<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
    <rss version="2.0">
      <channel xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
        <title>Frontiers in Digital Humanities | Digital Learning Innovations section | New and Recent Articles</title>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/digital-humanities/sections/digital-learning-innovations</link>
        <description>RSS Feed for Digital Learning Innovations section in the Frontiers in Digital Humanities journal | New and Recent Articles</description>
        <language>en-us</language>
        <generator>Frontiers Feed Generator,version:1</generator>
        <pubDate>2026-05-14T21:53:39.927+00:00</pubDate>
        <ttl>60</ttl>
        <item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdigh.2019.00005</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdigh.2019.00005</link>
        <title><![CDATA[From Social Networks to Publishing Platforms: A Review of the History and Scholarship of Academic Social Network Sites]]></title>
        <pubdate>2019-03-12T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Review</category>
        <author>Katy Jordan</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Social network sites enable people to easily connect to and communicate with others. Following the success of generic platforms such as Facebook, a variety of online services launched during the mid 2000s in order to bring the benefits of online social networking to an academic audience. However, it is not clear whether these academic social network sites (ASNS) are primarily aligned with social networking or alternative publishing, and functionalities continue to change. Now 10 years since the launch of the three main platforms which currently lead the market (Academia.edu, ResearchGate, and Mendeley), it is timely to review how and why ASNS are used. This paper discusses the history and definition of ASNS, before providing a comprehensive review of the empirical research related to ASNS to-date. Five main themes within the research literature are identified, including: the relationship of the platforms to Open Access publishing; metrics; interactions with others through the platforms; platform demographics and social structure; and user perspectives. Discussing the themes in the research both provides academics with a greater understanding of what ASNS can do and their limitations, and identifies gaps in the literature which would be valuable to explore in future research.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdigh.2018.00022</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdigh.2018.00022</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Building and Sustaining Diverse Functioning Networks Using Social Media and Digital Platforms to Improve Diversity and Inclusivity]]></title>
        <pubdate>2018-09-11T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Perspective</category>
        <author>Beronda L. Montgomery</author>
        <description><![CDATA[There has long been a focus on building inclusion and diversity in the sciences through a range of efforts intended to increase representation and access. Despite expansive efforts supported by higher education institutions, funding agencies and others, a need persists to support broad participation and success. Digital platforms, including blogs, and social media such as Twitter™, offer emergent paths for scientists to proactively build supportive communities, even where structural diversity or numerical representation of diverse groups remains low. Use of these platforms can range from community building, to proactive mentoring, and advocacy, as well as more customary uses for supporting scholarly success of diverse individuals, including dissemination and accessible discussions of research findings. I discuss specific uses of social-media digital platforms for building and cultivating communities of underrepresented scholars and facilitating engagement around issues of broad concern to groups underrepresented in science and higher education. These uses include mentoring and support to promote equity, inclusion and diversity, promoting self-definition and personal agency, community building, and advocacy. I draw on published literature about using social media and digital platforms in higher education to build and cultivate “social networks” for connecting widely distributed individuals from underrepresented backgrounds to cultivate communities of interest, support and practice, including a focus on mentoring, sponsorship, and advocacy. I highlight the power of Twitter™ and social media platforms to build and cultivate connections of individuals underrepresented in science and the academy and to offer meaningful means for mitigating local deficits related to low structural diversity and inequity.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdigh.2018.00003</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdigh.2018.00003</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Digital Scholarship: Identity, Interdisciplinarity, and Openness]]></title>
        <pubdate>2018-04-11T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Perspective</category>
        <author>Eileen Scanlon</author>
        <description><![CDATA[This paper considers the impact of changes in the landscape of scholarly communication on the activities of academics. These changes are considered through the lens of the practices examined by educational technology academics at the Open University who have conducted a number of related research projects under the theme of digital scholarship. This paper reviews the changes to the definition of scholarship and interviews conducted on academic practices conducted as Phase 1 of these activities [see also Scanlon (2013)]. It then comments on the findings of Phase 2 of the project which investigated the use of social media and the usefulness and visualization of such activities. The findings are considered in the light of trends toward working practices involving interdisciplinarity and openness.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdigh.2017.00015</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdigh.2017.00015</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Concepts and Challenges in Digital Scholarship]]></title>
        <pubdate>2017-07-27T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Specialty Grand Challenge</category>
        <author>Eileen Scanlon</author>
        <description></description>
      </item>
      </channel>
    </rss>