., Hoefer, M. J. D., Larremore, D. B., Galesic, M., & Clauset, A. (2021). The unequal impact of parenthood in academia. Science Advances, 7(9), eabd1996. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd1996
I also feed forward the result of my learning in different ways that way I get feedback and criticism and the cycle starts again
Sharing what we learn so that it can be "peer reviewed" is part of a scholarly practice.
Academic research and teaching often necessitate manipulation, re-creation, breaking, rebuilding, etc. This “manipulation, re-creation, breaking, rebuilding” — in other words, hacking
It's not self-evident to me that these activities are the same as those associated with hacking (and I'm not talking about the malevolent/negative connotations of hacking).
I also think of a hacker as a tinkerer, which can include "manipulation, re-creation, breaking, building, etc." but need not. It feels like there's something fundamental missing here but I can't put my finger on it.
I don't really have a conclusion here, other than to suggest that the hacker/scholar relationship might need a lot more development than I see here.
Open Scholarship Knowledge Base. (n.d.). OER Commons. Retrieved August 19, 2020, from https://www.oercommons.org/hubs/OSKB
And right now there’s some interesting debate going on about this layer of accessibility, with different voices making conflicting claims about the degree to which it’s possible (and desirable) to change the way scholarship is written and presented so that it will be more accessible to those who read it.
This "debate" has been going on for some decades now in feminist scholarship across the disciplines. Feminist scholars have long been concerned with writing in ways that are accessible to multiple audiences - e.g., by invoking the autobiographical,eschewing specialized jargon, or making explicit how their research impacts lived experience.
Knöchelmann, M. (2020, February 25) Open Humanities: Why Open Science in the Humanities is not Enough. Impact of Social Sciences. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/02/25/open-humanities-why-open-science-in-the-humanities-is-not-enough/
Thaney, K. (2020, April 8). Open Infrastructure in times of crisis: How IOI can help. Invest in Open Infrastructure. https://investinopen.org/2020/04/08/open-infrastructure-in-times-of-crisis.html
Aspesi, C., & Brand, A. (2020). In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough. Science, 368(6491), 574–577. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba3763
Alex Holcombe en Twitter: “Finally journal editors are losing their lock on scholarship- COVID19 is speeding this up. @elife will ‘make the posting of preprints to bioRxiv or medRxiv the default for all eLife submissions’ @eLife ahead of the pack; the leaders are @Meta_Psy and other small journals. @SciBeh” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved April 17, 2020, from https://twitter.com/ceptional/status/1248353897195769857
M2 Theory & Scholarship
theory
Scholarship now emphasizes variability and specificity in ways that discourage cross-historical and cross-cultural comparisons.
But to assume that even to ponder sharing the results of scholarship amounts to dumbing down, by default, is a new low in this term for new lows. Posturing as if it’s a problem with the audience, rather than with the expert who refuses to address that audience, is perverse.One thing you learn when writing for an audience outside your expertise is that, contrary to the assumption that people might prefer the easiest answers, they are all thoughtful and curious about topics of every kind. After all, people have areas in their own lives in which they are the experts. Everyone is capable of deep understanding.
Like all experts, academics are used to speaking to a specialized audience. That’s true no matter their discipline, from sociology to geotechnical engineering to classics. When you speak to a niche audience among peers, a lot of understanding comes for free. You can use technical language, make presumptions about prior knowledge, and assume common goals or contexts. When speaking to a general audience, you can’t take those circumstances as a given.
Scholars still have a lot of anxiety about this practice. Many of those relate to the university careers and workplaces: evaluation, tenure, reactions from their peers, hallway jealousy, and so on. These are real worries, and as a scholar and university professor myself, I empathize with many of them.
The internet has made it easier than ever to reach a lot of readers quickly. It has birthed new venues for publication and expanded old ones. At the same time, a sense of urgency of current affairs, from politics to science, technology to the arts, has driven new interest in bringing scholarship to the public directly.
An Open Approach to Scholarly Reading and Knowledge Management
Key writing on opening knowledge practices (OKP), what we are calling the effort to enable people, when they are engaged in acquiring, generating and sharing knowledge as students, teachers, researchers, scholars, and librarians, to develop and demonstrate (agency) themselves (identities), their understanding (literacies), their skills, and their connections to other people (communities) throughout their lives for their own benefit, for the common good, and to participate in a just and thriving economy.
Discussions contained in the Bitnet list PACS-L @UHUPVM 1 suggest that there is some interest in recognizing the Internet as a publica- tion, albeit an amorphous one, that might never- theless be subject to cataloging.
Recognition of Internet as publication
One challenge is whether – or how – this conversation becomes generative of traditional scholarship, such as a more linear, peer-reviewed article.
There is, truly, so much potential in these tools and approaches toward asynchronous, distributed reading and writing. One question I have, already, is how such distributed forms of production-consumption further dissolve notions of textuality and authorship so entrenched within traditional notions and practices of scholarship and empirical research. The flattened hierarchies, especially, threaten the institutionalized power structures which have tightly controlled the design, review, and dissemination of scholarship and research.
Borgman, Christine L. 2007. Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Page 10
descriptions of Museum objects created for curatorial and research purposes are interesting to museum visitors.
Borgman on the intersection of popular Outreach / knowledge mobilisation and scholarship.
focus on teaching, not learning
Heard of SoLT? Or of the “Centre of Learning and Teaching”? Been using that order for a while, but nobody has commented upon that, to this day. There surely are some places where learning precedes learning in name and/or in practice. But the “field” is teaching-focused.
In other words, scholars will gain a form of currency by becoming perceived as “human” (the extent to which ‘humanness’ must be honest self-expression or could be fabricated is an interesting question here) rather than cloaked by the deliberately de-humanised unemotive academic voice.
This should be shouted from the top of all the academic towers ;)
«Les professeurs qui publient dans une revue disciplinaire n'ont pas toujours le temps, ni la reconnaissance, pour publier dans d'autres publications sur leurs projets ou leurs innovations pédagogiques, explique Anastassis Kozanitis. S'ils le font, ces publications hors discipline ne sont pas reconnues pour leurs demandes de subvention. C'est un frein majeur à la diffusion des recherches dans le domaine au Canada.»
At the core of the personal API is the radical mission to put control over data (and its access) in the hands of students. This is both a pedagogical act and a creative opportunity, informing students that they can access their own information as well as create interfaces to do with that data what they please. It gives them a seat at the tables where the edtech powers sit, moving them one step closer to a status of equality rather than that of a passive consumer.
If I were to identify one area for further study in the academy, it would be this re-opening of the complex and nuanced world of language modalities: oral and written, static and changing
I seriously could not agree more. Have spent way too many hours on this topic and those who don't agree really need to re-evaluate their positions.
Recognizing that my student has clipped and pasted ideas or actual phrases from an academic journal, video, blog, or website without crediting them deserves to be labeled academic dishonesty of the worst sort! Reading my own words and concepts appearing as unattributed “received wisdom” identifies a brilliant follower clearly deserving high accolades, — or at least an A!
Can this piece get any more awesome?
It is long past time for us to put an end to the miniscule and irrelevant plagiarism wars and begin a more significant reconsideration of what we mean by research, citations, and the respectful integration and communication of information old and new, original and borrowed, tweeted, blogged and podcast, online and oral, read and viewed. It’s time to bury APA, MLA, op. cit., Ibid, et al. — along with the other dead horses they came in on.
I want this printed on a t-shirt to wear to faculty meetings :)
I am hoping to change scholarly communication at all levels and I think transparency must be at the heart of this.
Stewart, B. E. (2015). Scholarship in abundance: Influence, engagement, and attention in scholarly networks. Charlottetown, P.E.I.: University of Prince Edward Island. Retrieved from http://www.islandscholar.ca/download_ds/ir:15431/OBJ/ir_15431.pdf
Will likely be returning here often over the next while.
ECDS: 2016 Digital Scholarship Residency
open access
High quality editing and publication costs money, and if open access is a priority it is important to ensure that funding is available to make it possible for the important work that both the editors and the publishers do is still carried out.
looped (oder: loopable) research
Es wäre an dieser Stelle zu klären, wie sich die Idee der looped research zum Gedanken einer 'looped scholarship' (vgl. Über Digital Humanities, Human Computing und Looped Scholarship. Eine Notiz./ LIBREAS.Tumblr) verhält.