“discussions have tended to focus primarily on establishing digital work as equivalent to print publications [in order] to make it count instead of considering how digital scholarship might transform knowledge-making practices” (Purdy and Walker 178).
“Fair evaluation of collaborative digital scholarship can only function within a complex network of responsibilities” (171).
I think this assertion was what I took away most from this Nowviskie article. In part because I was so intrigued by the Purdy and Walker quote above mentioned at the beginning of her article. As much as this was discussing the proper crediting of collaborators and the implications of that in DH, it was just as much, in my mind, about the crediting of DH to begin with. Not necessarily in the way that Purdy and Walker discussed in the first part of the quote, about some sort of equivocation to equal a standard accepted method, but in a more nuanced way.
This crediting came from the way that DH is being discussed in panels, from the way Nowviskie discusses it in her article, how seriously and complexly it has been looked at and ways in which there are already demands on departments (even if it is an abstract discussion for some) to take these issues seriously.
I’m interested in how this article both breaks and follows traditional academic power structures. While it is trying to expand the ways in which DH is accepted, it is still having to become accepted by those higher academic powers; it is having to legitimize itself before being accepted as legitimate. I think the thought and movement towards a responsibility within the community makes it legitimate already, and I wonder how this fits into the discussion within the community. How is this discussed within departments?
Nowviskie, Bethany. “Where Credit is Due: Preconditions for the Evaluation of Collaborative Digital Scholarship.” Profession 2011.1 (2011). Web.
Purdy, James P., and Joyce R. Walker. “Valuing Digital Scholarship: Exploring the Changing Realities of Intellectual Work.” Profession (2010): 177–95. Print.