After reading Erin and Alice Lynn’s latest posts, I began to wonder what a “successful” digital scholar looks like. Should success be measured by the scope of one’s digital presence? Should it be measured by how much one’s research is cited on the web? Or does it instead have something to do with how many digital tools one has created for / incorporated into their research?
This is a tricky question to answer; just trying to find a simple definition of ‘digital scholarship’ is a task unto itself. Some argue that we should refrain from attempting to define digital scholarship in the first place, while others argue that digital scholarship should be defined loosely so as to incorporate diverse approaches. If we can’t even decide how to define digital scholarship, how can we determine if one is a successful digital scholar?
I can’t say that I have an answer that could unify or encompass everything that may fall under ‘digital scholarship’, and I won’t try to offer suggestions here either. Instead, I’d like to suggest that readers of this post reflect on problems they’ve encountered in academia (trouble finding others who share your research interests, institutional limitations on your research, difficulty gathering and assessing data, limited publication options for your topic, etc), and think of ways that these obstacles could be overcome using less traditional means. What do I have in mind by ‘less traditional means’?
- Using social media to create non-institutional-based communities around similar research interests
- Using digital tools such as Zotero, Evernote, and Sophie to arrange and organize your research
- Using such tools as blogs, Google Docs or CommentPress to share your works in progress
- Exploring publication options like Future Of The Book and Open Access Journals
Although it is difficult – and perhaps unnecessary – to strictly define digital scholarship, it is not difficult to become a digital scholar; approaching traditional scholarship from a new angle is all that’s required.