Page Tree:

Child pages
  • Ex1, Grp 11

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

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Break-Out Group 11

Participants around the table:

Joel Cooper, Carleton; Kate Ryor, Carleton; Paul Lefrere, Open University; Andrea Nixon, Carleton; Roberto Marquez, U of Chicago; Timothy Babbitt, JStor; Alex Wirth-Cauchon, NITLE

Part one:

Paul proposes that we accept that people will do what they want to do: Social networking that allows people to do what they want to do will be more successful.

Tim: Yes, but there are times we need to push

Tools shape the way people talk and what they can talk about.
A wiki or twitter will not work with the same kinds of information.

Faculty want stuff...
Faculty are not sure what we need
We question the reliability of the data we find.
Historic texts scanned in.
If there are multiple versions of an image in ARTstor how will I know which to use?
Researchers would prefer clearer standards.
We have one image DB tool on campus but it isn't rich enough for my discipline?
Looking for normalizing? 
Chinese historian of uncommon practices
We have to take those into account or you leave out research practices

Andrea: The fifth area talks about technology standards but perhaps it needs to have research or pedagogical standards.
What about metadata field:

Tim: how can we anticipate unusual needs?  (where is the article printed? above or below the fold?)
(We compare the color of the digitized images between print and on-line.  But which print version is the definitive one?
Analyzing the details of color is not an appropriate use of the images whether they are digitized in a database or printed in a journal.)

How do we help colleagues to understand the differences/the technical limits (Education element)

Paul: Standards and specifications are a means to an end.
What are we trying to do?  
What helps or hinders collaboration across institutions.

Summary of Part One, Pull/vs push to engage:
Accept that people will do what they want to do
The need to develop standards

The importance of developing clearer standards as technical but also as professional and pedagogical standards (what are the appropriate questions that can be asked of images stored in a journal or database? As opposed to questions that can be asked in physical contact with the "original"?)

In this process: how do we anticipate unusual needs in developing these (Whether technical or professional research/pedagogical)
Need to then disseminate these standards and approaches.
Conclusion: importance of stressing all standards as means to ends and to assess them in relation to their ability to help us reach those ends.

Part two:

Andrea asked regarding #4 (Social Networking) Why are we interested in this?
What problem is it solving?
Is this a solution in search of a problem?

Is the challenge the use of the popular term?
Paul: How do we distinguish between the ephemeral from the items that you want to care about?

Kate: How do we organize in a way that is not clunky

Tim:Are we talking about discovery? (rather than social networking)
It is a mechanism we had in the olden days of how we used to decide what gets published.
Can we build on that model that spans beyond the limits of classical bounds
You don't have the vetting process
What are the pre-technology ways of doing this?

Transgressing boundaries
I work cross disciplinarily.
Military history
Asian Studies
With the technology it assumes there is a technologist who wants to help you with this problem

Social referencing, how to externalize that and make it part of the toolset

Who do I respect doing that?
Who is doing work I respect

In sciences there is grey literature and that is based on reputation

You want to control the work
You want to bulletproof it
The grey literature has surrogate measures of impact
SSRN high impact articles can help with tenure and promotion

Humanities is different
People would steal your work
No group research model in the Humanities
Very turfy model

Could there be a tool built that would allow this to work out ?

There has to be a legitimizing work

In sciences you have notebooks etc through which people can establish priority etc.

In Humanities the book may be freely available
And the idea is in your head

Can you reference and time stamp and track that electronically?

Summary of Part Two, "Social Networking" discussion:

It may be the choice of term, but we had some resistance to "Social Networking" which using those terms might be a solution in search of a problem.
Is this about discovery?  If so it opens a series of questions about how we distinguish between ephemeral and more substantial information that might be shared
About reputational measures and processes that may need to be invented
About the culture of the humanities that currently makes it dangerous for humanists to share pre-peer review material (What the sciences call grey publication)
Do we develop tools that allow humanists to more safely begin engaging in this process?
Or do we need to make changes in the culture to allow for more open modes of conducting research?

  • No labels