Navigation:
Documentation
Archive



Page Tree:

Child pages
  • Categorized References and Resources on Forms of Institutional Support

This wiki space contains archival documentation of Project Bamboo, April 2008 - March 2013.

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Half of the Institutional Work Group's charge was to identify sources of institutional support.  Participants in Workshop 2 and the Bamboo Leadership Team asked the Institutional Support Work Group (WG) to complete following five tasks. 

Shortly after the creation of the WG the Council on Library and Information Resources released a report titled "A Survey of Digital Humanities Centers in the United States."  While the scope of the report is more narrowly defined than this WG in terms of being limited to a single country, this report is a fabulous resource for people looking at models of institutional sources of support.  The greatest weakness of this resource list to date is that, with the exception of the McCarty & Kirschenbaum (2003) and international participation workshop underlying the Arms & Larsen (2007) pieces, is based on resources in the United States.  The WG would be grateful for contributions of references and resources that broaden the scope of this collection.

The remainder of this page includes references and resources organized by the tasks assigned to the group with the addition of a sixth "other" category that contains resources the WG found useful but not aligned with specific preassigned tasks.

1)    Environmental scan, literature review, mission statement examination
  • Consult References and Resources page for a full listing of works included in the WG's literature review
  • McCarty, W. and M. Kirschenbaum (2003). "Institutional Models for Humanities Computing." Literary & Linguistic Computing 18(4): 465-489. - Also see the accompanying Institutional models for humanities computing site. This is an impressive but dated list of departments, centers, institutes, and other institutional forms involved in humanities computing.
  • Zorich, D. M. (2008). A Survey of Digital Humanities Centers in the United States. Washington, DC, Council on Library and Information Resources. http:// www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub143/pub143.pdf. - The CLIR report includes the results of phone-based surveys of leaders of 32 digital humanities centers and analysis of materials on the web sites of these organizations.  The analysis includes an examination of the mission statements of the participating organizations. The bibliography of this report is very good.
2)    Identify & interview leadership in digital humanities/societies--find faculty on campuses who have had success and find out what it takes; consider work of Bamboo faculty development group in 'educating' scholars
  •  American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2009). "Humanities Resource Center Online, Humanities Indicators Prototype."   Retrieved January 8, 2009, from http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/humanitiesData.aspx. - The Humanties Resource Center contains information on undergraduate and graduate education in the humanities as well as indicators describing "employment in humanistic settings and occupations with emphasis on post-secondary faculty."
  • Wouters, P. & Beaulieu, A. (2006) 'Imagining e-science beyond computation', in New Infrastructure for Knowledge Production: Understanding E-Science, ed. C. Hine, Idea Group, Hershey, pp. 48-70. This though provoking article challenges some of the assumptions inherent in the design of cyberinfrastructure based on computational sciences.  The authors use "materials from fieldwork in women's studies with respect to e-science, and by bringing this together with a discussion of specific features of e-research in the humanities."  The description of scholarly work have a myriad of implications for the ways in which working environments and tools might be constructed for humanists.  Areas of relevance include authentication and authorization, credentialling, access to resources, the creation of networks of scholars, supporting international work, and the critical task of retaining contextual information of scholarly resources.
  • Zorich, D. M. (2008). A Survey of Digital Humanities Centers in the United States. Washington, DC, Council on Library and Information Resources. http:// www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub143/pub143.pdf. - The CLIR report is significantly based on interviews with leaders of digital humanities centers.

In addition to the above publications, another way to connect with leaders in the digital humanities centers and societies is through blogs of community leaders.  These include:

3)    Develop matrix, which might include: modes of communicating, degrees of active engagement of faculty, range of financial support, financial sustainability (soft v. hard money support), results/impacts on teaching, learning, and research, infrastructure and technology tools (See Stories page for further information)
  • Arms, W. Y. and R. L. Larson (2007). The Future of Scholarly Communication: Building Cyberinfrastructure for Cyberscholarship. Phoenix, AZ. http://www.sis.pitt.edu/%7Erepwkshop/SIS-NSFReport2.pdf. - A report following a workshop considering cyberinfrastructure in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. The report addresses ongoing efforts and indentifies resources in the United States and Europe. The report culminates in a seven-year roadmap for developing cyberinfrasructure that addresses the dimensions of infrastructure, research, behaviors, and administration.
  • Unsworth, J. (2007). Digital Humanities Centers as Cyberinfrastructure. Digital Humanities Centers Summit. Washington, DC. http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~unsworth/dhcs.html. - The American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) issues 8 recommendations in terms of cyberinfrastructure.  In this piece, the author responds to the ACLS recommendations "with an eye to the critical contributions that digital humanities centers can make in these areas."
  • Zorich, D. M. (2008). A Survey of Digital Humanities Centers in the United States. Washington, DC, Council on Library and Information Resources. http:// www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub143/pub143.pdf. - The CLIR report contains analyses of the governance structures, administrative configurations and appointments, operations, plans and models for financial sustainability, partnerships as well as projections of future trends and issues.
4)    Identify humanities funding entities and recipients (IMLS, NEH grants, etc.)
  •  American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2009). "Humanities Resource Center Online, Humanities Indicators Prototype."   Retrieved January 8, 2009, from http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/humanitiesData.aspx. - The Humanties Resource Center contains information on federal and state humanities funding in the United States
5)    Compile a list of corporate interests that use different organizational models (project management, creative project metaphor, etc.)
  •  American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2009). "Humanities Resource Center Online, Humanities Indicators Prototype."   Retrieved January 8, 2009, from http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/humanitiesData.aspx. - The Humanties Resource Center contains information on private sources of funding.
6)    Other
  •  Pittaway, L. and P. Hannon (2008). "Institutional Strategies for Developing Enterprise Education: A Review of Some Concepts and Models." Journal of Small Business and Enterprise 15(1): 202-226. (2006).  - While at first glance this article may not appear to be germane, its exploration of potential models of organizational units that provide curricular and research support that span the needs and domains of single academic departments is thought provoking.  Among other strengths of this article, it includes a set of evaluative criteria that colleges and universities would do well to consider in evaluating support models.  The evaluative criteria include: educational impact, financial stability, academic credibility, structural embeddedness, contextual criteria, human capital, infrastructure, alignment with institutional strategy, community engagement, and alignment with policy context.
  • No labels