Digital Scholarship: An Interpretive Discussion.


flickr photo shared by Maria J Aleman under a Creative Commons ( BY-NC-ND ) license

The term scholar may, for some, conjure up an image of an academic situated within the walls of a university. This scholar may have gained tenure on the basis of past and continuing teaching and research undertaken in the field. Others may expand this view to encompass a studious youth studying at a university or possibly even a school. The emergence of the term digital scholar may add some confusion to one’s image of a scholar. One may be excused for thinking that a digital scholar is simply one who incorporates digital technology into their work, given the ever-expanding digital landscape within which we live. Digital scholarship, however, is much more than this. This paper will explore the changing nature of scholarship within the context of blogging as digital scholarship.

Scholarship has been in a state of transformation due, in part, to the emergence of new digital tools, social behaviours, and cultural expectations associated with participatory technologies (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2011, p. 766). Digital scholarship, as defined by Weller (2011) includes the use of digital, networked and open approaches that demonstrate specialism in a field. Veletsianos & Kimmons (2011, p. 766) refer to Networked Participatory Scholarship in which scholars ‘share, reflect upon, critique, validate and further their scholarship’. Pearce, Weller, Scanlon & Kinsley (2010) argue that simply using technology in their work does not constitute digital scholarship; academics must be open to the particular affordances of new technologies that make possible open, networked collaboration between scholars for the purpose of benefiting not only the academy, but also society generally. Cohen (2007) discusses social scholarship that embodies openness, conversation, collaboration, access, sharing, and transparent revision. Whilst subtle differences may exist, the terms digital scholarship, Networked Participatory Scholarship and social scholarship all point to a shift in thinking about scholarship in a digitally rich society. Digital scholarship is increasingly being used to refer to the use of social software in academia and research (Heap and Minocha, 2012). Whilst the term may have different interpretations, including the curation and collection of digital resources, this discussion will focus more broadly on digital scholarship as it refers to the various scholarly activities that are afforded by contemporary technologies (Weller, 2011). 

Boyer (1990) identified four functions of scholarship: 

• discovery – the creation of new knowledge in a specific area or discipline; 

• integration – the creation of knowledge across disciplines; 

• application – engagement with the wider world outside academia, but still based on the scholar’s disciplinary knowledge and background; 

• teaching – a central element. 

These functions have been somewhat extended by the impact of digital tools, open data and open educational resources which make possible more open ways of working, although this is not inevitable (Pearce et al., 2010). Boyer’s framework now needs to be considered within the context of using blogs and other social, participatory, collaborative and dynamic affordances of the available software (Heap & Minocha, 2012; Pearce et al., 2010; Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2011). 

Whilst Boyer’s focus was on the individual, Borgman (2007) focuses her interpretation of digital scholarship on the work of teams and the capacity of the internet to ‘facilitate distributed, data and information-intensive collaborative research’. The Internet has also fostered a new culture of sharing, one in which content is freely contributed and distributed with few restrictions or costs (Seely Brown, 2008). 

The concept of digital scholarship can be explored through the practice of blogging. In the past, academic writing consisted of peer-reviewed, published communications that were, and possibly still are, staples of academic scholarship (Hank, 2013). The publishing of a peer-reviewed journal is traditionally the most respected means of contributing to a body of knowledge (Powell, Jacob & Chapman, 2012). What constitutes valid academic writing is now being challenged as blogging, along with other Web 2.0 tools, enter the academic landscape. The affordances of these tools for collaboration, interactivity, connectivity and social rapport, content creation and aggregation of knowledge and content also contribute to, and stimulate, the development of a participatory culture (Kirkup, 2010). As blogging becomes more popular and widely understood, one must now ask what place, if any, it should hold in scholarship. 

Despite some criticism of blogging as a valid form of scholarly writing, it is gaining more acceptance as a scholarly practice (Kirkup, 2010) as more scholars become known for their blogging that, in turn, develops their professional reputation. At the same time, blogging can enhance the identity of their associated organisation. Kirkup (2010) found that almost all of the bloggers in his study continued to use traditional print publication channels as well as other online media. 

Academic blogging is becoming a particular form of academic writing, a genre through which academics ‘engage in knowledge production and become public intellectuals’ (Kirkup, 2010, p. 83). Maitzen (2012) believes that blogging should be recognised for its contribution to the intellectual and institutional goals of universities but cautions that it will not suit every academic or academic purpose. Weller (2011) raises questions that may be asked in relation to blogging that are true for all digital scholarship. These questions explore scholarship in terms of centrality to practice, applicability across domains and function, quality, tenure, impact on academic communities, replacement or complement to existing channels and whether or not bloggers should separate their blogging from formal institutional systems. 

Returning to Weller’s (2011) suggestion that digital scholarship includes the use of digital, networked and open approaches, one can see how blogging addresses these three critical components. Blogs, by nature, are digital and networked and have the capacity for openness. As a digital tool, inclusion of other digital media, such as video, image and sound can be incorporated into blogs to enhance or, at times, replace print. Whilst it is possible to keep a blog private or limit exposure, it is the capacity for openness to the public that is critical for blogging to reach its potential as a practice of digital scholarship. Greenhow, Robelia & Hughes (2009) state that the use of blogging to expand professional connections and build networks may transform their responsibilities relating to teaching, research and service whilst enhancing their scholarly practice. Whilst it may not be appropriate to state that participatory technologies such as blogs are catalysts for changing scholarly norms, a state of change is reflected in the growing practice of academic blogging (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2011). Regardless of social or institutional structures and the 20th century paradigms of scholarship, some recognise how such tools have the power to support, amplify, or transform their scholarship in positive ways (Katz, 2010). Maitzen (2012) refers to blogging as a practice where all parts of intellectual life converge and coexist – reading, writing, teaching and research. 

Powell et al. (2011) and Hank (2013) agree that blogging can support the traditional goals of higher education institutions by serving as tools for teaching, learning, research and outreach. Mewburn & Thomson (2013) provide the example of some UK research grant applications which now require identification of the expected impact on audiences other than academics and maintain that blog advocacy sits neatly with official discourses of appropriate academic behaviour and performance. Advantages identified in the use of blogging include the rapid sharing of research methods, results and conclusions in an open, transparent manner (Powell et al., 2011) where information and ideas are instantly available to peers and the broader community and real time interaction and collaboration is possible. Immediacy is restored to scholarly discussion and logistical roadblocks are removed, opening up exchange of ideas and the stimulation for refining, reconsidering or expanding ideas (Maitzen, 2012). Further, Maitzen posits that quality of content is not determined by the form or platform. 

The process of peer review is well established in academia and some may argue that this element is absent from blogging. Hank (2013) challenges the thinking of peer reviewers and their role as gatekeepers by suggesting that, though not beholden to the same parameters or rigour of peer reviewed journals, blogging can be seen to be subject to critical review from a wider gate, though reasonably less expert. It is not suggested that blogging will necessarily replace the more formal practice of journal production at this point in time; it may, however, be seen as an important complement to the practice. Kirkup (2010) sees the possibility for engagement in critical ideas that may not have been accepted in a peer reviewed publication but still find a place in scholarly discourse where one may engage a much wider audience as well as those with common interests. Academics may need to adjust their writing style somewhat when writing for a wider audience. Writing less obscurely may be beneficial for promoting scholarly discussion on a global scale (Mewburn & Thomson, 2013). Blogging can certainly complement and contribute to traditional forms of scholarly publication. Powell et al. (2010) stress that referencing is critical if blogging is to become an acceptable form of scholarship accessed by government, organisations, industry and consumers. Rights management is also an important consideration for the digital scholar to ensure that legitimation and dissemination functions are not impeded (Borgman, 2007). 

An area of concern for academics regarding blogging is the conservatism regarding digital scholarship being recognised towards tenure, promotion and funding (Weller, 2011). Whilst blogging may complicate the notion of publication, Borgman (2007) states that publication occurs when a document is made public with the intention it is read by others. It is suggested that if blogging is considered for promotion and tenure decisions, it is the category of service rather than scholarship to which the practice is associated (Borgman, 2007; Hendricks, 2009). Hank (2013) agrees that blogging may not be seen as an opportunity for promotion but it contributes to scholars’ personal sense of other intrinsic rewards and elementary recognition, including greater visibility as a scholar, as well as institutional recognition, through invitations to publish, present and provide service and collaborate. 

When discussing digital scholarship, is it necessary to distinguish between an academic blog and a blog written by an academic? Mewburn & Thomson (2013) suggest that for a blog to be academic, the writer must declare affiliation with a recognisable institution, professional purpose and be connected to other academic blogs in some way. Weller (2011) however, states that a well-respected digital scholar need not be recognised as an academic nor affiliated with an institution, thus opening up scholarship to a wider group. Likewise, a digital scholar does not include just anyone who writes online. Blogs range from personal and ephemeral to theoretical and substantial, so it depends on how the scholar defines blogs themselves and how they elect to incorporate it within their own professional and academic life that may determine the place of their blog in scholarship (Hank, 2013). 

Blogging is an emerging academic practice that can promote the intellectual identity of a professional academic and their engagement as contemporary “public intellectuals” (Kirkup, 2010). For some, however, this practice may not be one that they are drawn to or feel comfortable with. It is important, however, for academics to model lifelong learning by identifying effective uses of technology for educative purposes and for sharing scholarship with a wider audience (Greenhow et al., 2009, p.254). The development of the necessary skills and dispositions for digital scholarship may begin in K-12 education and continue into post secondary education. Writing for an online audience through the use of blogging can support learning (Downes, 2004), academic identity creation (Kirkup, 2010) and public writing and presentation skills (Heap & Minocha, 2012). Reflective writing in response to learning experiences, conducting conversations outside of the physical classroom and aggregating notes, references and resources relevant to study are ways in which students of any age can begin to develop as bloggers whilst building their online identities, gaining more experience writing online for an audience. As students develop their skills and use of technology in education, they bring new skill sets and attitudes to post secondary education; reading and reflecting online, as well as engaging a community, brings learning to life (Downes, 2004). For this to be authentic, students must have purpose for their writing and be unconstrained in sharing to a wider audience beyond the classroom. 

A new approach to learning using blogs and other Web 2.0 tools can provide students with access to rich, often virtual, learning communities and promote passion-based learning, motivating them to become members of a particular community of practice or ‘just wanting to learn about, make, or perform something’. (Seely Brown, 2008). Learners are now using the web in ways that require further exploration to understand current and potential implications for education (Greenhow et al., 2009). 

flickr photo by tellatic shared under a Creative Commons (BY) license

It is evident that technology is creating new environments for learning which ‘changes the relationship between knowledge and knowledge provider’ (Powell et al., 2012, p. 275). The emergence of digital scholarship has opened up academia to new, more open ways of working that makes collaboration beyond the academy a valuable addition to the nature of scholarship. Those who embrace the open values, ideology, potential and often challenges of technologies available through Web 2.0 understand the benefits to the academy and society (Weller, 2011). Whilst embracing the use of various technologies, such as blogs, may not yet serve the same function (or provide the same rigour) as the peer reviewed journals held in such high esteem by the academy, they do represent another way for sharing ideas, methods and research findings to a wider audience (Powell et al., 2012) and can have a significant role in all four types of scholarship identified by Boyer (1990). Cloud computing, social operating systems and the vast potential of virtual networks, will increasingly influence both education and research and will likely intensify the participatory and creative practices associated with digital scholarship (Greenhow et al., 2009). Digital scholarship is becoming an increasingly significant aspect of scholarship and may, in the future, be so integrated within scholarship that the word digital no longer becomes necessary to describe contemporary scholarly practice. 



Borgman, C. (2007). Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities for the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 

Cohen, L. (2007). Social scholarship on the rise. Blog entry posted to Library 2.0: an academic’s perspective. Retrieved Downes, S. (2004). Educational Blogging. Retrieved 

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09336671 

Hank, C. (2013) Communications in Blogademia: An Assessment of Scholar Blogs’ Attributes and Functions New Review of Information Networking, 18, 51–69, 2013 DOI: 10.1080/13614576.2013.802179 

Heap, T., & Minocha, S. (2012). An empirically grounded framework to guide blogging for digital scholarship. Research In Learning Technology. doi: 

Hendricks, A. 2010). Bloggership, or is publishing a blog scholarship? A survey of academic librarians. Library Hi Tech, 28(3), 470-477. 

Katz, R. (2008) The tower and the cloud: Higher education in the age of cloud computing. Boulder: EDUCAUSE 2008 eBook 

Kirkup, G. (2010) Academic blogging: academic practice and academic identity. London Review of Education, 8(1), 75–84 DOI: 10.1080/14748460903557803 

Maitzen, R. (2012). Scholarship 2.0: Blogging and/as Academic Practice. Journal Of Victorian Culture (Routledge), 17(3), 348-354. 

Mewburn, I & Thomson, P (2013). Why do academics blog? An analysis of audiences, purposes and challenges. Studies in Higher Education, 38(8), 1105-1119. DOI:10.1080/03075079.2013.835624 

Pearce, N., Weller, M., Scanlon, E., & Kinsley, S. (2010). Digital scholarship considered: how new technologies could transform academic work in education. In Education,16(1). 

Powell, D., Jacob, C., & Chapman, B. (2012). Using Blogs and New Media in Academic Practice: Potential Roles in Research, Teaching, Learning, and Extension. Innovative Higher Education, 37(4), 271-282. doi:10.1007/s10755-011-9207-7 

Seely Brown, J. (2008). Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause review, 43(1), 16-20. Retrieved from 

Veletsianos, G. & Kimmons, R. (2012). Networked Participatory Scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2) 766–774. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.001 

Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. A&C Black. Retreived

Colloquium with Tim Klapdor

I am writing this some time after the colloquium with Time Klapdor – Online Learning Technology Leader, Charles Sturt University.

He spoke about several aspects of the online world but what I found of particular interest was the concept of control. I wonder how many of us think about control when we post online? I must admit that I rarely do unless a teacher or parent starts questioning who owns the information that is being stored in Google’s cloud  when using Google Apps for Education. The standard answer is that we own it – but do we really? Regardless of the answer to this question, of more concern may be “who is in control?” Tim began our session by suggesting that we are NOT in control. It is hard to find a person in my circles who does not have a presence on Facebook. What I post there is not important apart from photos that may be put there for safekeeping whilst travelling. The question begs – WHY does Facebook let us use the service and upload so much data for free? Do we ever really consider what the product actually is? It is, in fact, US. Facebook uses what they find out about us to sell to us. We need to go to quite a bit of trouble to stay in control of that (and many people probably don’t bother). And this happens everywhere we are online.

It is the algorithms working behind the scenes that decide what we see, for example, when we conduct a Google search. Once upon a time we could ask students to search using a particular keyword and then ask them to go to the third result – now that would be different for individual students because of the algorithms working to ensure the results produced ‘match’ the person. Another example of this is when I was searching for accommodation for a recent European holiday. I had selected and finally booked a few upmarket hotels and searched TripAdvisor for more reviews. Then, I found it almost impossible to search for cheaper accommodation because the algorithms had decided that I only wanted to see expensive hotels. I needed to go ‘incognito’ to find what I was after. I was NOT in control.

One of the points Tim was making was the fact that these online business who control our data present us in a certain way because we are not in control. If we were to have our own domain, this would not be the case. We would be in control of our data.

A major aspect of our online world is the preservation of what exists there – we cannot be guaranteed of our data preservation. Typically, our LMS in educational institutions are “emptied” when we are no longer enrolled. Of what value, then, is our online data if it can be so disposable? As Tim mentioned, what would happen if Facebook worked like our uni LMS, Blackboard?

Every 15 weeks Facebook would delete all your photos and status updates and unfriend all your friends! 


This reminded me of an earlier subject – INF530: Concepts and Practices for a Digital Age – where we discussed this issue and I learned of the International Internet Preservation Consortium that works to archive some of what’s on the web for the benefit of future generations. What to archive is simply an educated guess in many instances but it is heartening to know that knowledge and information online is being preserved and made accessible for us now and into the future. Without this we would have a significant gap in our knowledge and social history.




This is a real issue for teachers working with GAFE – they must share all of their work with a personal account prior to leaving employment because their account is closed when they leave. Imagine all of the data collected over just a small period of time in a teacher’s life. This has implications not just for the teacher but for the employer as well. This is why it is important for institutions like schools to have structures and processes in place to ensure content is not lost. It is difficult for many teachers to understand that the content they create in the course of their work does actually belong to the employer and should be stored and available after a teacher has ceased employment.

Tim discussed a way of dealing with the various issues of ownership, control and preservation – create alternatives to the use of other people’s containers for storing our content. Individuals can use a variety of tools available to move away from dependence on others’ networks. Node ware combines software and hardware that allows you to host and manage your own network.

The internet internet relies on connections so personally owned, negotiated connections will lead to more distributed, cooperative, autonomous networks outside of existing systems that leave us in a position of little , if any, control.