Abstract
This chapter focuses on the felt perceptions of academics engaged in digital scholarship activities, as forms of academic contributions. In so doing, it explores if and how such practices are redefining both the meaning of academia and what it feels to be (an) academic. The notion of the World Wide Web as a source of information production and dissemination for academic knowledge workers is widely evoked in the research literature, much of which is enthusiastic about technology as a tool for change and emancipation. More concretely, this rhetoric around digital work asserts that the web can, and will, revolutionise academia by placing individuals at the centre of their scholarly activity and consequently transform academic practices and professional identities in significant ways. Yet, a contrasting body of research evidence suggests that the adoption of digital scholarship practices in the neo-liberal university is not without its dilemmas and paradoxes. With digital scholarship practices being both empowering and restrictive, academics are often torn between the increased autonomy the web provides for knowledge creation and the distance it creates from the established norms that typify the academy. Drawing on empirical evidence from a study with academics engaged in digital scholarship activities, this chapter offers reflections on digital scholars’ internal conflicts regarding how they feel, perceive, and negotiate their role in academia. The analysis of the research will be supported by Bourdieu’s logic of practice and Honneth’s recognition theory to explain how academics incorporate and fight the neo-liberal university. In doing so, the research will explore both how academics feel and develop a feeling for the academic game with the purpose of contributing to literature and ideas about academic identities in a neo-liberal context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Adkins, L. (2004). Reflexivity: Freedom or habit of gender? The Sociological Review, 52, 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00531.x.
Anderson, J., & Honneth, A. (2005). Autonomy, vulnerability, recognition, and justice. In J. Christman & J. Anderson (Eds.), Autonomy and the challenges to liberalism: New essays (pp. 127–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610325.008.
Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Psychology Press.
Baer, H. (2016). Redoing feminism: Digital activism, body politics, and neoliberalism. Feminist Media Studies, 16(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2015.1093070.
Beck, P. U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. SAGE.
Bence, V., & Oppenheim, C. (2004). The role of academic journal publications in the UK Research Assessment Exercise. Learned Publishing, 17(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315104322710278.
Bonk, C. J. (2011). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. John Wiley & Sons.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). Acts of resistance: Against the tyranny of the market. New York: New Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Eagleton, T. (1992). Doxa and common life. New Left Review, 191, 111–121.
Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing up: Digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 32(2), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380009601719.
Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18, 1–21.
Bruner, J. (1992). Acts of meaning (New ed.). Harvard University Press.
Burke, P. (1999). Erasmus and the republic of letters. European Review, 7(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798700003690.
Butler, L. (2003). Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154403781776780.
Carpenter, J., Tanner, S., Smith, N., & Goodman, M. (2010). Researchers of tomorrow: Annual report 2010–2011. Retrieved from http://explorationforchange.net/attachments/056_RoT%20Year%201%20report%20final%20100622.pdf
Choo, C. W., Detlor, B., & Turnbull, D. (2000). Web work: Information and seeking knowledge work on the World Wide Web. Springer.
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry: A methodology for studying lived experience. Research Studies in Music Education, 27(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X060270010301.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Costa, C. (2014). The habitus of digital scholars. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21.21274.
Costa, C. (2015a). Outcasts on the inside: Academics reinventing themselves online. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 34(2), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2014.985752.
Costa, C. (2015b). Academics online: Fighting for a new habitus. In M. Murphy & C. Costa (Eds.), Bourdieu, habitus and social research: The art of application (pp. 151–166). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Costa, C. (2016). Double gamers: Academics between fields. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(7), 993–1013. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.982861.
Costa, C., & Murphy, M. (Eds.). (2015). Bourdieu, habitus and social research. London; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from http://www.palgraveconnect.com/doifinder/10.1057/9781137496928.
Costa, C., & Murphy, M. (2016). Doxa, digital scholarship and the academy. In M. Murphy & C. Costa (Eds.), Theory as method in research: On Bourdieu, education and society (pp. 49–62). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Dillner, L. (2010, September 20). Cutting the research budget. BMJ, 341, c5128. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5128.
Goldfinch, S. (2003). Investing in excellence? The performance-based research fund and its implications for political science departments in New Zealand. Political Science, 55(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/003231870305500104.
Goldgar, A., & George, G. (1996). Impolite learning, conduct and community in the republic of letters, 1680–1750. History: Reviews of New Books, 24(4), 176–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/03612759.1996.9952517.
Goodman, D. (1996). The republic of letters: A cultural history of the French enlightenment. Cornell University Press.
Guarria, C. I., & Wang, Z. (2011). The economic crisis and its effect on libraries. New Library World, 112(5/6), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074801111136248.
Hall, R. (2011). Revealing the transformatory moment of learning technology: The place of critical social theory. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/21567069.2011.624996.
Harley, D., Acord, S. K., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S., & King, C. J. (2010). Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines (Final report, p. 728). California: Berkeley University of California. Retrieved from http://www.cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/final-report-assessing-future-landscape-scholarly-communication-exploration-faculty
Haslam, N., & Koval, P. (2010). Possible research area bias in the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) draft journal rankings. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62(2), 112–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530903334489.
Honneth, A. (1995). Struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts (New ed.). Cambridge: Polity.
Honneth, A. (2004). Recognition and justice: Outline of a plural theory of justice. Acta Sociologica, 47(4), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699304048668.
Honneth, A. (2007). Disrespect: The normative foundations of critical theory. John Wiley & Sons.
Huttunen, R., & Murphy, M. (2012). Discourse and recognition as normative grounds for radical pedagogy: Habermasian and Honnethian ethics in the context of education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 31(2), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-012-9285-8.
Jarrett, K. (2008). Interactivity is Evil! A critical investigation of Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(3). Retrieved from http://frodo.lib.uic.edu/ojsjournals/index.php/fm/article/view/2140/1947
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21 century. Program, 21(1), 72. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb046280.
Jiménez-Contreras, E., de Moya Anegón, F., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2003). The evolution of research activity in Spain: The impact of the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI). Research Policy, 32(1), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00008-2.
Kane, C. G., Palmer, A. N., Philips, D., & Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not technology, drives digital transformation (pp. 1–29). MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte University Press. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/digital2015
Kanter, B., Fine, A. H., & Zuckerberg, R. (2010). The networked nonprofit: Connecting with social media to drive change. John Wiley and Sons.
Lather, P. A. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lawler, S. (2002). Narrative in social research. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action (pp. 242–258). London: SAGE.
Levy, M. (2009). WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910931215.
Lovell, T. (2000). Thinking feminism with and against Bourdieu. Feminist Theory, 1(1), 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/14647000022229047.
Lovell, T. (2007). (Mis)recognition, social inequality and social justice: Nancy Fraser and Pierre Bourdieu. Routledge.
Lucas, L. (2006). The research game in academic life. McGraw-Hill International.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. London: Routledge.
McNay, I. (2003). Assessing the assessment: An analysis of the UK Research Assessment Exercise, 2001, and its outcomes, with special reference to research in education. Science and Public Policy, 30(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780704.
Miller, V. (2011). Understanding digital culture. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Murphy, M. (2010). On recognition and respect: Honneth, intersubjectivity and education. Educational Futures, 2(2), 3–11.
Noble, G., & Lupton, D. (1998). Consuming work: Computers, subjectivity and appropriation in the university workplace. The Sociological Review, 46(4), 803–827. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00141.
Northcott, D., & Linacre, S. (2010). Producing spaces for academic discourse: The impact of research assessment exercises and journal quality rankings. Australian Accounting Review, 20(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00079.x.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). Careers and contradictions: Faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences. Research in the Sociology of Work, 10, 109–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-2833(01)80023-6.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc..
Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A., et al. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1926), 4039–4056. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0155.
Riessman, C. (2003). Narrative analysis. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods (Illustrated ed., pp. 708–709). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Sallee, M. W. (2011). The divided university: The impact of budget cuts on faculty in two disciplines. Tertiary Education and Management, 17(4), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.601751.
Santos, A. C. (2014). Academia without walls? Multiple belongings and implications for feminist and LGBT/Queer political engagement. In Y. Taylor (Ed.), The entrepreneurial university: Engaging publics, intersecting impacts (pp. 9–26). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sanz-Menéndez, L. (1995). Research actors and the state: Research evaluation and evaluation of science and technology policies in Spain. Research Evaluation, 5(1), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/rev/5.1.79.
Selwyn, N. (2014). Digital technology and the contemporary university: Degrees of digitization. London; New York: Routledge.
Shayne, J. (Ed.). (2015). Taking risks: Feminist activism and research in the Americas. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Sheridan, V. (2010). A holistic approach to international students, institutional habitus and academic literacies in an Irish third level institution. Higher Education, 62(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9370-2.
Smith, N. (2012). Work as a sphere of norms, paradoxes, and ideologies of recognition. In S. O’Neill & N. H. Smith (Eds.), Recognition theory as social research: Investigating the dynamics of social conflict (1st ed., pp. 87–108). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stella, F. (2014). Engaging with “impact” agendas? Reflections on storytelling as knowledge exchange. In Y. Taylor (Ed.), The entrepreneurial university: Engaging publics, intersecting impacts (2014 ed., pp. 105–124). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. University of Chicago Press.
Talib, A. A. (2001). The continuing behavioural modification of academics since the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise. Higher Education Review, 33(3), 30–46.
The Res-Sisters. (2016). I’m an early career feminist academic: Get me out of here? Encountering and resisting the neoliberal academy. In R. Thwaites & A. Pressland (Eds.), Being an early career feminist academic: Global perspectives, experiences and challenges (1st ed., 2017 ed., pp. 267–284). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Thomas, H. G. (2001). Funding mechanism or quality assessment: Responses to the Research Assessment Exercise in English institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 23(2), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800120088601.
Thompson, J. B. (2005). Books in the digital age: The transformation of academic and higher education publishing in Britain and the United States. Polity.
Thwaites, R., & Pressland, A. (Eds.). (2016). Introduction: Being an early career feminist academic in a changing academy. In Being an early career feminist academic: Global perspectives, experiences and challenges (1st ed., 2017 ed., pp. 1–28). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Topp, L., Barker, B., & Degenhardt, L. (2004). The external validity of results derived from ecstasy users recruited using purposive sampling strategies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 73(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2003.09.001.
Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive (1993–2005), 12(3), 17–29.
Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is changing academic practice (1st ed.). London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
Weller, M. (2014). The battle for open: How openness won and why it doesn’t feel like victory. London: Ubiquity Press.
Wellington, J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2005). Writing for publication: What counts as a ‘high status, eminent academic journal’? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770500037739.
Williams, G. (1998). Misleading, unscientific, and unjust: The United Kingdom’s research assessment exercise. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 316(7137), 1079–1082.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Costa, C. (2018). Digital Scholars: A Feeling for the Academic Game. In: Taylor, Y., Lahad, K. (eds) Feeling Academic in the Neoliberal University. Palgrave Studies in Gender and Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64224-6_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64224-6_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64223-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64224-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)