This is a report from The DO Board following the rebrand survey that was run in 2025. The conclusions and next steps are here.
From June 27 to July 25, 2025, we ran a survey regarding The Digital Orientalist’s name and branding. Internal discussions about the publication’s name have existed since at least the 2019-2020 academic year, and we felt that the best policy would be to share the internal debates within the organization and ask for feedback from our readers. We acknowledged issues with the use of the word “Orientalist,” outlined the key challenges that we face when considering changing our name, and the board’s thoughts on a name change i.e. that rebranding via a SOAS-style model might carry fewer risks and be the easiest rebranding to implement (financially and logistically). Something we didn’t mention, but it is worth noting here, is that this sort of SOAS-style model also reflects current internal practices whereby we often use the acronym “The DO” in internal communications and on social media. The survey was publicised via our social media accounts and mailing list.
The questionnaire received 72 responses. Of these 41 (56.9%) came through direct contact from The DO (email, direct message from a member, being told by a member), 31 (43.1%) came through social media and other sources. In hindsight, it might have been useful to ask for some basic demographic data about respondents, as this may have aided with the interpretation of data. It would have also been useful to ask questions about readership, as several respondents suggested that a rebrand might be a response to pressure from people who don’t currently engage with The DO. There is, of course, a debate to be had about the extent to which we should base our branding on the opinions of people who do not otherwise engage with the publication. With these deficiencies in mind, we plan to update the survey – more on this below.
In response to the question of rebranding; 37 people (51.4%) were in favour of keeping the name, 20 (27.8%) were in favour of adopting the SOAS model (i.e. renaming to The DO), and 12 (16.6%) favoured a complete rebranding. In addition to this, one person (1.4%) was in favour of adopting a SOAS model, but in an ideal world would favour a complete rebrand, one person (1.4%) favoured keeping the name or using the SOAS model, and one person (1.4%) said that they had no strong opinion in any direction.
Fig 1. Chart showing responses to the question of rebranding.
Before exploring the rest of the results, we observed an issue with the way we approached the survey—we ought to have first asked whether people thought the current name was a problem. It seems clear from the results that most people are in favour of keeping the name, but it is also important to ascertain why the 20 people who stated that they were in favour of the SOAS model chose this option. Amongst numerous possibilities we found ourselves asking: Did they answer this way because they are against the current name, but see this as the best way to deal with the challenges that come with a rebrand? Or, did they answer this way because they support the current name, but are cognisant of the debate and understand the need for a compromise? Understanding the reasons that the people in this group answered in the way that they did could radically change the overall results of the survey showing either that there is a very high level of support for branding related to the name The Digital Orientalist or The DO, or that support and criticism of the name is about equal.
We received suggestions from 14 respondents (19.4% of the total respondents) about new potential names, 6 people indicated that they had no ideas for other names, and 2 people reaffirmed their belief that rebranding is necessary whilst also offering comments about the difficulty or lack thereof of rebranding. The below visual shows the different terms that were included in the rebranding suggestions of the above noted 14 respondents. The only term that appeared consistently across all suggestions was the term “digital.” Some respondents noted that choosing a new name was not easy and recorded their own difficulty coming up with suggestions, others suggested new names but also noted that this may introduce different issues. Indeed, we are cognisant of the fact that some potential rebranding choices also lead to the rise of potential issues. For example, one respondent suggested “Digital Asia and Middle East Studies (DAMES),” although this would not encompass our work on Africa and Australasia. Similarly, several people suggested names that might include geographical spaces that we do not cover such as Europe. There is also ongoing debate regarding “Area Studies” terminology and how it risks defining non-European and non-American spaces, histories, and ideas in reference to a European and American centre.
Fig 2. Word cloud of respondent-suggested names.
We also asked whether people would be willing to help with rebranding and if so how. Of the 17 answers, 9 (52.9%) said they were unwilling to help, 6 (35.3%) said they would like to contribute ideas, 1 (5.9%) said they can provide technical expertise, and 1 (5.9%) said they were willing to donate money in order to aid in this process. With only 14 people offering rebranding suggestions, 8 (11.1%) offering assistance, and 19 people (26.4%) requesting ongoing contact about such matters, it is clear to us that the challenges related to rebranding that we feel we are facing are not trivial.
In the “Final Thoughts” section, we received 33 responses (45.8%). Most people used this section to offer either suggestions related to The DO generally or arguments regarding their answer to whether we should keep the name, adopt a SOAS-style model, or rebrand completely. Here we saw that there is a lot of passion both for and against a rebrand. One point that was shared by several respondents (who identified themselves as both for and against rebranding) was that a partial rebrand would variously be ineffective, lack purpose, or fail to address the issue, and that a full rebrand may be preferable. On the other hand, a number of the respondents indicated that they believed that the publication’s name was effective for conveying the broad range of subjects that we cover. Several responses also indicated the Anglophone-centric nature of this debate by recording the continued use of related terms in other languages, and its usage amongst some Asians in English. This point also appeared in other parts of the survey where people suggested that the word “Orientalist” be replaced by “Oriental” instead, which some respondents suggested was a less problematic term, or noted that due to their nationality or ethnicity it simply wasn’t an issue for them. Many thought the name could be addressed through a disclaimer or an explanation of how we are using the term—something that already exists on our website, but which we have found to be a point of contention amongst critics rather than something that has resolved debates regarding the publication’s name. Following the survey, we have made some edits to this explanation and included more information about the organization (discussed in more detail below) in order to increase transparency.
Fig 3. Section from the About Us page addressing the name ‘Digital Orientalist’.
The “Final Thoughts” section also reaffirmed the deficiencies of a survey like this. Some respondents made impassioned arguments for or against a rebrand, before concluding that they would consent to a partial rebrand as a compromise. Opinions on the matter are more complicated than simply being “for” or “against” a rebrand or “for” a particular type of rebrand or lack thereof, but this is not captured in the data. Perhaps a question that ranked potential options may have been more useful. A recurring theme in the responses, and something that we were already trying to address with the creation of the survey, is that there is a lack of transparency about how we are run as an organization. Several responses included information about the management of The DO, reflecting its composition in the late 2010s, which has since evolved.
One misapprehension about The DO is that team members are predominantly white and male. This seems to stem mostly from the fact that L.W.C. van Lit (Founder of The DO) and James Morris (Owner) have a longstanding connection with The DO, have tended to be quite visible on social media as figures related to The DO, and have both presented and published on our work in other forums. They have, therefore, come to be viewed by many as the faces of The DO. We understand why this has shaped perceptions of the organization, and we recognize the need for greater transparency about the publication’s evolution. Since The DO transitioned from a solo blog to a collaborative publication in September 2018, the composition of our team has changed significantly. Each September we publish an article communicating ongoing changes to the team and structure of The DO—our most recent can be found here—and we have now made these more visible on the website by including links to these articles on our About Us page.
Fig 4. The DO team 2025/2026.
From 2013-2018, The DO was the personal blog of L.W.C. van Lit. Starting in September 2018, van Lit decided to establish a small editorial team to broaden the coverage of DH. Since then, we have grown from an initial team of 6 members to a team of 48. In addition to our current team there are 38 former contributors, editors, and social media team members; alongside numerous guest contributors, presenters at our virtual conferences, and participants in interviews. Though demographic metrics such as ethnicity and gender do not factor into our employment policy, we are passionate about trying to increase representation. In recent years, we have radically expanded the subjects that we cover, moving from a publication that focuses predominantly on Islamic studies to a broader coverage of topics relating to Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. This testifies to the growth of our team and its increasingly diverse composition, a direct result of our efforts to expand to include new subject areas, and represent more voices from outside of Europe and North America. Concerns about broadening inclusivity are also behind our decision to host our conferences virtually, which are open to all regardless of location and financial resources.
We remain committed to increasing representation and creating a platform that fosters and showcases the work being carried out in our fields; especially by students and early-career researchers, those based outside of Europe and North America, and/or are usually under-represented in academic projects. We maintain an informal mentoring system to support contributors who lack publishing experience. This year, for example, we mentored a high school student through their first academic publication and conference presentation. Beginning January 2026, we are also trialling two new initiatives: an editor mentorship where individuals interested in editorial work are paired with current Editors for guidance and to gain experience editing academic pieces, and a board shadowing programme that allows prospective board members to observe meetings and operations, gaining experience in our governance while exploring potential board roles.
However, gaps remain. Our team is geographically concentrated—only 9 of 48 members are based outside Europe and North America. We have no representation from sub-Saharan Africa, the Pacific Islands, or Australasia, either in content focus or team membership. These gaps reflect structural barriers in how we recruit. We advertise positions through social media and academic mailing lists, which limits our reach to existing networks that tend to be geographically and demographically homogeneous. Furthermore, the fact that we only accept articles in English also creates limitations. We also operate without external funding and currently cannot offer compensation, which we acknowledge restricts participation to those who can afford to volunteer their time and expertise. We are exploring alternative recruitment strategies and welcome feedback on how and where to advertise going forward.
We believe it is important to keep a system of feedback open, and so we plan to keep a new survey running into the future. If you missed the questionnaire the first time you still have a chance to answer it. We have also created a feedback section on the website so that readers can send thoughts, ideas, comments, and queries directly to The DO at any time. This can be found here. In addition, we have added information to our About Us page regarding how the organization is run and we have also created a page that delves into more detail about our organizational structure and management. In addition to our September article introducing the team and changes to the structure of The DO, we will now be publishing a yearly report at the start of each calendar year detailing ongoing developments relating to the publication.
In conclusion, three main points emerge from the survey at the present time. First, we understand more clearly the need to be transparent about how The DO functions and develops. We believe the practical steps outlined above will help to address this, and we also recognise the need to maintain an ongoing channel of communication with our readers. Keeping the survey open and introducing a new feedback form are intended to facilitate dialogue. Second, we will continue to strive to grow as an organization and publication platform, with particular attention to diversification in our team and content. Finally, we feel the results of the original survey are inconclusive. As such, we believe it is important to take time to reflect carefully and proceed in a way that best serves both our readers and team members. We will continue to assess the situation on the basis of ongoing feedback, and we intend to address related discussions and decisions transparently in our annual reports. In light of the challenges outlined above and our limited resources, our immediate priorities remain increasing transparency and strengthening communication, alongside continued development and diversification.
