Navigation:
Documentation
Archive



Page Tree:

Child pages
  • Ex1, Grp 4

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 4


Questions we have regarding how these directions interrelate?

Do these directions include your interests and concerns?

This group did not separate these two questions in our discussion

Patrick Neher (U of A)
John Wolffe (Open University)
Sasha Woolson (Middlebury)
John Blackburn (Washington and Lee)
Laura Cerruti (UC Press)
Catherine Mitchell (University of CA Digital Library, e-publishing)
Lisa Schiff (University of CA Digital library, e-publishing)

  • LS: #3 and #4. Institutional partnership and support & Social networking are quite similar
  • JW: agrees. but perhaps social networking relates to a number of directions, so perhaps defining more tightly what the directions mean will elucidate how they interrelate
  • CM: at 1a, finding colleagues for collaborative work opportunities was a key element of social networking discussion
  • JB: to find mutually-interested colleagues beyond institutional borders is key at a small college
  • PN: "social networking" is a dangerous term ... we think of our children using social networking tools ... let's term this in a way that differentiates it from things like Facebook, etc.
  • SW: there are modes of networking that apply to research that may differ from those that apply to teaching ... some of us at our institutions live in both / between those worlds. One dimension of difference is that pedagogy often has a leader/teacher, whereas research collaboration may not have that role.
  • SW: PB to enable successful experiences to be shared - that's the win from the perspective of a small teaching college (Middlebury)
  • LC: what about the role of societies (professional organizations) in social networking. What should the bounds of a social network be? Should it span everything, or be bounded as societies are? In some ways that draws disciplinary lines that are problematic, but ... And what about building on social networks that exist already, e.g., in the societies?
  • JW: Facilitate virtual conversations like the face-to-face conversations we are having today.
  • SW: Can PB create easier access to people who culturally tend to be skittish about technology. Social Network should be a big umbrella with different aspects ... must have a simple entry point.
  • CM: Isn't "Education and Training" a cross-cutting activity? It applies to all directions.
  • PN: "PB Committee" at U of A is struggling to connect with faculty at their university because it's just one more thing to pile onto busy, involved faculty
  • LC: Outreach is really a part of Education and Training, isn't it?
  • SW: Successful IT endeavors involve small learning curves
  • JB: enthusiasm for training and for pooling resources in an effort he was involved in fell apart for two reasons: learning curve in the face of very busy scholars, and didn't address scholars' self-interest
  • CM: Self-interest is a key point. Hugely important for PB.
  • SW: Strength of PB would be to consolidate and make available stuff that's already going on ... change in small increments ... PB as conduit
  • LS: directions 5-7 - do we want to talk about them
  • JW: liked the full seven directions. personal interest is in the areas we've been discussion, but these other areas are critical as well ... Tools and Services become a critical need when one gets concrete about facilitating/implementing the more abstract or social or academically focused directions
  • LC: 2-4 WHAT; 5-7 HOW; 1 is WHY ... but maybe "Advocacy" is the wrong term? There's a dependency on .
  • PN: not just individuals, but groups of people each of whom have singular interest but who convene in order to do what they do: ensembles of performers, staff at a university, backstage people ... these support research or other activity in A&H as well. Advocacy, then, is a pretty good term ... advocating for "many groups within the group"
  • LC: tech has introduced a new category of professional work
  • LS: are the "many groups" that comprise a university represented
  • CM: is PB well-positioned to be a "policy forming body" - not so keen on this
  • JW: throughout, it is key for PB to have a close look at what exists already, and look at what can be built to add value
  • JB: can't imagine adding another standard ... what would it be?
  • No labels