I think that the category of "peer-reviewed scholarship" is broad enough at many places to include things like guest posts at someone else's blog, particularly if it gets a lot of traffic; and having an article linked in one of the various "Carnivals" that happen around the web, especially if the Carnival is high-traffic and selective about the articles it references. In my mind those are on roughly the same level as contributed or invited talks at a minor to mid-major professional conference.

I've been on my college's P&T committee for four years now and I can't say I've seen anybody put something like this in her/his tenure portfolio, but I also would not look unfavorably on it if it did happen. (I certainly include things like that in my CV.)

I actually did list my blog under scholarship on my CV when I went up for tenure, though I didn't call overly much attention to it; being in a digital media position, I have a category on my CV called something like "multimedia production," and the blog went in there. My personal feeling is that it's important for those of us who have that latitude to insist that the public face of our research -- the one that will, frankly, get more readers than the stuff that gets printed in journals -- be taken seriously as part of our production. As Dave Parry commented on my book manuscript, public intellectual work shouldn't be seen as some kind of exception -- the knowledge that we create publicly has a far greater potential impact. And if we don't take it seriously, who will?

Kathleen, I think you're right that we need insist that the public face of our research be taken seriously. I think it's especially important for those of us who are not in positions that explicitly incorporate new media. My research is primarily about the intersections of gender and sexuality studies with medical humanities, and I wanted to show how the blog played a role for me, someone who was hired for a job where technology was not part of the description. The more of us who make clear and reasoned arguments about how these technologies enhance our work, no matter what kind of job in which we are hired, the greater chance that such technologies will be taken seriously for all of us.

As one example, here's an older post from Miriam Jones @ Scribbling Woman:

What I Told the Tenure Committee

I think it is important to keep explaining what academic blogging can look like to people who hear "blog" and think "LOLCats and Trivial Anecdotes About My Life"--or "Political Punditry," I guess. But I find it is (surprisingly?) difficult to get people even to click on links and take a look around.

I'm at the beginning of an academic career, so as a grad student I don't have to worry about tenure at all yet...which is probably why I feel free to blog to my heart's content. In fact, I recently published a post about this very issue, wherein I argued that blogging is playing an increasingly valuable role in making circulating interesting but untested ideas. This makes blogs particularly important for young academics (like me!). I'd love for you to take a look and comment! http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com/2009/09/blogging-is-not-serious-writing-oh-re.html

I talked about my blog in my tenure materials as well. I didn't list it under scholarship, though, preferring to think of it more in terms of performance/public writing. Here's the link to the post that includes a copy/paste from my tenure doc:

http://www.collinvsblog.net/2006/08/well-see-how-this-flies.html

cgb

Thanks for the comments, everyone! This is exactly what I hoped would happen, actual links and presentations of the things we actually said to tenure committees. One of the things I should have said in the post itself is that each of us needs to reflects on our own institutions first and foremost when it comes to how we shape our presentation of blogging. My school emphasizes the peer-review process in defining scholarship, so my blog could not count as scholarship. At other places with other definitions, it could count. At even other places, it perhaps should not be mentioned. I remember a friend at a large Research I school who was told to mention nothing in her scholarship section unless it appeared in an academic journal or from a university press. She put her blog in the service section and made a compelling argument about how it fit the goals of service as defined at her institution. Context matters. And we will benefit from exploring the various ways it matters.

I want to second Nels' recommendation about gauging the T&P committees at your particular institute. We are still in the phase that requires digital humanists and the like to justify things digital (whether we like this or not). It's falls under the guise of educating the profession. Those graduate students coming up and walking into jobs over the next few years will certainly still be doing this, but please speak with your colleagues first before jumping into it. It's not all pretty out there for the digital humanities scholar.

I've served as the chair of our campus P&T committee for 2 years and served for years before that on our college committee, at a research university. I have cautioned colleagues in the past to be very careful how they incorporate blogs and microblogging into their P&T applications. The emphasis at my institution is on peer-reviewed research. I do a limited amount of blogging but am very active on Twitter---and clearly there are some individuals who have built solid reputations based on the quality of their participation in social media networks. Still, untenured folks at my institution would need to be very careful how they presented these types of activities---especially if their more traditional research activities could be considered borderline or weak. They could very easily open themselves up to the accusation that they have "mismanaged" their time by diverting time and energy away from peer-reviewed scholarship and on activities such as blogging.

Good comments! I agree with Collin and Deborah - if you do mention your blogging and social media work, and it doesn't mesh in obvious ways with your research writing, then don't list that work as scholarly writing.

I too highlighted my blog and other digital publishing my tenure self-evaluation, which I posted to my blog (to complete the meta-loop). And I know that at least two of my external reviewers mentioned it in their letters.

Jason, that reminds me that two of my external reviewers (out of three) mentioned my blog, too. One I knew was a reader, but I had no idea the other one even knew about it, and it's not listed on my CV and wasn't mentioned to them anywhere in the materials they received. That does add another wrinkle to this. If we don't talk about it, but our external reviewers do, is there a disconnect that will throw P&T committees off?

My university asks for reporting in the areas of "research," "teaching," and "service." I list my blog under "service," alongside of media appearances and such.

I am in the unusual position of working as an untenured, non-tenure track faculty in Extension. Despite that status, I have many of the same requirements as tenure track faculty and a somewhat confusing mix of supervisory departments (an Extension county office, an on-campus academic home, and a program area--Sea Grant). I consciously started my blog in 2007 as a part of my work and have found it to be hugely useful for pulling together a community of water and watershed-related colleagues with whom I collaborate, and as a piece of outreach to public and professional communities. I consider my blog to be a form of asynchronous "engagement" in the sense of helping the university stay relevant and "engaged" with its public (the rural coastal communities that I call home). I can use the blog too to highlight areas where we academics and those in Extension in particular are missing the mark (i.e. to be self-critical). At some point, I may convert my position to be tenure track. I fully intend to use the blog (and other new or social media efforts) in the category of "engagement" on my vita. I would encourage others in more traditional academic positions to consider this idea too as most universities will place increasing emphasis on being more publicly engaged in a time of shortfalls as well as soul searching for societal relevancy. The Kellogg Commission report on the future of state and land grant universities has a thorough introduction to the concept of "engagement" http://tinyurl.com/yalwzvp