Evaluation of Digital Scholarship

Based on our class discussions, here are the criteria you developed for evaluating digital scholarship:

  1. Is the audience for the work clear? Is the content appropriate for the needs of this audience?
  2. Does the project offer new and innovative scholarship and or use of technology? If so, how does it fit in the larger field of current historical work? Is the scholarship sound by the shared standards of the profession?
  3. Is the project an appropriate use of the digital medium? Does it produce work that could not be done as well in an analogue venue?
  4. Is it widely accessible, both in terms of its usability by persons with disabilities and in its general availability without barriers of cost or membership?
  5. Does the project produce something that can be built upon? Is it a national model? Does it facilitate other work?
  6. **Has the work process and collaboration been documented so that the contributions of project partners are clear and fully credited?
  7. **Has the project gained a user based? Has it achieved its stated goals? If it was a failure, why and what can be learned from it?

With the exception of the final two elements, I will use this criteria to evaluate your digital scholarship prototypes. This is the final project for the course and it makes up 30% of your grade.


Agenda Week 10

  • 7:20 Checking in about scheduling
  • 7:30 Jeri Wieringa on the Journal of Digital Humanities and DHNow
  • 8:00 John and AJ lead discussion on the scholarly communications readings
  • 9:05 Break
  • 9:15 Evaluation criteria discussion/drafting
  • 9:45 Grant proposal Q&A

Agenda for Week 8

7:20 Views from the third year: Erin Hooper Bush and Sasha Hoffman will discuss their graduate work in the History Department and the role that digital tools/thinking has played in that work
8:20 Break
8:30 Discussion of the Reading: What difference does New Media Make?
9:15 Project Proposal check-in
9:30 Prezi demo
9:45 Mid-Semester Survey


Agenda for Week 7

7:20 Q&A from last week
7:30 Discussion of Spatial History
8:45 Break
9:55 Practicum Demos
9:15 Peer Review Guidelines and pointers

Proposal Evaluation Guidelines

Evaluation of the application will take into account both the activities proposed for the start-up project and the long-term project goals.

    Evaluators are asked to apply the following criteria:

  1. The intellectual significance of the project for the humanities, including its potential to enhance research, teaching, and learning in the humanities.
  2. The likelihood that the project will stimulate or facilitate new research of value to scholars and general audiences in the humanities, or use new digital technologies to communicate humanities scholarship to broad audiences.
  3. The quality of innovation in terms of the idea, approach, method, or digital technology,and the appropriateness of the technology employed in the project.
  4. The quality of the conception, definition, organization, and description of the project and the applicant’s clarity of expression.
  5. The feasibility of the plan of work, including whether the start-up activities will significantly contribute to the project’s long-term goals.
  6. The qualifications, expertise, and levels of commitment of the project director and key project staff or contributors.

Annotated Start-Up Grant Guidelines

Here are the guidelines (pdf) with the highlights and strike-throughs from our discussion today.


Week 6 — Agenda and Notes


  • 7:20 — Questions from last week
  • 7:30 — Data Mining and Visualization Discussion
  • 8:45 — Break
  • 8:55 — Innovation and Humanities Significance statements:
    • Statement of Innovation: using the description of innovation found in the Frequently Asked Questions (a link to which is available on the program resource page) as a starting point, briefly explain—in terms comprehensible to a general audience—how and why the project is innovative.
    • Statement of Humanities Significance: briefly explain—in terms comprehensible to a general audience—the humanities significance of the proposed project (that is, what the project will contribute to a particular discipline or field, and what it will contribute to the humanities more generally).
  • 9:15 — Group meetings
  • 9:45 — Preview of spatial work


    Group 1

  • Beatty
  • Hardy
  • Koontz
  • Sleeter
    Group 2

  • Crawford
  • Hurwitz
  • Loev
  • Winter
    Group 3

  • Dalton
  • Johnson
  • McManus
  • Wolney
    Group 4

  • Dorgan
  • Kapadia
  • Patty
  • Wolter
    Group 5

  • Genovese
  • Keough
  • Pettitt

Agenda for Week 4


  • 7:20 Q&A from last week
  • 7:30 Discussion Design Matters: Nate and Jordan
  • 8:15 ODH Grant Proposals: What is innovation?
  • 9:00 Break
  • 9:10 Information Architecture and Site Planning
  • 9:40 HTML Basics



Works in Progress Sites and Discussion Schedule

A few administrative details to get us going for our second class meeting….

First, we have solved the room assignment confusion. We will be meeting in the 4th floor conference room in the Research I building for the rest of the semester. While the conference room might not be as comfortable as meeting at RRCHNM, access to the RGB projector will make our work significantly easier. Should we need to break out in to groups for discussion, we can still use the work spaces in the Center for that.

Second, I have assembled a listing of everyone’s works in progress sites on the Students page of this site. There is a link to each individual site. (If you haven’t sent me a URL via email, please do so.) At the bottom of the page there is also a link to a Google Reader bundle, that combines all the RSS feeds for the course. You can subscribe to this bundle to get everyone’s work without having to individually subscribe to the sites. I have also included the feed for the course site in the bundle. From here on in, all important communication about our work together will happen through this site, not email. So, you are responsible for materials and directions that are provided here.

Finally, I have inserted the discussion leaders into our schedule. Please review the list so that we can make any necessary changes. You should arrange to meet with your discussion partner (either electronically or in person) well in advance of your chosen week so that you can plan for class. After you have a plan, you’re welcome to make an appointment to meet with me to discuss any concerns or questions you have about the material. Also, you’ll notice that toward the end of the semester we have several weeks with only a single person signed up to lead discussion. If those students are comfortable taking that on alone, then we can leave things that way. If they are not, then we can do some reassigning to make teams.

For September 10, Ben and Blyth will get us started in our review of digital history as a field/method. Toward the end of class, I’ll offer a demonstration of some of the tools for the following week’s work and some pointers on getting the most out of your sites.

Feel free to comment below if you have any questions.


Welcome to ClioWired I

This is the course site for ClioWired I, Fall 2012.

The site contains all the important information for the course and should be your primary point of reference for the semester.

Please review the site and note any questions and concerns you might have so that we can discuss them on the first day of class.

Finally, please note the agenda for August 27 on the Schedule. Complete the reading. Do your best to complete the practicum, and review the tools and sites for the week.

If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to email me: sharonmleon at