Digital Humanities Working Group

From our discussion of T&P and publicly engaged, digital scholarship, and translational scholarship on March 24, 2016, see the resulting:

• Best Practices for Cultivating Diversity and Public Engagement in Tenure and Promotion

At UF, the Digital Humanities Working Group (DHWG) and many others are interested in ensuring that structural processes support the necessary review, valuation, and validation of all forms of scholarly work, including collaborative and digital research practices. In addition to the resources on this page, we expect to continue to hold conversations and conduct activities in order to validate or put in place the necessary processes.  Processes for review, valuation, and validation of collaborative and digital scholarly work are clearly needed in the Digital Humanities, Humanities, Sciences, Social Sciences, Informatics, and many other areas as all of our work becomes increasingly collaborative and inter- or multi-disciplinary.

Please contact us to join the discussion on the DHWG email list, and to participate for next steps on this, or join the Zotero group to share resources.

Resources for DH in Tenure & Promotion

• UF T&P Guidelines in CWSGR (includes language addressing interdisciplinarity and public impact) 
• UF T&P Guidelines in the Libraries (includes language on digital and public impact, several departments have voted to approve implementation)
• UF Imagining America report, which notes that the Office of the Provost would be supportive of expanded tenure/promotion criteria that credit engaged scholarship in arts, humanities, and design. These must be generated through discussions in individual departments with their faculty.
• Report of the Florida Extension Reconsidered Initiative, noting problems of UF current (2015) RCM and T&P standards
• American Historical Association (AHA), Draft Guidelines on the Evaluation of Digital Scholarship
• Modern Language Association (MLA) Guidelines for Evaluating Work in Digital Humanities and Digital Media
• List of Peer Review and T&P Guidelines (2016, by Alex Gil)
• Case Studies and Examples for Evaluating Digital Scholarship, College Art Association (2016)
• Statement on Exhibit Venues, College Art Association (2016)
• Association for Computers and the Humanities (ACH) Guidelines for Assessment of Digital Scholarship in Tenure and Promotion (2019)

Resources for Peer Review for Alternative Scholarly Products

In order to support alternative scholarly products which are common with scholarship in the age of Big Data, including the Digital Humanities and other types of Digital Scholarship, additional resources are needed especially for peer review. Some of the needed resources already exist and are available, with others  in development to support peer review, publishing, and other critical needs.

Venues for Review of Alternative Scholarly Works (as models and for reviewing)

• Advanced Research Consortium (ARC) and affiliated projects:
• NINES for peer-review of digital resources and archives; reviewing for content and technologies, and Submission process and form to request peer review
• 18thConnect
• MESA
• Renaissance English Knowledgebase (Rekn)
• Modernist Networks (ModNets), coming soon
• Journal of American History: Web site Reviews
• Reviews in History
• Online Exhibits as Scholarship from the Women Writers Project at Brown with  Guidelines for Exhibit Authors and  Peer Review and Scholarly Communication: three stage review process: 1) all reviewed by WWP editorial team for suitability; response options appear to be reject, revise, or continue; 2) if approved to move on, review by one or more subject expert reviewers; 3) review again by WWP editorial team
• Digital Humanities Quarterly (DHQ)

Resources

• “Hiring, firing, & evaluating digital humanities scholarship” blog post by UF Graduate Student, Ken Chitwood
• Towards a Peer Review of Geohumanities Projects: A Community Consultation (2015)
• Digital Scholarship in the Humanities (DSH); renamed from Literary Linguistic and Computing in 2014
• Digital Studies 
• Journal for Digital Humanities (http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/)
• Digital Philology: A Journal of Medieval Cultures (http://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/digital_philology/)
• L. Mandell (2012) “Promotion and Tenure for Digital Scholarship: An Open Letter to the Promotion and Tenure Committee at Texas A&M University”
• T. Presner et. al (2011) “How to Evaluate Digital Scholarship” (http://humanitiesblast.com/Evaluating_digital_scholarship.pdf)
• University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Center for Digital Research in the Humanities, “Promotion & Tenure Criteria for Assessing Digital Research in the Humanities” (http://humanitiesblast.com/Evaluating_digital_scholarship.pdf)
• American Association for History and Computing (AAHC). 2000. “AAHC Suggested Guidelines for Evaluating Digital Media Activities in Tenure, Review, and Promotion – Draft Statement.” Journal of the Association for History and Computing 3 (3).
• The American Historical Review offers an annual Prize in Digital Historical Scholarship for the best born-digital short scholarly contribution.
• Bates, David, Janet Nelson, Charlotte Roueché, and Jane Winters. 2006. Peer Review and Evaluation of Digital Resources for the Arts and Humanities. Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) ICT Strategy Project. London, UK: Institute of Historical Research, University of London, September.
• Warwick, C., M. Terras, I. Galina, P. Huntington, and N. Eva Pappa. 2007. Evaluating Digital Humanities Resources: The LAIRAH Project Checklist and the Internet Shakespeare Editions Project. In ELPUB2007. Openness in Digital Publishing: Awareness, Discovery and Access – Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Electronic Publishing, ed. L. Chan and B. Martens, 297-306. Vienna, Austria: OEKK – Editions.
• 2013 Whitepaper: Encouraging Digital Scholarly Publishing in the Humanities (NEH project)
• Diane Harley & Sophia Krzys Acord; Peer Review in Academic Promotion & Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future(2011).
• Michelle Lamont, How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (2009).
• PREPARDE: Peer REview for Publication & Accreditation of Research Data in the Earth sciences
• Valuing & Evaluating DH [Digital Humanities] Practice, various resources from the Carolina Digital Humanities Initiative
• Article-Level Metrics: A SPARC Primer (2013)
• Modern Language Association
  • Wiki on the Evaluation of Digital Work (Types, Guide to Evaluation, Stories, Documenting a New Media Case, FAQ, Resources)
  • Guidelines for Evaluating Work with Digital Media in the Modern Languages
  • Guiding Questions for Vetters of Scholarly Editions
  • Workshop on Evaluating Digital Scholarship 2012: MLA Wiki on the 2012 workshop and Report in The Chronicle
• American Anthropological Association (AAA)
  • AAA Guidelines for Evaluating Scholarship in the Realm of Practicing, Applied, and Public Interest Anthropology for Academic Promotion and Tenure
  • American Anthropological Association Statement on Electronic Publishing, Adopted by AAA Executive Board on November 20, 2011
• Association of Departments of Foreign Languages (ADFL):
  • Evaluation of Nontraditional Fields
• Imaging America
  • Scholarship in Public: Knowledge Creation and Tenure Policy in the Engaged University: A Resource on Promotion and Tenure in the Arts, Humanities, and Design
    Summary recommendations: 1. Define public scholarly and creative work. 2. Develop policy based on a continuum of scholarship. 3. Recognize the excellence of work that connects domains of knowledge. 4. Expand what counts. 5. Document what counts. 6. Present what counts: use portfolios. 7. Expand who counts: Broaden the community of peer review. 8. Support publicly engaged graduate students and junior faculty. 9. Build in flexibility at the point of hire. 10. Promote public scholars to full professor. 11. Organize the department for policy change. 12. Take this report home and use it to start something.
• Altmetrics: http://altmetrics.org/ and Altmetrics tools
• Attribution and Citation for Digital Humanities Projects
  • Off the Tracks: Laying New Lines for Digital Humanities Scholars, includes the Collaborators’ Bill of Rights

Examples and/or Models