Downloads provided by UsageCountsViolins in the Subway: Scarcity Correlations, Evaluative Cultures, and Disciplinary Authority in the Digital Humanities
CHIST-ERA| PROVIDEDH
Eve, Martin Paul;
Eve, Martin Paul;
Violins in the Subway: Scarcity Correlations, Evaluative Cultures, and Disciplinary Authority in the Digital Humanities
Despite the proliferation of digital humanities projects, varying greatly in form and media, there remain anxieties about the evaluation of digital work. Digital humanists find, time and time again, that they are expected to perform twice the labour of traditional scholars; once for the work itself and once again for its evaluation. At the same time, traditional humanists often experience a sensation of threat from the digital arena, believing that it is easy to gain employment, grants, and tenure if one is a digital humanist.\ud \ud In this chapter, I ask how we can understand a double logic in which digital-humanities work is at once so powerful as to crowd out the traditional humanists while at the same time so poorly understood as to need supplementation by traditional publication. Classifying the existing mechanisms of evaluation into a three-fold typology of 1.) a desired scarcity correlation; 2.) a set of media-specific denoting frames; and 3.) a set of disciplinary understandings, I show how and why DH remains radical in its work yet traditional in its outputs.
eh
eh
4215
Allington, Daniel, Sarah Brouillette, and David Golumbia, 'Neoliberal Tools (and Archives): A Political History of Digital Humanities', Los Angeles Review of Books, 2016 <https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/neoliberal-toolsarchives-political-history-digital-humanities/> [accessed 29 May 2016]
American Historical Association, 'Guidelines for the Professional Evaluation of Digital Scholarship by Historians', American Historical Association, 2015 <https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/digital-historyresources/evaluation-of-digital-scholarship-in-history/guidelines-for-the-professional-evaluation-of-digitalscholarship-by-historians> [accessed 24 March 2017]
Azoulay, Pierre, Christian Fons-Rosen, and Joshua S. Graff Zivin, Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time? (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, December 2015) <https://doi.org/10.3386/w21788>
Brembs, Björn, Katherine Button, and Marcus Munafò, 'Deep Impact: Unintended Consequences of Journal Rank', Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7 (2013), 291 <https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291>
Brennan, Sheila, 'Let the Grant Do the Talking', Journal of Digital Humanities, 1 (2012) <http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-4/let-the-grant-do-the-talking-by-sheila-brennan/> [accessed 24 March 2017]
Burdick, Anne, Johanna Drucker, Peter Lunenfeld, Todd Presner, and Jeffrey Schnapp, Digital Humanities (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012)
Burgess, Helen J., and Jeanne Hamming, 'New Media in the Academy: Labor and the Production of Knowledge in Scholarly Multimedia', 5 (2011) <http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/5/3/000102/000102.html> [accessed 24 March 2017]
Campanario, Juan Miguel, 'Consolation for the Scientist: Sometimes It Is Hard to Publish Papers That Are Later Highly-Cited', Social Studies of Science, 23 (1993), 342-62 [OpenAIRE]
---, 'Have Referees Rejected Some of the Most-Cited Articles of All Times?', Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47 (1996), 302-10 <https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199604)47:4<302::AIDASI6>3.0.CO;2-0>
---, 'Rejecting and Resisting Nobel Class Discoveries: Accounts by Nobel Laureates', Scientometrics, 81 (2009), 549-65 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2141-5>
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).0 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Average influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Average impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Average views 7 downloads 445 citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).0 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Average influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Average impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Average - 7views445downloads
citations
Citations provided by BIP!
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
Citations provided by BIP!popularityPopularity provided by BIP!
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
Popularity provided by BIP!influenceInfluence provided by BIP!
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
Influence provided by BIP!impulseImpulse provided by BIP!
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
Impulse provided by BIP!viewsViews provided by UsageCounts
Views provided by UsageCountsdownloadsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts 0
Average
Average
Average
7
445
Funded by
Despite the proliferation of digital humanities projects, varying greatly in form and media, there remain anxieties about the evaluation of digital work. Digital humanists find, time and time again, that they are expected to perform twice the labour of traditional scholars; once for the work itself and once again for its evaluation. At the same time, traditional humanists often experience a sensation of threat from the digital arena, believing that it is easy to gain employment, grants, and tenure if one is a digital humanist.\ud \ud In this chapter, I ask how we can understand a double logic in which digital-humanities work is at once so powerful as to crowd out the traditional humanists while at the same time so poorly understood as to need supplementation by traditional publication. Classifying the existing mechanisms of evaluation into a three-fold typology of 1.) a desired scarcity correlation; 2.) a set of media-specific denoting frames; and 3.) a set of disciplinary understandings, I show how and why DH remains radical in its work yet traditional in its outputs.