This wiki space contains archival documentation of Project Bamboo, April 2008 - March 2013.
All directions important, but synergy about training/institutional support/social networking - interdependent, resonated with faculty members
5-7 were another group
advocacy = "why?"
Is advocacy the right term? What about the people backstage who have different kind of objectives?
Education/training should also be outreach/communication - a component of everything
Fundamental aspect: has to be easy, immediately recognizable for serving self-interest (getting stuff done), easy to see examples of how to do things well that other people have done well
Had very IT-heavy table (one faculty member in computer science)
Clustering in these topics: 5-7 tied together in a technical "what will it produce, how will it behave, etc"
Education and training & institutional partnerships and support - things we struggle with at our own institutions to make sure IT offerings are usable by the faculty
Bamboo to provide resources for building bridges to the faculty
Support for Bamboo in bringing together and recognizing different communities; for any IT project or revolution to research, need all the players at the table
All experienced an "a-ha" moment when you bring together people who'd never talked before
Marketability and advocacy - not enough to provide education/training, but there needs to be some vision
"This is what's possible"
Not much time to discuss second question - what are the new technologies elsewhere?
How do we keep a gauge and keep awareness up on what's being done? - this might fit into 6 and 7
Need to keep a finger on that pulse
Sustainability, cost and scale - how is it economically viable to permanently store data on a server for anyone anywhere?
Work around on what models of funding there are
Started out with services framework - this will inform/constrain all other activities
All share different views of what this is
Scholarly workflow should be enhanced by technology
Some ambiguity we have to wrestle with re: terms - have to be very careful about that
"Framework for co-production of value" - what's the deal with that?
Concern about standards and specifications - seems a little narrow
Want groups acting independently to have a wide base of information and guidelines, so they don't have to make so many decisions
Best practices, case studies, etc.
Broad perspective for developing advisory documentation
Concern for sharing and collaboration - don't want to duplicate work
Shouldn't be just part of social networking group; should be a cross-cutting concern
Will there be an on-going working group process?
Should Bamboo vanish or should it persist and be a thing in itself?
What should the follow-on results look like?
We couldn't answer it, but we guessed how long it'd take (Bamboo catalytic activity would need to last 5-10 years, 21 years, etc.)
Language of directions is still too IT-staffy and not humanist enough
Need a translation process to take it from that
Critical mass among IT folks, still need more critical mass among humanists
Even question of "services" - is that "practices"? "knowledge-enabling support"? Metaphors from "knowledge economy"?
Technology only as a tool we have mastery over?
Grid infrastructure? Repositories? Archives?
Importance of language
"Advocacy" - shifted from positive term to pejorative term?
Not only content side, but also intellectual payoff for humanists - intellectual excitement (how do I pitch this to my English colleagues) has to be there
Sciences embrace this technology, work collaboratively; Humanists still tend to be alone individuals
Production still seems to be "individual genius", originality
Technologies are the methodologies for IT folks; humanists don't quite see that- still working under book mode
Language is critical - we have to be careful how we're presenting the conversation to people listening outside
"Services framework" - very IT-ish; need to adopt a more neutral language
Relationship between various things, disagreement in the end
These categories as they're structured really cut across one another
A matrix might be better; advocacy has to pay attention "downstream"
Hard to keep conversations localized
Cultural identity of academics working in various disciplines
Is Bamboo trying to transform practice or is it trying to meet practitioner where they are? - everything hinders on that
If it's the latter, a cultural anthropologist needs to look at how we do our research
If it's the former, we need to be clear what/how we're trying to change
Tension between future technologies and how you create a structure to enable things you can't envision
"Social networking" might be too limited; need to look at social networks
"social networking" suggests a specific tool, whereas we think different relationships each group will have with institutions will be heterogeneous
Advocacy can be more cross-institutional than Development
Different incentives to apply to keep groups productive
A little more about pedagogy
Standards vs. services
Standards so thousands of services can bloom, or services so scholars can do what they want to do?
Services require software development - thousands of unique pieces of software, do we want to do a great project to integrate them?
Do humanists need a single cyber-place to go to find everyone else?
Divide between scholars and IT - could be crucial in weaving directions over
Do humanists want services that are transparent, or where they're working with IT to develop new tools that don't exist?
Why aren't we integrating findings from workshop 1 about scholarly practices more explicitly today?
Importance of having a good reward structure; if it's "social networking", my department won't give me credit for helping build a version of Facebook
There's still a deep-seated problem of resistance to digital humanities in humanities
This is tied up with education and training, but who will provide the training?
Need to be moving away from concept of neutrality - advocate for thinking about book as interface
Concept of standards; instead of establishing standards, establish self-consciousness about standards
Create a system of peer review for standards and services
Our conversation dealt with small schools that can't undertake vast infrastructure initiatives on their own
Talking about "stuff" - primary collections that might otherwise be considered unpublishable
Access to/interface with commercial entities - how do we add value to their products?
Liberal arts model as key to foreground for what we want to achieve and how
Echo comment earlier about undergraduates - don't want this to become driven by grad student research model
General point of debate in thinking about list of directions as a list of priority - should Advocacy or Services be on top?
Concern about 7 categories - large, broad, numerous so as to cause risk to Bamboo, overburden process and focus
Bring it down to 1-2, more chance of being successful
Initial resistance to Advocacy; term seemed too strong, questions not well perceived
Threads of discovery of stuff/people/methods - this seemed important
How to facilitate research?
Collaboration alone - not interesting, new modes of scholarship - not interesting, what are new ways of generating and generalizing data?
We focus on new modes of scholarship, but we have a strong interest on where we are now
"Come, let us reason together"
Discussion about standards; some fear expressed about preferring to have things emerge rather than have things from the top
Balance between polyculture and monoculture - how do you manage it, because you can't solve it?
How the terms come together?
Whether you manage a partnership between two universities or two schools in a university, you're managing an inside/outside problem in different ways
Faculty came at this from different angles - dance and performance studies, material isn't text-bound and aren't digital heritage objects - born digital
Three other people deal with mainly textural data that originated in a print culture
Balance will shift over time, there'll be different kinds of requirements and takes on the digital
"Real space, real time" vs. archival model
Difference of opinion on Advocacy
Don't want to impose digital scholarship as mandatory
Institutional-based things; we need Advocacy within the institution to make digital scholarship more feasible for our colleagues in the humanities
Concerns not captured here: Google has digitized more material than all existing academic projects together - how do we access that?
Google's going to set their own standards - we have to make those materials available somehow
Are we reinventing the wheel with Bamboo? - there's organizations that have been doing this for a long time
Have to make sure those centers, institutes, etc. are involved
Bamboo defined as "research in the humanities", but a lot of people represent teaching colleges
Have to make it possible for those institutions to participate
A long time before individual scholars have all resources they need to do their work
Have to facilitate process of digitization for people working with a particular corpus of materials
Strong feelings that 3-6 represented core directions, 1-2 were secondary aspects, and four core directions seen as dimensions of 7 (services framework)
Addressing social, cultural, technological barriers to sharing data, participating in consortia, etc.
Ideas around gathering data so a scholar who helps foster a community can have that considered in tenure and review
Reliable data management systems
Physical and virtual architecture related to community building
Need to accept that people will do what they want
Need to create standards that aren't only technical standards, but also research/pedagogical/professional standards
Faculty have a sense for what the appropriate kind of analyses one can do with an image in a journal/on-line
Changes in professions/disciplines that need to come up regardless of technical standards
How can those be disseminated in an ongoing way that corresponds with developments and technology
Strong reaction to category on social networking - is this something looking for a problem? Maybe in that term is distracting us
Isn't this really about discovery?
How do we distinguish ephemeral/permanent objects, questions of peer review in new ways, other mechanisms to protect/recognize people's contributions
Culture of humanities isn't a safe place to be conducting your thoughts/early ideas in a way like the lab journal/other tools protect the sciences
Developing tools for dating and tracking ideas?
Discussions to help shift the culture?