Comments on: ARL/Ithaka Report on Scholarly Communication http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/11/11/ithaka-report/ What's Hot & What's Cooking in Scholarly Publishing - from the Society for Scholarly Publishing Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:37:28 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: What Should A First Year Legal Research Course Look Like or A Legal Research Primer for Attorneys of Any Experience « Advocate’s Studio http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/11/11/ithaka-report/#comment-2364 What Should A First Year Legal Research Course Look Like or A Legal Research Primer for Attorneys of Any Experience « Advocate’s Studio Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:16:36 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.wordpress.com/?p=1811#comment-2364 [...] ARL/Ithaka Report on Scholarly Communication (scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org) [...] [...] ARL/Ithaka Report on Scholarly Communication (scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org) [...]

]]> By: Philip Davis http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/11/11/ithaka-report/#comment-1944 Philip Davis Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:05:14 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.wordpress.com/?p=1811#comment-1944 One could have defined a <i>scholarly resource</i> as simply those resources used by scholars. This would be a functional identity approach. Another method would be to allow communities of scholars to define what scholarly resources mean to them. This would be a consensus-based approach. But applying definitions at the outset and filtering the incoming data based on the opinions of the researchers seems to miss what the study attempted to address, which is to survey the innovative resources used in scholarship. Considering the immense size of this study, in hindsight, this may be considered a missed opportunity. One could have defined a scholarly resource as simply those resources used by scholars. This would be a functional identity approach.

Another method would be to allow communities of scholars to define what scholarly resources mean to them. This would be a consensus-based approach.

But applying definitions at the outset and filtering the incoming data based on the opinions of the researchers seems to miss what the study attempted to address, which is to survey the innovative resources used in scholarship.

Considering the immense size of this study, in hindsight, this may be considered a missed opportunity.

]]> By: Diane Harley http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/11/11/ithaka-report/#comment-1943 Diane Harley Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:01:34 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.wordpress.com/?p=1811#comment-1943 You say: "Instead of pre-defining what scholarship is for the scholars, it would have been a better learning experience to have the faculty define what scholarship is for them." This is what we have been doing for some time at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at UC Berkeley. With generous funding from the Mellon and Hewlett Foundations. And also generously cited by Ithaka and ARL. See for example publications at: The Future of Scholarly Communication http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/scholarlycommunication/index.htm Digital Resource Study http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/digitalresourcestudy/index.htm Best, Diane You say: “Instead of pre-defining what scholarship is for the scholars, it would have been a better learning experience to have the faculty define what scholarship is for them.”

This is what we have been doing for some time at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at UC Berkeley. With generous funding from the Mellon and Hewlett Foundations. And also generously cited by Ithaka and ARL.

See for example publications at:

The Future of Scholarly Communication
http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/scholarlycommunication/index.htm

Digital Resource Study
http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/digitalresourcestudy/index.htm

Best,
Diane

]]>