5 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2020
    1. I would argue that emerging forms of publication, including the informal pre-publication conversations happening on social media, have advanced scholarly collaboration beyond the borders of the digital humanities. These new forms of publication create opportunities for us to participate collaboratively beyond authorship as we engage in open, public dialogue that contributes to the ongoing process of scholarly production — through and beyond publication.

      This is a fascinating observation, esp for those of us who have studied the writing practices of scholars (and how those have evolved). . . .

    2. And talk a lot about running. And cats. And Beyoncé. In essence, what we’re (mostly) doing is producing open, public scholarship in or beyond our areas of expertise, and we’re creating dialogue in Twitter conversations or blog comments.

      For many decades feminist scholars have brought together the personal and the scholarly in their research and writing. What's different here is the medium, and the speed of bringing together those aspects. . . .

    1. behind on neoliberal careerism.

      I don't think collectively academics are "behind" on neoliberal careerism -- just the opposite, at least for some.

    2. Institutions are inherently conservative.

      You can say that again -- esp in neoliberal times.

    1. 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.