Stewart, B. (2015, April 17). Scholarship in Abundance: Influence, Engagement, and Attention in Scholarly Networks. Retrieved November 2, 2015, from http://bonstewart.com/Scholarship_in_Abundance.pdf
Notes:
p.19: Overall, the first paper suggests that networks enact and circulate broad intersecting patterns in what counts as influence, and that these depart from the codified terms of rank and bibliometric indexing on which conventional academic influence is judged. At the same time, in spite of meaningful distinctions between participant perceptions of networks and — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.20: institutions, especially around networks’ lower barriers to participation and contribution, the paper notes that networks do not manifest as any form of idealized democratic sphere but rather an alternate scholarly prestige arena. In networked scholarship, credibility is simply determined by recognizability and commonality rather than credentials, and hierarchies of influence relate to identities and attention rather than rank or role. — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.27: According to Daniel (2012), “Open education broke open the iron triangle of access, cost and quality that had constrained education throughout history and had created the insidious assumption, still prevalent today, that in education you cannot have quality without exclusivity” (UNESCO, para. 1). This — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.27: e participatory academic sphere. Veletsianos and Kimmons (2012) suggest that open scholarship takes “three major forms: (1) open access and open publishing, (2) open education, including open educational resources and open teaching, and (3) networked participation” (para. 6). The study discussed — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.29: Open networked scholarship does not require credentials, but demands the construction, performance and curation of intelligible, public, participatory identities. The core of this identity production occurs via profiles (boyd & Heer, 2006); on blogs and other personal web spaces, “bios” may provide identifying information or link to the individual’s social network profiles. — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.29: Weller (2011) notes, “in a digital, networked, open world people become less defined by the institution to which they belong and more by the network and online identity they establish” — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.29: Just as “the academy” refers, imperfectly, to a broadly-understood confluence of practices, norms, and outlooks as well as to the historical public concept of the university, so the participatory subculture of “networked publics” (boyd, 2011) is invoked in this paper to identify both the complex techno-cultural context of open scholarship and the practices that distinguish it. — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.29: practice” (boyd, 2011, p. 39). Both material and conceptual, networked publics are enacted via networked blogs and, increasingly, through social networking platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. This study — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.31: pieces of work are taken up. While many influential members of participatory scholarly networks are affiliated with universities, networked contributions to knowledge extend beyond formal peer review channels to public, collaborative communications (Morris & Stommel, 2014). Networked scholars may — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.32: This study is premised in the idea that open scholars utilize concepts of credibility and value in order to guide their engagement in networked publics. The idea that individuals learn how to read complex reputational cues has precedents both in academia and in networked research. — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.32: Willinsky (2010) asserts that scholars learn to read the status and reputational cues of peers, at least within their own disciplines: — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.41: scholars interviewed articulated concepts of network influence that departed significantly from the codified terms of peer review publication and academic hiring hierarchies on which conventional academic influence is judged. — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.42: emergent sense of their own capacity to contribute to this broader conversation was part of the value participants attributed to networks. — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.43: Most participants reported scrolling through tweetstreams and looking at blog links before making decisions about following. A few noted that profiles without links to external sites “for ideas in more than 140 characters” are profiles they generally avoid following. — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.44: I do try to follow folks who have differing views or from differing backgrounds to reduce the echo chamber. I rarely follow anyone who has an egg image and no profile info, though, unless I know them already.” — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.51: “My digital networks provide me with some sense of being someone who can contribute” Identity positions and power relations — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.51: democratic, many identified open networked practices as ways of speaking from their own situated knowledges and contributing in ways their embodied or academic lives may not afford. — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015
p.52: (Networks) allowed me to exist without permission; I was never going to get institutional permission, there was no space there.” — Highlighted Nov 7, 2015