Tensions and tenets of socialized scholarship.
Theorists of technology adoption have demonstrated that successful technologies rely on social resources. This article takes up social tensions involved in designing digital resources for scholarship, at the centre of which stand editing tools. These are (1) individualism versus collaboration in rel...
| Publicado en: | Digital Scholarship in the Humanities Vol. 31; no. 2; pp. 283 - 301 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Oxford University Press / USA
6/1/2016
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=115711321&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 115711321 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 2055768X JEO9 jtl: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities issn: 2055768X maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: 6/1/2016 vid: 31 iid: 2 pid: 622 pub: Oxford University Press / USA artinfo: ui: 115711321 10.1093/llc/fqu063 ppf: 283 ppct: 18 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 2.1MB tig: atl: Tensions and tenets of socialized scholarship. aug: au: Brown, Susan affil: School of English and Theatre Studies, University of Guelph, Canada and Department of English and Film Studies, University of Alberta, Canada su: Scholarships Social conflict Simplicity (Philosophy) Quality control Editing sug: subj: Scholarships Social conflict Simplicity (Philosophy) Quality control Editing ab: Theorists of technology adoption have demonstrated that successful technologies rely on social resources. This article takes up social tensions involved in designing digital resources for scholarship, at the centre of which stand editing tools. These are (1) individualism versus collaboration in relation to credit; (2) the shift towards dynamism versus stability in resources; (3) simplicity versus complexity in data models and interfaces; (4) swift dissemination versus scholarly quality control; and (5) the benefits of standards versus disciplinary resistance to systematization. With particular reference to editing and publication software, it argues that interfaces are the contact zones within which such tensions will necessarily be mediated. The onus is on the scholarly community to address the social implications of new editing environments, but we can navigate future possibilities only through a deep respect for the embodied and socially situated experience of the user or subject of textuality and a profound recognition of the power of our printed past. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: © 2019 EADH: The European Association for Digital Humanities. item: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities holder: Oxford University Press / USA dt: @attributes: year: 2016 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|