Credit, recognition, attribution, and risk aversion in Digital Humanities scholarship

One of the notions that I’ve been mulling over after last weekend’s THATCamp Virginia 2012 is how credit, recognition, and attribution for work on digital humanities projects are integrated into the work itself. (I’ve tossed in a few bon mots from #THATCampVA colleagues into a very rough Storify thread.) There is clearly a broader discussion about these ideas already–with several examples of statements of principles and practices–but I’ve been wondering to what extent these principles/practices are infused into project life-cycles. Moreover, some of these practices might force some of the more vulnerable segments of digital humanities scholars (e.g., graduate students) to be ‘iconoclastic’ rather than ‘traditionalist’ (as Kuhn might argue), which could have implications for how hiring, promotion, tenure, etc. are approached. I would like to propose a session where we talk about these challenges and try to make some progress in our/my thinking about how to recognize and assess contributions to multi-scholar digital humanities projects.