Clio Wired

An Introduction to History & New Media

Week 11

Digital Scholarship

  1. Tim Hitchcock, “Academic Writing and Its Discontents,” Journal of Digital Humanities 1, 1 (Winter 2011)


  1. Alex Sayf Cummings and Jonathan Jarrett, “Only Typing? Informal Writing, Blogging and the Academy,” Writing History in the Digital Age (2012), ed Jack Dougherty and Kristen Nawrotzki
  2. Joan Fragaszy Troyano, “Two Years of the Journal of Digital Humanities,” PressForward (2014)
  3. Melissa Terras, “The Impact of Social Media on the Dissemination of Research: Results of an Experiment,” Journal of Digital Humanities, 1, 3 (2012)

Digital articles

  1. William Thomas, “Writing A Digital History Journal Article from Scratch: An Account” (2007)
  2. Edward Ayers, “Does Digital Scholarship Have a Future?Educase Review (August 5, 2013)
  3. American Historical Review Prize for the Best Digital Article (2012)
  4. Jack Dougherty, Kristen Nawrotzki, Charlotte Rochez, and Timothy Burke, “Conclusions: What We Learned from Writing History in the Digital Age,” Writing History in the Digital Age(2012), ed Jack Dougherty and Kristen Nawrotzki (Paragraphs 1-14 only)


  1. Alex Galarza, Jason Heppler and Douglas Seefeldt, “A Call to Redefine Historical Scholarship in the Digital Turn,” Journal of Digital Humanities 1, 4 (2012)
Discussion Leaders: Peter Jones & Ben Brands

1 comment for “Week 11

  1. November 9, 2014 at 11:05 pm

    This week’s discussion questions- created by Ben and I:
    1. What does Tim Hitchcock mean when he says “the book is dead?” Is he right or overstating the case?

    2. How does Melissa Terras’ coverage of the academic use of blogs compare to that of Cummings and Jarrett (and how do Jarrett and Cummings disagree between themselves on the future of blogging in history)? How does this digital publishing affect academic historians’ authority?

    3. What does Peer Review look like or should look like for digital scholarship? How similar is it to traditional peer review? What is the role of digital publications such as JDH and Writing History in a Digital Age in developing these methods?

    4. How has the idea of digital scholarship changed from Valley of the Shadow to The Difference Slavery Made to what Ayers describes as today’s “generative scholarship”? What’s next?

    5. William Thomas discusses the “fundamental components of scholarship” as evidence, engagement with prior scholarship, and a scholarly argument while his collaborator Edward Ayers identifies a broader concept of scholarship as that which “contributes, in a meaningful and enduring way, to an identifiable collective and cumulative enterprise.” How are these two views of scholarship related, and which is more valid and applicable to digital scholarship? What issues do each raise for digital scholarship?

    6. As identified by Galarza, et al, what institutional obstacles currently face digital historians in seeking recognition and jobs within the Academy? How realistic are their proposals to fix these problems, and how do these issues effect the production of digital scholarship? Where else in the readings can similar issues be identified?

    7. Does the AHR’s Award for Digital Scholarship accurately reflect the definitions of Digital Scholarship and how does it affect the discipline in light of Galarza, et al.’s Call?

    8. Must the output of digital tools that we learned about over the last 9 weeks’ readings be represented as “digital scholarship”? Must “digital scholarship” incorporate some these tools?

Comments are closed.