If an academic can be un-hired, fired, or asked to resign because of a “tweet” or a blog post, can we find a way in the humanities to hire, promote, or offer tenure to academics for the same?

This was one of the more provocative questions posed, and discussed, at a roundtable talk at the most recent THATCamp at the AAR/SBL Annual Meeting in Atlanta, GA two weeks ago.

Overview of #THATCampAARSBL

THATCamp stands for The Humanities And Technology Camp and the AAR/SBL Annual Meeting (professional and academic organizations in the study of religious studies and biblical literature, respectively) played host to the user-generated unconference for religious and biblical studies academics to set the agenda for discussion and work in the area of digital humanities — an area of research and teaching at the intersection of computing and the disciplines of the humanities.

The sessions at the day-long unconference ranged from topics such as using Google engrams in your research to talks of tech in the classroom and podcasting religious studies topics successfully. I was honored to present my own collaborative work on Augmented Reality Criticisms (ARCs) with the TRACE Program at University of Florida.

Overall, the quality of the content was impressive and the event created an interdisciplinary space where scholars from multiple disciplines and perspectives could share in ways that few other venues afford. Cheers to the organizers for putting on such a wonderful unconference and helping us all play a part in advancing the field!

From my perspective, the key conversation from the day was whether, and if so how, to count digital scholarship toward hiring, promoting, and offering tenure in the academic world.

Counting Digital Scholarship Toward Academic Advancement?

While the recognition of the value of digital scholarship is increasing and there is an awareness that the context of humanities research is changing quickly and deeply due to advances in digital technology there are no broadly agreed upon or applied standards for the professional evaluation of digital scholarship.

Certainly, the humanities have seen a spike in digitally innovative practices in the last decade with various scholars doing valuable work in the realm of digital humanities. However, the lack of formal evaluation procedures and attendant academic incentives (you know, like jobs, promotions, and the elusive “beast of tenure”), in the words of the American Historical Association (AHA), “discourages scholars at all levels from engaging with the new capacities. It also prevents the profession, and the departments in which it is grounded, from creatively confronting ways in which […] knowledge increasingly will be created and communicated.”

The THATCamp AAR/SBL conversation floated from the discussion of digital publishing and material/visual culture in existing dissertations and works to the evaluation of digital scholarship in publications such as the Journal of the American Academy of Religion. For me, there were two important points raised, from opposite ends, that need serious consideration as this discussion, hopefully, moves forward:

1) Upholding academic standards. Although it might go without saying, it is vital that we do not “dumb down” the standards to accept, evaluate, and reward digital scholarship in hiring, promoting, and providing tenure for humanities scholars. Digital humanities work must also be given the level of respect that traditional academic scholarship receives and thus needs comparable,a= and stringent, evaluative measures.

Devices welcome at THATCamp AAR/SBL 2015! (PHOTO: THATCamp AAR/SBL)

This means that departments and institutions that choose to evaluate digital humanities projects (from blogs to digital research designs) should subject them to serious academic review and not base assessment on popularity. Often, such appraisals are camouflaged under markers of “impact” in the public sphere.

While I agree that impact is important judging projects based principally on their reach is akin to judging a scholar on whether or not their book sold a certain number of copies. The popularity of a publication or project is not directly indicative of the seriousness, or even the value, of research and we cannot let it guide our evaluation of digital humanities scholarship.

With that said, it should be part of the conversation, because from my view one of the principal benefits of much digital humanist’s work is its broad audience and public value.

2) Defending the democratic digital. Related to the prospect of digital humanities scholarship having an impact in the public and popular spheres, it is also paramount that in judging digital humanities work we should not “copy/paste” the same standards for “traditional” academic scholarship (journal articles, books, etc.). This is vital for two reasons.

First, the scholarship is different. Because digital humanists are sometimes dealing with different media, audiences, and outcomes it is not appropriate to evaluate their work according to the standards for a different set of means, market, or end product. Furthermore, digital humanities work is often more collaborative and interdisciplinary and many P&T committees already struggle with considering such efforts in traditional realms of scholarship.

Second, one of my favorite aspects of my digital humanities work is the degree of play it involves and the democracy of the conversation. Through digital humanities work (blogging, social media, ARCs, digital-based ethnography, etc.) I am able to work in different streams and produce work for variant audiences than I normally would in my traditional academic research. It is liberating to engage the public and have more “fun” in doing work that is not required by my principal investigations. It is already intimidating enough to know that my tweets could end my career when they are not being evaluated as part of my “serious scholarship.” What would happen if they were fair game? That could be both blessing and curse.

For this reason, I would want to see three categories of work and evaluation moving forward: scholarship that is digitally-based and contributes to public discourse without evaluation, scholarship that is digitally-based and affords some form of academic legitimization, and scholarship that is more “traditional” and is appraised accordingly.

Conclusion

As can be deduced from the above, the conversation surrounding the production, and evaluation, of digital scholarship in consideration of academic advancement is still in its early days. Nonetheless, parsing through how to value and evaluate digital humanities research is both a fascinating and increasingly necessary, conversation with attendant cautions and incitements.

The critical element is that your institution and/or department initiate the discussion. You might consider using this blog or the guidelines provided by the AHA as you do so. No matter what, it is vital that more programs and academics start the dialogue, because digital scholarship continues to emerge as a viable and valuable field of research in the humanities as the quality and quantity of presentations at THATCamp AAR/SBL testifies.

When I started blogging I had two readers: my mom and some random dude in Sweden. To say the least, I was a HUGE hit (with that said, my mom did read my posts multiple times, thus amplifying my stats. Thanks mom!). Several years, and multiple blog platforms, later my reach has expanded to include readership across the world and provided opportunities to speak regularly on real-world issues and impact opinions, discourse, and action concerning global Islam, Islam in the U.S., religion and popular culture, and religious literacy in general. It’s been humbling, to say the least.

As an academic — that is, someone who is actively engaged in the academic pursuit of religious studies — I feel that my role as a blogger has never been so important. I also believe that it has never been more pressing for more academics to be engaged with blogging.

There are many reasons and many other academics, involved in religious studies and otherwise, who provide their “why” for blogging as an academic. Dan Cohen, the Executive Director of the Digital Public Library of America wrote, “shaped correctly, a blog can be a perfect place for that extra production of words and ideas.” Russel McCutcheon, Chair of the Religion Department at the University of Alabama, said, “[Blogging] seems to me a logical extension of what I do in all of my professional life: work with others to model a certain way of thinking about human subjects, what they do and what they leave behind after they’re gone — doing that modeling on a public catwalk without a net, where others can be the judges, deciding if they like my style or which struts of their own they’d prefer to use.” He also added that it democratizes the academic discussion of religion and other topics. Finally, I quote Adam T. Miller, a PhD student in the History Religions at the University of Chicago about being a young academic blogger, “I think it’s a good idea to start a blog…to find conversation partners, build a social network, and so forth.” In other words, it might help you get a job. Oh yeah…that.

All of these are relevant and wonderful points when it comes to the why of blogging as an academic. For me I started my blogging career in 2009 with the express purpose of combatting religious illiteracy. Inspired by Stephen Prothero’s Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know — And Doesn’t and goaded by the results of Pew Research Center’s survey of religious knowledge I wrote of my original blog (Ubuntu Spirit), “this blog’s intention is to raise awareness concerning religion, to educate those who desire to understand more about other religions and prayerfully increase dialogue between people of both faith and non-faith in an effort to better understand one another in today’s (post)modern age.”

The game is still the same. I write for the same reasons and I am actively working on inviting, encouraging, and prodding other academics in the field of religious studies (or related fields such as history, anthropology, sociology, cognitive science, psychology, etc.) to start blogging as well.

Recently, I had the opportunity to share the why, what, and how of academic blogging at a Digital Humanities Seminar at the University of Florida. I’m happy to say that three or four new academic blogs are emerging out of this seminar in addition to students and instructors looking to integrate blogging and the use of social media into their classroom experience (thanks in large part to discussion material from Michael J. Altman, kudos sir). The topics will range from religion, embodiment and performance to intentional communities and material religious culture. In other words, they are all going to be très interesting and bloody brilliant! Plus, they are going to contribute valuably to a vital conversation concerning religion and culture.

More still needs to be done. In fact, maybe you need to start your own blog. With increased attention being given to the integration of digital humanities into the academic toolkit, the ubiquitous nature of technology in academic contexts, and the increased relevance of social media to news dissemination and analysis it’s the perfect time to do so.

Are you an academic — employed or otherwise, young or seasoned, tenure-track or adjunct, armchair or in-the-field? Get engaged. Start a blog. Become part of the conversation. Here’s what you can do and how you can get started:

1) Jump on a platform.

Pay or free, individual or group, cross-platform?
Options for platforms: Wordpress, Squarespace, Blogger
Options for groups: Patheos, Huffington Post, Sacred Matters, your own department blog
Whether you go “lone ranger,” start your own group blog, or join up with a strong platform, you need to work on establishing your voice, so…

2) Design your blog & establish your brand.

This is the fun part -- make it yours, but make sure it looks good. Grab someone with some sense of graphic design and get feedback from students. Trust me, you want to look good.

3) Connecting with resources.

Start social media accounts to amplify your voice (Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc.)
But don’t just start accounts, be social on them — engage with other users, build a network, like, share, retweet, and post stuff other than your blog
Get to know things like RSS feeds, mail subscription services, F-reading, SEO tools, and other strange-sounding, but really relevant, interwebs terminology.

4) Start writing!

Get writing. I write everyday. I don’t post everyday, but I write everyday.
Most blog posts should be between 800-1200 words (at most).
Work the three “Ps”: be POPULAR — write for more than four people and try to write on relevant issues, engage with pop culture and the headlines and connect them to broader themes or deeper topics in your area of expertise; be POLITICAL — not right wing or left wing (unless that’s your thing), but take a stance and stick to it, don’t nuance your topic to the point where no point is made; be less PEDANTIC — communicate in common language, while you don’t want to “dumb it down,” don’t be afraid of slang, breaking some “academic writing rules” and referencing Urban Dictionary. For realz.
One last piece of advice for writing — stay away from your core research topics until you’re ready to publish. Why? Because you don’t want to come off undercooked and you absolutely don’t want someone to snipe you’re idea. How rude!
Also, don’t be boring. Please.

So that’s that. The WHY. WHAT. HOW of “blogging like an academic.” I could probably write more, but I want to stay within my own expressed word limit. So peace. I’m out. Go start a blog already.