On “New Forms of Scholarly Communication” | Shreds and Patches

Use the link to access the full text presentation described as follows: “Presented below are remarks prepared for a meeting of Indiana University Bloomington (IUB) Department Chairs and Academic Associate Deans hosted by the IUB Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs. The focus of the larger gathering was a campus-wide discussion of tenure and promotion issues, with a special emphasis on current draft revisions to campus-level tenure and promotion guidelines. The task assigned to me was to reflect on the place of new forms of scholarly communication in the tenure and promotion mix. Other speakers were recruited to address diversity, interdisciplinarity, and public scholarly engagement. Speakers were grouped into two person panels and allotted five (and only five) minutes for a statement. Ten minutes of discussion was scheduled on each theme following the two presentations. Because it was a campus-wide event and because it was anticipated by the vice provost that my co-presenter Ruth Stone would speak about issues in the digital humanities, I endeavored to draw my examples from further afield. The brevity of the assignment precluded discussion of many of my favorite examples and many relevant issues (ex: the role of scholarly societies or issues of open access) were not raised at all. To help my listeners find their way to the conversations that I evoked, I offer my text here with the links that oral presentation could not facilitate.  There are countless resources available for the purpose of gaining an introduction to the subject of change in scholarly communication. One very reasonable and appropriate overview–inclusive of a call for wider discussion among researchers–is available in Karla L. Hahn’s (2008) ‘Talk About Talking About New Models of Scholarly Communication...’  In my view, all of us who mentor and assess junior faculty need to have some grounding in these discussions and the changes that they track and provoke. I hope the connections linking these themes are clear enough. If we are producing new and diverse kinds of scholarly productions via new and diverse kinds of scholarly collaborations, then we will need new and more diverse kinds of rubrics for assessing the relative excellence and impact of this work. We certainly aren’t going to retreat from a standard of excellence but the work of measuring and recognizing it is surely getting harder and more important. While much of the responsibility lies with them, our junior colleagues need to know that we are on the case and are participating in the changed world in which they, and we, work.”