Navigation:
Documentation
Archive



Page Tree:

Child pages
  • Exercise 2 Scribe Notes

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

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Group 1a - A

•    Create knowledge
•    Present prizewinning speech
•    Publish research (papers, etc.)
•    Find source materials
o    primary - stories, original materials;
o    secondary -  analysis, interpretations, etc.
•    Read source materials
o    reading to build congitive foundation
o    reading to help answer scholarly questions
•    Find patterns
o    often obscure patterns;
o    seeing patterns you've never seen before;
o    patterns/commonalities;
o    clusters;
o    parallels; 
o    identify stylistic patterns
•    Discover relationships
o    between research artifacts, sources, elements, images.
o    Causal relationships
•    Analyze data
•    Represent texts
•    Analyze linguistics
o    Morphological analysis
o    Linguistics, folklore
•    Learn languages
•    Develop tools (visualizations, software, produce a digital resource)
•    Dating materials (texts, artifacts, etc., events - chronological)
•    Assign/create metadata
•    Calculate similarity metrics (patterns?)
•    Digitize collections
o    One major library wants to charge 16 cents a shot.  Another collection is doing it for 3.
•    Understanding consensus within available sources
o    aggregate received wisdom in the documents
•    Collaborate with peers
•    Disseminate knowledge of tools, methods
•    Identify causal relationships
•    Identify state of the art
•    Identify stylistic patterns
•    Aggregate critical editions
•    Collecting data
•    Detect named entities
•    Discover social networks
o    Can't be black box - needs visibility to get trust in arts and humanities.  True across the board
•    Provenancing materials
o    Primary and secondary materials. 
o    Being able to explain where the materials came from, and what processes were used to create.
•    Analyze media (ephemeral, physical)
•    Annotate documents
•    Create new tools
•    Reflect on our own practices
•    Produce a local archive
o    follow leads, make connections
•    Tailor a syllabus as a complement to research
•    Amass a body of knowledge
o    make connections between pieces
o    inductive versus deductive reasoning
•    Collaborate on research with colleagues, inter-generational
•    Complete a project (initiate and complete)
•    Write a grant proposal
•    Write a conference paper
•    Build networks at conferences, lectures
•    Think laterally
o    serendipity, non-linear, unplanned, unpredictable
•    Present one's work
•    Performing works
•    Plan future work
•    Supervise grants
 
Back to top.

Group 1a - B

•    Finding and engaging like-minded colleagues from within and across diciplines, institutions who are working in same area
o    Say I'm working on affect but Google is a bad tool for doing this.
o    Z1: Maybe we should make a distinction between object and topic.
o    Z2: I would rather keep object--study phenomenon, say air, across diciplines.
o    Z3: We are trying to find like-minded colleagues within and across institutions;
o    Z2: Like minded could include shared practices but different interests;
o    Z3: I mean community of practice, Could use a listserv, How do we bring people together face to face?  A conference does this. This is what we are doing right now. Find like-minded scholars working on similar topics, tools/methodologies, questions
o    (Z1: research often driven by a set of questions)
•    Browsing materials in the service of formulating an idea or project
o    Open-ended ended framework in the service of formulating an idea or project
o    Z4: Expand to browsing across dicipline or institution
•    Keeping abreast of current relevant scholarship
o    Question of how to find relevent feeds.
o    Libraries call this current awareness function.
o    Z2: For example, I want to get information on "air" from chemists as well as humanites scholars. You can follow a topic, say typewriters, on a metanymic level;
o    Z3: Almost every example is interdiciplinary.
•    Developing methodologies
o    Compound; Can be broken into several discreet practices
o    Is methodologies the right word?
o    Z2: How does one talk about researchers that are engaged in theories (not studying objects)? What do people who come up with theories do? For example, object-relationship theory;
o    Z1: methodology might have other meanings;
o    Z4: a compound practice?
•    Identifying patterns, relationships across sources
o    this includes allusions, references, quotations, images, . This should include chonological references across media and time. The word data gives people in the humanites that content is interchangeable.
o    Z2: I'm talking about vague references and specific citations
o    Z3: Identifying resonances; Identifying sources is a task within this practice; Comparing Manuscripts
•    Seeking funding
o    Compound: Identify sources of funding, collect recommendations, Some is scholarly, some is adminstrative.
o    indentify funding sources, writing proposal, develop budgetm, gather letters of recommendation; process for individual proposal versus larger collaborative proposal is very different; bamboo could provide national center that would provide proposal writing and technical expertise (part of NEH strategy); Letters and Science Desktop support is our closest resource at Berkeley.
•    Annotating texts
o    Z4: There can be annotations at many levels;
o    Z5: Great examples from Talmudic tradition.
o    Z3: Now lots of multimedia. You might have a transcription, translation of source. ;
o    Z4: There are many levels of collaboration, private and collaborative;
o    Z5: social tagging;
o    Z2: personal annotations;
o    Z3: A book just came out that is a study of 15th century annotations.
•    Publishing research in multimedia form
o    Multimedia sounds like the past.
o    subtasks: finding media selecting and using them;
o    Z6: identifying most-effective means (media, patform, format) for communicating an idea (argument or point). A lot of the terms are technology oriented? How can we come up with more distinctive humanistic terms?; Is a novel a piece of data?
o    Z2: Identifying unit of analysis is related to methodology;
•    Interating feedback into research
o    Rethinking and imagining what hasn't been explored?
o    rethinig what has been done, critiquing your own work; happens when you share work with colleagues, revising book, "iterative loops";
o    There is a org called "virtual knowledge studio" that provides a metastudy of our practices;
o    Z2: looking at iterations, versions of texts;
•    Collecting primary sources
o    Z7: This might involve interviewing people and discovering grammars;
o    Z2: Discovering grammar is metaphore, I'm interogating dead people.
o    Z7 (might be different methodology for back and forth with real human);
o    Z1: At a museum you might encounter a primary source (but has already been collected); Are different methodologies different practices?
o    Z2: Interogating primary sources (split out?);
o    Z5: like evidence gathering;
o    Z1: I wouldn't collect Goya paintings, I'd go to musem and experience them;
•    Examining primary source materials (both local and remote, distributed)
•    Creating primary sources
•    Gathering feedback
o    We've talked about integrating but not gathering feedback
•    Identifying most effective format of communicating research
o    format (image, text, other media)
•    Identifying unit of analysis
o    Z1: Do we do over course of semester or arrive through other nontemporal process. Am I looking at words, sentences, discourse, etc?
o    Z5: Is a semester a unit of research? (others) no; you review a book, draft a conference paper and collapse.
•    Acquiring expertise in new area of inquiry
o    Over course of three or four years; Need to gain basic expertise, competency in new field
•    Assembling panel for conference
o    Fits under finding and engaging colleagues
•    Organize conference
o    Compound: involves funding, etc. Could have an online conference?
•    Tracing production and reception history
o    Find out how others have regarded object before you approach it.
o    Could include collecting readerly responses from blogs;
o    What about cultural studies colleagues that incorporate tv, radio, newspapers, other media. I want to cast a very wide net;
o    Z6: This is a basic research questions. You keep working your way around databases and explore and find new content and define the space of inquiry. ;
o    Z3: Conference on representation of older women, (reference to Slate article on Hilary aging) , How do I find materials;
o    Z2: start with fragments, what you notice.
o    Z1: or YouTube;
o    Z2: Could also include production and reception history.
•    Finding a secure, persistent place for storing resources
o    Should be like Library of Congress
o    Minerva project. Academic presses are thinking about this as well.
•    Scanning documents
o    Creating a course reader
o    I spend most of my time scanning documents  for course readers. I would be great to have English Department wide resource.
o    Raises ip issues.
o    Abandoning eRes services.
•    Figure out one Sumerian word
o    Find all places where word is used secondary literature where word is used (Near Eastern Studies)
•    Go through database
•    Go through memory
•    Find secondary literature
•    Access databases through web browser
•    Translate text
•    Conceptualize text
o    How text is historicallyr elevant
•    Work with colleagues
•    E-mail colleagues
•    Send e-mail to guy who makes online Sumerian dictionary
o    http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/index.html
o    if editor does not agree with translation or definition, he may not agree to post it
•    Find translations in Akkadian
•    Figure out collation of texts fit together
o    Textual editing. in bad french, transcription
•    Work with manifestations
o    in order to get this in my head, I need to do the whole thing myself
•    Type out the manifestation
•    Add metadata about physical objects
o    Add metadata about description
o    Add metadata about sound
•    Convert XML to Open Office for printing
•    Collaborate with others to get a 3D phrase
o    Capture 3D phrase
•    Come to consensus of aesthetic goal
•    Acquire digital animated representation
•    Identify a person who is working in my domain and get in touch

Back to top

Group 1a - C

•    Connect one idea to another idea
o    an act of synthesis, cognitive connection -- the a-ha moment
•    Discover resource
o    particularly one primary source to another primary source
•    Discover non-intellectual resources
•    Activate resource
o    particularly one primary source to another primary source
o    format conversion, mine website, make usable, extend.
o    This is creative in the development of tools and techniques, but the process is actually a data/source material transformation, manipulation, munging
•    Build relationship
o    with a person who knows something, or has done something, relating to an area of interest
•    Forge partnerships
o    how can we tell what's worth doing this with?
o    multilingual, aware of each other's areas of work, able to move scholarship forward together
•    Ask new questions
o    inspired by others, by self, serendipity
•    Refine existing questions
o    by sharing work with others, getting feedback, etc.
•    Carve out time
o    avoid grant administration (reporting, tracking, management)
o    could the project buy us out of our administrative or teaching duties?
o    Would a social networking project be more of a time suck than anything else? (think of the time we already see our students spending on facebook).
o    Make non-research activities more efficient?
o    Improve staff responsiveness to faculty needs?
o    Should be able to easily find the most relevant resources -- massive bibliographical database of content.
o    Spend less time on the trivial, obvious discoveries.
o    Recommendations, Amazon style.
o    A google of most-referenced pieces. affinity algorithms, expert tagging, learning what is good and what is bad.
o    Online socially-enhanced version of EndNote or RefWorks.
o    A trusted evaluation & classification of resources.
o    Would people tag things? What about methodological clashes?
o    Grade the resource at the end?
o    A guided get-started, most-used list as a first cut.
o    Citation index for all arts & humanities journals?
o    Old systems failed the "completeness" test.
o    How do we blend the new/untried with the expert/high quality?
o    High value to one might be low value to another?
o    Avoid too much reliance on a highly-engaged small group?
•    Break through roadblocks
o    example: unable to get a primary source or other resource
•    Write draft or paper
o    evolves into an article, chapter, etc
o    all of the above are included in this process
•    Represent research
o    could be a written record, an animation or other visualization -- some way to present it to others
o    not just sharing data, but sharing one's particular take on the data.
o    Archives of conference papers, electronic working papers like the sciences do.
o    Registry of research activities as part of this social networking activity -- pre-print, awareness of area of work and particular argument, approach, methodology. 
o    A 10-page searchable "visiting card".
•    Clear copyright
o    no good tools, huge time suck, expensive, no clarity in the laws
•    Coalesce materials which can be organized and interpreted to form an argument
o    ultimately, judged by how many arcs or arguments or narratives you can produce
•    Build reputation
o    line on a CV or esteem of colleagues
•    Develop tools to present resources
•    Store and retrieve personal research
o    being able to find what you've already digested somewhat and make sense of it
•    Relate teaching to research questions
•    Correlate outside materials to one's own expertise & research
•    Discover most significant themes, questions, etc
•    Analyze one's own methodology
•    Recombine one's own research
•    Evaluate one's own use of time
o    I.e. what did I do this term?
•    Assess direction of one's own field and one's own career arc
•    Collecting data
o    May include screen recording, etc. (for Berk. Lang. Ctr.)
o    Good day means no tech problems, no failures, etc.
•    Designing observation strategy
o    Need to think about how will integrate tech as well as human factors, and limitations of recording, and goals of what trying to capture.
•    Observing subjects
o    Real-time is an important quality of research on performative functions (dance, speech)
o    This is a highly human activity, however there are a host of low-level tools in use (some as simple as paper and pencil).
•    Transmitting experience?
o    Both had a quality of remote collaboration, and transmission was significant.
o    This is where tech gets in the way or not.
•    Recording observations
o    Electronic capture remediates the experience, and so it changes the observance. As such, live annotation is crucial to capturing the experience.
o    Some of this was electronic capture, and some was paper annotation. Felt that important to annotate live, as something is lost when reviewing the recordings later.
•    Analyze interactions
o    among language speakers, looking at a host of attributes of speech, communication. When have bad signal and issues, means that data is poorer for research
o    French use a screen recorder that messes with the video signal, and reduces fidelity of the overall communication. Issue is that too little bandwidth/CPU
•    Annotating live capture
•    Coding events
o    Loooking for how language is situated in time, space, etc. Consider spatial and temporal (local time) displacements.
o    Identifying features. May be pre-defined, or may be judgemental. May create new categories, and then may revisit content with new categories.
•    Categorize movement
o    This is in the context of a language and grammar of dance. May be used to choreograph, or to analyze observed motion. Of interest is both the iconic as well as the unexpected.
o    Has a vocabulary of motion, and then also supports temporal tagging. Human, manual process, but hoping that can train machine to do some.
•    Identifying themes suitable for publication
o    This is where they are looking for the real fodder for research, and synthesizing the ideas that they will publish/perform.
•    Reanalyzing data
o    At a later stage
•    Store recordings into repository
o    Still figuring out how to manage this.
•    Identifying technical issues
o    Lots of work around this when tech is involved. Humanists need to become technically savvy and manage all the process around tracking and resolving tech issues.
•    Refine usage of tools
o    This is a cycle of consideration around the deployment of technology in their domains.
•    Analyze how technology works
•    Refine methodology of use of tools
•    Experiment with revised methodology
•    Collect reactions
o    to performance, to publication
•    Secure resources
o    In order to fund research
•    Write grants
o    "This may be a very creative activity"
•    Writing grant applications, articles, correspondance
•    Finding reviewers
•    Reviewing articles
o    submitted for publication in a journal. First step is to filter for initial value, then send on to reviewers, etc.
o    Question raised whether this is actually supporting own scholarship
•    Communicating among collaborative team
o    Important aspect of this is ability to work with physically remote people without incurring cost - Skype, including video has been a huge tool for them
•    Organizing communication
o    Lots of coordination of time, calendars, local time, etc.
•    Coordinating logistical support for hardware used in research
o    There is a ton of work getting the HW to work that they are using in their research.
o    This is often not well represented in the grant budget, and involves lots of chasing around to find right resources, as well as lots of fiddling to get things working.
•    Finding community
o    this is an attempt to find both people as well as conference and relate venues that are a good source of new input, feedback, collaborators, etc.
•    Marketing work
o    Verb is ugly, but there is a need to gather presentations together, etc. to submit to venues, propose work, etc.
•    Collating previous work
o    Has both a mechanical and archival quality as well as a summary and reflective side.
•    Maintaining presence in community
o    Need to keep visibility up, for a host of crass reasons as well as good ones (to draw interesting partner, students, etc.).
•    Managing project
•    Managing SW development processes
o    Classic issues, but worse in ad hoc technical teams.
•    Managing skills mix of team
o    need to ensure that have technicians and others who perform crucial support functions
•    Finding skilled practitioners
o    They know of tech and can find people who know something, but hard to find people who are deeply skilled in the practice of a given technical discipline.
•    Identify
o    publishable aspects of current work, projects
•    Finding related research
•    Keeping current with activity
•    Searching on net
o    Very time consuming, but high reward when identify a new resource.
•    Tracking references from article
•    Attending conferences
•    Identifying new tools available
o    Often happens through networking.
•    Identifying related ideas and people
•    Assessing relevance
o    This is the whole issue of sifting the wheat from the chaff.
•    Presenting current work
o    This is the flip side of finding - exposing.
o    For Z8, not an issue since measure and communication is still on paper, not on web.
o    For Z6, web present is very important. Way to gather new students, etc.
•    Updating current dossier of work
o    For Z6, need to leverage technology well, so either must look really professional, or she feels bad about putting it up.
•    Publication
•    Synthesizing, crystallizing significant contribution, new, original narrative or expression around work
•    Capturing Synthesis in some formal form
o    This is what goes to a publication venue.
•    Secure access
o    e.g., to archive or other resource
•    Clear copyright

Back to top

Group 1a - D

•    Build database/sources/archive
•    Network...
o    With others
o    With scholars
o    With VP, provost, dean
o    Face to face
o    Over e-mail
o    Potential collaborators

Back to top

Group 1a - E

•    Looking at materials, may be CD's, text
o    Edmund: Artists create something that has a research component: "Exploration" of what exists: where is it, what's it's state & what it does: Might look at source materials which aren't well documented: Where do I find database of sensors (an interface to a computer system) Involves detecting motion or any physical activity
•    Discovery of existing contexts
•    Examination
•    Transformation into something innovative, based on existing contexts
•    Create new work of art as a result
•    Perform art
•    Coordinate the activities of many fields and filter them thru my field
•    Collaborate in making the art
•    Edit what's in, what's out
•    Experiment what's in, what's out
•    Compare & contrast different language editions of particular work of engraver's work
o    Wiki environment on comparative religions
•    Collaborate with scholars around the world
•    Inform each other via wiki
•    Annotate the images with comments
•    Critical analysis of 9 volumes of French edition, 6 volumes in Dutch, 1 volume in German edition
o    Want to use technology to do literary analysis beyond what's possible for 1 human
•    Analysis and understanding of voluminous text
o    Compare & contrast maps is akin to comparing text
•    Capture, archive, to establish
o    To uncover activities, no memory of past events if not recorded
•    Sharing, to uncover activities
•    Exchange, to know what someone else knows
•    Synthesize, to support sharing - it's a quality
•    Simply be playful, to discover new ways of doing things
•    Look, explore in order to be surprised, in order to get inspired, to produce something
•    We're paid to discover
•    Disseminate, to get people to see things
•    Analyze, analysis becomes its own object
•    Capture, time lapse it to show people an experience
•    Tagging materials, part of capture process
o    Manual tagging
o    Put post-its in a book so can search by the tag
o    Classify tags so tags can be used by others
o    Develop common terminology for the good of the community
o    Develop hierarchy of tags to organize data
o    Review others' tags to see whether it will be useful
o    Decide tag terminology to serve one's own purposes
o    Indxing the material
o    Find other people via tagging
o    Build community via tagging
o    Review tag histories to filter
o    Filter to focus
o    Framing info to make sense of it
o    Describe art with a few words to help conglomerate huge #'s of art works
•    Modularization of tools for exchange with others
•    Package, to make simpler for another user
o    Need wrappers into software & need to be extracted so don't have to reauthor again
•    Software extraction, to prevent unnecessary reauthoring
•    Upgrade, revise materials each semester
•    Migrate software to make up to date
•    Capturing everyday life
•    Capture video, sound, everything possible; each technology gets a fragment
•    Capture the situation then capture the process
•    Build resource center for web
•    Act as traffic guide for students
•    Develop (software) tools for navigation
•    Can name & document processes & tools for specific contexts
•    Narrative is central to decide how to judge: Who cares
•    Perspective
•    Assigning a story, but it subverts
•    Build on their scholarly understandings
•    Put things in perspective to have a metadialogue about a work
•    Process of making the piece can be more important than the piece
•    Capture process
•    Process of raising money, promotion
o    Publishing to raise money
o    Write proposal
•    Inspiration > experimentation
•    Creation/transformation
•    Coordinate activities -> synthesize
•    Iteration
•    Compare across works
•    Contrast differences
•    Annotate discoveries
•    Inform others
•    Discuss
•    Conduct critical analysis
•    Collaborate
•    Harvest components for literary analysis
•    Collaboration: Add-contribute
•    Collaboration: translate across disciplines & technology
•    Sharing = exchange
•    Publishing = one-way
•    Memory = capture, create, archive
•    Synthesis: explore, identify promise, represent what you're doing
•    Inspiration, unexpected and serendipity
•    Cultures: disciplines, technology
•    Museums - find a framework
o    Select objects within framework
o    Select objects outside of framework > demonstration & stimulation
o    Dissemination
•    Filter, focus, select, transform, gold panning, lens, frame
•    Capture
•    Go to art event to see
•    Tagging snippets/objects
•    Create classification
o    Create taxonomies/clouds of tags, folksonomies for common use or self
o    Find others' tags
•    Adapt resources (software, documentation)
•    Revise/rebuild/iterate/port/migrate resources in order to do scholarship
•    Capture observations (a lot of stuff) to start
•    Capture processes
•    Remove self > then reflect and capture reflections
•    Aggregate resources/info guide/teach others
•    Nouns: physical things, conceptual things, tools
•    Create narratives about objects/art/concepts
•    Take objects into different contexts to take a perspective & tell a story
•    Re-represent after others' works to put things in a new context, to separate layers to make distinct, recombine layers in a new context
•    Write proposals for a vision of what could be

Back to top

Group 1a - F

•    Come up with a brilliant idea ... Might be a key connection that hadn't been made before.
•    Data manipulation:  be flexible about how I look at / query data in a marked-up data set or across several such sets.  Encode and manipulate data, and run queries over it.
•    Spend 10 minutes engaged with material that causes "intellectual effervescence"
•    Reading (or otherwise taking in ideas or materials ... Looking ... S-feeds, library lists).  "Encounter other people, disciplines, materials."
•    Rumination, which may include consideration of material/thoughts we have access to through on-line Web 2.0 tools
•    Writing - otherwise disseminate.
•    Organize data and information with tools ("we can be messy and let our tools organize")
•    Put down a flag in your field, staking your claim.  Digital material made available can be the mode of staking that claim.
•    Read books, bit of a journal article, blog, data set from a website
•    Find stuff you didn't know was there through sampling
•    Develop a sampling strategy:  what to sample through
•    Monitoring your research environment
•    Scan/peruse
•    Identify/filter/accession
•    Create opportunities for structured serendipity
•    Utilize research results in a pedagogical context
o    Teach project-based learning
o    Teach your research to your students
•    Collaborate with students and/or colleagues in a research project
•    Network with potential research team-members
•    "Appropriate" would be a less-kind way of naming the activity of citation
•    Position one's research in the context of the secondary literature
o    Establishes context for your scholarly activity; creates a research space; demonstrates authority via awareness of foregoing scholarly work
•    Preserve digital resources
o    Notebooks on acid free paper, photo albums are really the most reasonable bet for preservation ... Digial data gets lost.
•    Scan
•    Abstract
•    Organize
•    Collect
•    Annotate gathered material, "Usually not with a computer
•    Write grant
•    Compile data set
o    Data set might be original source, secondary data, images, texts, audio files, bibliographies, stories, GIS locations
•    Collect resources that are of scholarly interest
•    Articulate the purpose or problem that the scholarly activity is meant to address
•    Cite scholarly work
•    Grow scholarly community
•    Assemble research team
•    Synthesize information
•    Manage alliances with other scholars
•    Network with other team members
•    Coordinate activities
•    Question assumptions again and again
•    Write article or chapter
•    Update and maintain software
•    Contextualize research (e.g. position in the context of secondary literature)
•    Facilitate collaboration
•    Solicit feedback on research
•    Identify stuff to study
•    Sharing
•    Disseminate
•    Preserve digital resources
•    Present paper (e.g. at a conference)
•    Publish article or chapter
•    Deliver product of research
•    Perform art (e.g. a dance)
•    Get credit for accomplished research
•    Tell story
•    Create edition (e.g. of a musical manuscript)
•    Choose stuff to study
•    Select stuff to study
•    Filter stuff to study
Collaborate with students/colleagues in a research context

Back to top

Group 1b - A

        - [ ] On a really good day, term, etc. what are the productive things you might do in relation to research?
            - [ ] Day
                - [ ] take time to read things not relating to teaching
                - [ ] talk to somebody who is interested/knowledgeable with current project
                - [ ] id, locate, acquire resources
                - [ ] organize materials
                    - [ ] bookmarks, tagging
                    - [ ] piles of xeroxes
                - [ ] get a chance to actually write or edit
                    - [ ] article, book, etc
                    - [ ] blog, wiki
                - [ ] write some good code
                - [ ] make a breakthrough with a tool
                - [ ] digitize some content
                - [ ] get a good idea (think)
                - [ ] get some insight into what's really go on right now
                - [ ] discover good open source software
                - [ ] facilitate a conversation, find a solution, match up resources
                - [ ] managing to get someone hired
                - [ ] find a new source of data
                - [ ] find a good collaborator
                - [ ] correspond with a knowledgeable person & steal resources from them
                - [ ] identify issues with policy that are a block to research and identify solutions
                - [ ] publicize my stuff -- e-mail it out, stick it in an envelope
                - [ ] make a good connection
                - [ ] engage in some productive play
                - [ ] funding & support -- check comes in
                - [ ] see a solicitation
                - [ ] gain recognition for contribution
                - [ ] stumble across something from outside
                - [ ] realizing you've reached a dead end, or an A-HA moment
                - [ ] finishing feedback for somebody, or a letter of recommendation for someone
                - [ ] a good meeting with a student
            - [ ] Term etc.
                - [ ] release a new tool
                - [ ] funding & support -- produce a proposal
                - [ ] see that you've had an impact
                - [ ] finish the article or chapter
                - [ ] get the letter from a publisher saying they want the written material
                - [ ] present at a conference
                - [ ] graduate students
                - [ ] hold a successful workshop
                - [ ] turning a contact into a partner
                - [ ] engaging a student with a researcher
                - [ ] get an institutional commitment -- funding
                - [ ] release a collection or toolkit
                - [ ] content finds its audience
                - [ ] citation, attack or plaudit for a published work
                - [ ] being listed in the Internet Scout report -- weekly academic e-journal
                - [ ] create an environment that engages faculty
                - [ ] creating a useful index to a book
                - [ ] develop a new vocabulary -- flesh out a new way to talk about something
                - [ ] create new & improved workflow and process
            - [ ] what's specifically humanities in all this?
                - [ ] the writing is part of the thinking process
                - [ ] preservation of data can be the contribution
                - [ ] what qualifies as a good argument can vary widely from discipline to discipline
                - [ ] what IS a humanity? (versus a social science)
                - [ ] everyone organizes things in their own ideosyncratic way, which makes it hard to share with others
                - [ ] some common workflows -- dictionary makers, middle english, psychoanalytic
                - [ ] you don't bring a theoretical basis to a gene bank, you just search it
                - [ ] similar corpus -- different shakes and shapes
            - [ ] what's faster than journals but slower than conferences for building up a conversation?

Back to top

Group 1b - B

discussions with colleagues and students about research
project management
stuffing book with post-it notes
    with computer, no task lasts longer than ten minutes
    so hardcopy notes work better
writing: is it epistemic or just transcriptive?
outline, draft, write, edit
repeat, transcribe, translate
concept-mapping
dump everything out of head, look at it and search for patterns

logistical things/project management
communicate, manage, delegate, monitor, hold accountable

writing/authoring

search for funding

Back to top

Group 1b - C

What do you do in relation to research in a day?  Term?

•    B4:  In an archive going through documents
o    Taking notes
o    Noting what needs to be copied
o    Endpoint is a scholarly book
•    B5:  Needs assessment (as IT person)
•    B6:  Discovering new knowledge/data
•    B6:  Immersing oneself in another time/place
•    B7:  Have a block of time to read (3 hrs, at least), arrange teaching schedule to make that possible
•    E20:  Reading in a block of time re: what is the state of the art, what are best practices
•    B7:  Look for reading materials to collect for future reading
•    B9:  Looking at physical archives is a richer experience due to serendipity of how one browses and finds.  When looking through an internet portal, one misses "incidentally related" materials.
•    B8:  finding articles on-line via citation trailing/tracking ... hyperlinking through article citations.
•    B6/B8:  Identify promising problems / research-questions that have not been researched before and the problem will say something, meaningful in a line of inquiry/work
•    E20:  create a link between a promising technology and a problem that needs to be solved, and watching that
•    B4:  Select quotations that represent a larger trend, that are concise, that might be an arguable point if the quote weren't included in a scholarly article or book ... surprising ... definitive ... explicit.
•    B9:  Find primary data on a particular linguistic feature.  By primary, I mean recordings and transcripts that someone reputable captured appropriately ... that is, it's a reliable, trustworthy, validated source of primary data.  Transcripts and sound files are the artifacts of interest.
•    B7:  create an outline of what one wants to do in a project, including a timeline.  Tasks and timelines for a project.  B4:  harder to work without such an outline, to organize one's work.
•    B8:  print an abstract to read later after finding it on the web.  I'm experimenting with reading on-screen (e.g., saved pdfs).  But underlining and sticky-notes are a better tool for annotating ... can't do that with digital...though I would like to do that digitally.  The activity here is organizing/analyzing/synthesizing/digesting information.
•    B5:  IT wants to know what technology needs are in order to better provide serices.
•    B7:  I use Excel to organize author, keywords/phrases, short summary of how an article relates to my outline ... one large Excel file.
•    B8:  Refworks.  Zotero.  But neither fit my workstyle ... it's one additional step to cram into a short amount of time.  I like a text file so that I can cut and paste more easily.  The extra steps are what's difficult ... it breaks the flow, in breaks my trail of work.
•    B4:  I like Zotero, but it is an extra thing, if you're in the flow it knocks you out.  Also there's the 20K pages of primary sources that aren't going to get into Zotero 'cuz I don't have the time.
•    B8/B4:  Talking with faculty members who do work in my area.  Formal and informal exchanges with colleagues doing similar work.  Professional meetings, department meetings.
•    B6:  Build a community of readers, advisors, like-minded people to discuss a project with in order to help shape and more fully form it.
•    B7:  Magical things happen [when one talks with colleagues, with a scholarly community] ... especially with respect to interdisciplinary work.
•    E20:  get members of multiple communities lined up in a productive way
•    B7:  online communities are great resources for finding like-minded people when it's not possible to find such a community at one's own institution.
•    H7:  how to apply collaborative work to the credit one needs for tenure?
•    B7:  At a teaching university, one is still judged on research accomplishment when it comes time for tenure review ... even though there's little support from the institution vis-à-vis research.
•    B8:  Prepare a syllabus ... one activity in this might be finding other syllabi for similar courses.
•    B4:  preparing one's own research in a class.
•    B7:  textbooks on-line allow professors to select and embellish/annotate/correct the published material
•    B8:  What are the creative ways of engaging students in a topic?  Push boundaries.
•    B6:  Write a text ... represent one's knowledge ... how to do this in a way that is related to the underlying data one has assembled in the course of research.
•    B4:  Summarize ... what's most important in my research ... what are the problems, possible critiques?  That's a more interesting pedagogical process.
•    B9:  Submit what one has done to an archive so others can see it.  Not just in a large, structured appendix.  One's university library might not take these extra materials, depending on policy.  But it's hard to put one's research materials in coherent order for presentation to a library ... there's no credit in doing this work ... the library might not know how to take care of it ... what's a suitable archive in which materials can reside?
•    B7:  Publishing, let's open that as a topic.
o    Very frustrating when one is turned down.  One might try a different journal or a revised presentation, but one also might put the materials aside.
•    B5:  Is there a proposal?
o    B4:  there's a fair bit of consideration ... one doesn't know what one is going to do until it emerges
o    B6:  much humanities research is not funded per se.  Many proposals that do get written look like book proposals, and this becomes a de facto shaper of research process
o    B4:  getting a little money is important ... to make trips to archives ... making the proposals is an individual effort -- one does it oneself
•    B7:  review of research activity comes at various career points:  when funding is requested, at tenure-review time
•    B4:  "I could study miniature golf for the rest of my career if I wanted to" once tenure is achieved ...
•    B8:  iTune U -- podcasting lectures, symposia, collquia
•    B8:  staying current with the discourse in one's field
o    B6:  pace of change due to attention to current developments is likely not so fast as in the sciences
o    B4:  if someone has shown that what I'm working on is no longer right or relevant, I won't get funded ... this is an incentive to staying current ... I have to do it, even though as a teaching-university faculty member I don't actually have time to stay as current as I might like.
o    B8:  what others are doing enriches the background of one's knowledge but might not apply directly to one's own area of research.
o    B7:  collaborations of the Bamboo type can help level the field vis-à-vis how one is known in the field, one's chances at publication, one's ability to be known in one's field.  "Leveling the ground" between these diverse types of institutions
o    B4:  I'm much better off now than I would have been ten years ago because of ability to find materials in WorldCat or JSTOR.  "The field has been leveled considerably" already.
•    B4:  we could probably do this for ten more hours ... there's a lot to research.

Back to top

Group 1b - D

Discussion: This group had no problem writing on the flipchart and using the stickies, so I made limited notes based on floating comments. For details please see the Table 9 flip chart.

The group quickly started using verbs to describe academic activities. They made a list of verbs and then abstracted back from the verbs, arranging them under headings. These headings then were put on stickies and organized.

C7 showed the group a wonderful diagram made by Stuart Card for the Infovis 2004 conference called "sense-making". The group agreed that it was reflective of their process.

One concern of this group was the danger tat Bamboo become just another platform for tools and not an organic, dynamic and creative space that allows humanities scholars to share a vision and engage in new practices.  

As humanities scholars they were also very protective of the early (incubation) of ideas stage and did not want tools to suggest how they think, or suggest possible organization pathways and turn scholarship into a procedure.

They want to have tools that give maximum personalization options, so each scholar can tailor a program to his/ her process.

Back to top

Group 1b - E

D9: Formulate a research question, before starting the research.
    Access to a primary source.
    Faculty create knowledge - analyze.
D3: Absorb information. Integrate and Synthesize.
    Humanistic Research takes competition to the max. In hard sciences, there are teams.
    What role does quasi-market play in the sustainability of such humanities projects? Faculty have to deal with some dollars and cents metrics as part of their research.
    The varied schema that exist within archives have to communicate with each other.
    Humanities Scholarship is a solitary pursuit. Going to the stacks. Serendipity of walking in and discovering.
    Research is an argument. The presentation is in service of forwarding the argument. The Library can be a neutral space where the argument can take place.
A1: Connect a faculty with multimedia content. Convince administrators to invest in new technologies which will help faculty.
D11: Write 500 to a 1000 words a day.
    Library can enhance the community - connect faculty and the general public.
A6: Discover a technology or tool and connect that to a faculty.
D10: Removing a technological barrier for a faculty.
    Faculty aggregate.
D12: Knowing who is doing what in Research and having the ability to keep on top of it. Learn across the campus.
    Faculty collect data without assistance. Work closely to integrate their dataset into standardized methods. Adding schema to the dataset.
    Know the Faculty.
D13: Collaboration. Selective Dissemination of Information (SDI)
D14: Pedagogy. Read the works.
    A new paradigm may be emerging.
 

Back to top.

Group 1b - F

E2: build or extend a relational database in service of a research project, understand the project design so that we know how to construct our tables. humanities projects are not easily characterized in relationships/entities

E2: understand a project's whole relationship (parts) over the entire lifecycle

E2: reconceptualization and translation process. better, a transformation.

E3: Non-productive activities are still important

E2: we had several epiphanies that resulted in throwing away stuff - but that was important since it led us to a better understanding of the tasks at hand.

E4: understanding what humanists needs

E5: finding humanists who are curious about technology; learning the tools that are being provided for me (to help humanists).

E6: in a service role, e.g. digitizing a book.

E7: connecting people with resources, information partnerships, reviewing grants.

E3: <reading off her homework, will give me copy>

E1: most of what we do are e-respositories.

E2: move from rough notes to draft, refereed reports to papers accepted, move from notes from someone else's book to notes for my own project (commonality is a deliverable).

E8: spend a lot of time with my primary sources, looking for visual patterns and stylistic markers that are associate of expressionism - and I often have to do this at high speed, in an artificial context (play & FF pressed at the same time).

E4: aviada (annotation tool for ethnomusicology, mellon funded)

E8: deductive and inductive processes that take place when engaging closely with your source material (early film). e.g. looking for stylistic & visual repetitions, regular transformations, but also incongruities that could be worked into a working hypothesis (induction) and then moving into a deductive mode and looking for expected evidence in the film.

E2: long term, it's writing a book.

E2: Informed ingestion of primary materials into a repository - allowing faculty to produce e.g. scholarly editions w/o the need to learn e.g. TEI.

E5: Interface is delivery.

E3: collection discovery.. finish a larger body of work, make significant progress, find someone to respond to your work (critical perspective) > recognition.

E2: a repository of "dead ends". journal of digital disasters. (unsworth).

E4: creating a structure within an institution to allow the humanist scholar to come forward and make their project happens.

Transformation: in the sense of translating from a loosely defined scholarly aims so that these can be mapped to possible computing/digital practices.

----------------------

Response from one university, 05/08
One a really good day, what are the productive things I might do in relation to research?
•    I am in the field - excavating, students in field, conversing with colleagues, thinking about.
•    Read a book recommended by a grad student.
•    Write an idea.
•    Write 1000 words a day.
•    Identify an emerging area of emphasis in my discipline (eg formalism in lit studies).
•    Identify bibliography.
•    Issue of cloning what I do today vs what I could possibly do - at moments technology may take the lead and help redefine how things are done.
•    Receive grant funding.
•    Fool around - productive play.
•    Translate a text.
•    Look at meaning behind words.
•    Look at parallel texts.
•    Read text - primary secondary, etc
•    Read images.
•    Look at objects - approach in different ways.

During a really good term or cycle, what are the productive things I might do in relation to research?

•    Finish a book.
•    Develop a new book proposal.
•    Expose a new collection (library perspective).
•    Release a new tool.
•    Clean up and consolidate databases and spatial analysis - in prep for interpretation.
•    Annotate a set of source materials for publication.
•    Write a Grant proposal.
•    Get a student hooked in - identify and acculturate a student for research.
•    Create a process for new or improved workflow - getting the data out the door.
•    Find a path you would not have otherwise taken - may not take you to where you want to go but can still be useful. Recognize a dead end.
•    Explore new collection - get your mind around a new set of materials.
•    Develop collaborations - foreign included.
•    Define a research area.
•    Make a friend - recognize something parallel - dissonance is exciting - provides someone to respond to your work. A breadth of expertise is needed for success of projects. Critical to archaeologists  - working in other locations.
•    Get Institutional recognition - commitment. All these things require institutional buy in.

•    Discover.
•    Learn something new on my computer.  Often the spark - discover something that is not meant for scholarly purposes - discover simple things that lead to a new way of seeing or using what you might already have.
•    Discover something new - for example federated searched in worldcat.
•    Turn grad students onto digital scholarship - digital humanities.
•    Confess stupidity.

Back to top

Group 1c - A

▼    2.    Exercise 2
    ▼    2.1.    G6.
    •    2.1.1.    In 2003, coffee house performance.
    •    2.1.2.    Ojibwe singers would get together to sing hymns.
    •    2.1.3.    Recorded performance
    •    2.1.4.    One group from far north performed song he'd never heard before; he recorded it to VHS.
    •    2.1.5.    Worked into dissertation; later turned it into a book.
    •    2.1.6.    Found someone who knew they had a cassette release.
    •    2.1.7.    Received tape in Chicago.
    •    2.1.8.    O 'Twas Love of God to Me
    •    2.1.9.    Googled title; found cyber-hymnal.
    •    2.1.10.    Discovered that song was inspired by life of an Indian who converted.
    •    2.1.11.    Interesting story; e-mailed webmaster to inquire to story source.
    •    2.1.12.    Searches in regional libraries and resale stores.
    •    2.1.13.    Found book telling story again without citation, discovered in salvation army store.
    •    2.1.14.    Searched again, found lyrics
    ▼    2.2.    G7
    •    2.2.1.    On a good day, provides help to a graduate student in research.
    •    2.2.2.    Identifies students by networking.
    •    2.2.3.    Read proposal
    •    2.2.4.    Work out schedule.
    •    2.2.5.    Sequence of meetings with oversight professor, others.
    •    2.2.6.    Look at draft reports
    •    2.2.7.    Approve and accept report; perhaps send out for alternate reviewers.
    •    2.2.8.    -
    •    2.2.9.    Is there sufficient information to use tools?
    •    2.2.10.    As a user, can you find the tools, and is there enough information to use them?
    •    2.2.11.    G7 asked these questions, observed how students answered.
    ▼    2.3.    G2
    •    2.3.1.    Lots of work is solitary, since she's a lawyer.
    •    2.3.2.    An article.
    •    2.3.3.    Identify research question
    •    2.3.4.    Discussion
    •    2.3.5.    Writing
    •    2.3.6.    Discussing
    •    2.3.7.    Refining
    •    2.3.8.    Submitting
    •    2.3.9.    Publishing
    •    2.3.10.    Excellent sources in law: Lexis-Nexis, Westlaw, etc
    •    2.3.11.    -
    •    2.3.12.    Copyright and open access article recently.  Will be in book she's co-editing, a legal textbook.
    •    2.3.13.    Would have discussed with locals down the hall, non-local fellows by e-mail.
    •    2.3.14.    Co-editor and peers will review her work.
    •    2.3.15.    Scoped out subject areas in 2000, again in 2008.
    •    2.3.16.    Discussed what's needed, what contributions are required.
    •    2.3.17.    Thinks in many places (shower, walking dog, riding horse), mostly internally rather than on paper, but it continues as she produces.
    ▼    2.4.    G9
    •    2.4.1.    Giving advice to an academic research project.
    ▼    2.4.2.    Someone will come to him and explain the project/problem.
    •    2.4.2.1.    May include background in field.
    •    2.4.2.2.    Who will use data, potential uses.
    •    2.4.2.3.    Needs to understand research process.
    ▼    2.4.3.    Some research on his own
    •    2.4.3.1.    Google authors
    ▼    2.4.4.    Talks back to them giving generic advice on electronic research & resources.
    •    2.4.4.1.    How to share & reuse resources
    •    2.4.4.2.    How can others use this
    •    2.4.4.3.    This gives additional value to project.
    •    2.4.4.4.    Specialist advice on formats of data (this may come later after more familiarity)
    •    2.4.5.    May need to go off and talk to experts to accomplish these.
    •    2.4.6.    Match-making
    •    2.4.7.    Translating
    •    2.4.8.    Some technical experts not capable of talking to humanities researchers.
    •    2.4.9.    If they might understand one another, coordinate meeting.
    •    2.4.10.    Leads to project funding proposal & project plan.
    •    2.4.11.    May lead to providing support to project
    •    2.4.12.    May mean suggesting that they find someone to support project.
    •    2.4.13.    Ultimately it may well end with archiving, preserving, and distributing the end results.
    ▼    2.5.    G3
    •    2.5.1.    Working in Jakarta & West Java
    •    2.5.2.    Defines him as ethnologist.
    •    2.5.3.    Data solicitation & analysis
    •    2.5.4.    Inductive process
    ▼    2.5.5.    Eth'y is about relationship-building: spending time with people, gaining trust.
    •    2.5.5.1.    Working & living with people.
    •    2.5.5.2.    Practicing activity.
    ▼    2.5.6.    Data gathering:
    •    2.5.6.1.    Interviews
    ▼    2.5.6.2.    Video material
    •    2.5.6.2.1.    External sources
    •    2.5.6.2.2.    of interviews
    ▼    2.5.7.    Articulate data to colleagues
    •    2.5.7.1.    Rephrasing / translating
    •    2.5.8.    No way for outsiders to get access to information stored in internal system
    •    2.5.9.    As a research process, relationships are what I do
    •    2.5.10.    Can move too quickly, and be taken as a challenge - must be cautious
    •    2.5.11.    Ambiguous and organic
    •    2.5.12.    Difficult to get involved in technological and digital projects because they don't take this ambiguity into account.
    ▼    2.6.    G8
    •    2.6.1.    Many hats
    •    2.6.2.    One of roles is a change agent
    •    2.6.3.    Involves knowing the environment
    •    2.6.4.    Talking to people in an unstructured way
    •    2.6.5.    Try to find out what they're thinking without asking them that.
    •    2.6.6.    What's their priority
    •    2.6.7.    What's their field of vision
    ▼    2.6.8.    Talk to researchers, but also potential audiences
    •    2.6.8.1.    What are arts council's priorities?
    •    2.6.8.2.    What does research mean to them?
    ▼    2.6.9.    Reading.
    •    2.6.9.1.    Press releases from funding agencies
    •    2.6.9.2.    Websites for technologies
    •    2.6.9.3.    General press
    ▼    2.6.10.    Asking and answering questions
    •    2.6.10.1.    Asking any of above parties: researchers around her
    •    2.6.10.2.    Experts where she needs more knowledge
    •    2.6.10.3.    Colleagues
    •    2.6.10.4.    Friends
    ▼    2.6.11.    Creating opportunities
    •    2.6.11.1.    Managing resources
    •    2.6.11.2.    Ensuring incoming funding
    •    2.6.11.3.    Goes where it's needed
    •    2.6.11.4.    Making introductions
    •    2.6.11.5.    Know what tools are available, so can put needs in contact with tools
    •    2.6.11.6.    Mediation of events
    ▼    2.6.12.    Who decides priorities...
    •    2.6.12.1.    Understanding when priorities are emerging
    ▼    2.7.    G4
    •    2.7.1.    Research cycle is quarters
    •    2.7.2.    New system, allows completing books in record time.
    •    2.7.3.    Begins with recording oral history
    ▼    2.7.4.    Tape recording, analogue
    •    2.7.4.1.    Own interviews
    •    2.7.4.2.    Converts to digital
    •    2.7.4.3.    Can control analogue better
    •    2.7.5.    Send for transcription
    •    2.7.6.    Read transcript
    •    2.7.7.    Cross-relate transcript with mp3
    •    2.7.8.    Gather images
    •    2.7.9.    R.A. helps
    •    2.7.10.    Collect and digitize slides
    •    2.7.11.    Reading this recorded text, expand own knowledge. In this case, her hometown.
    •    2.7.12.    Read literature on the background of her experience.
    •    2.7.13.    Interdisciplinary.
    •    2.7.14.    Social analysis.
    •    2.7.15.    Taking notes in Workbook, Mac app.
    •    2.7.16.    Creates categories
    •    2.7.17.    Notes serve as foundation for later writing.
    •    2.7.18.    Used to be longhand, but new process helps.
    •    2.7.19.    Press is already identified.
    •    2.7.20.    Write
    •    2.7.21.    Send for review.
    •    2.7.22.    Revised based on editor, reviewer.
    •    2.7.23.    Publish
    ▼    2.8.    G5
    •    2.8.1.    Funder
    •    2.8.2.    Establish what the challenges are in UK research community
    •    2.8.3.    What problems are they facing that we can address at the national level.
    •    2.8.4.    Can we address by talking to colleagues & committees?
    •    2.8.5.    Should we fund workshops?
    •    2.8.6.    Having established, must contruct funding call to address challenge at national level.
    •    2.8.7.    Get people to bid for the call.
    •    2.8.8.    Must establish benefits to potential bidders.
    •    2.8.9.    Balance call for attractiveness to bidders while advancing internal agenda.
    •    2.8.10.    Take set of projects & get them to work together as a program of projects.
    ▼    2.8.11.    Get people to talk to one another & interact.
    •    2.8.11.1.    Get people into same rooms to talk
    •    2.8.11.2.    Identify common elements for cooperation
    •    2.8.11.3.    Difficult: maintain discourse after workshop.
    •    2.8.11.4.    Get program managers to look at projects
    •    2.8.11.5.    Blogs, wikis, twitter
    •    2.8.11.6.    Keep it going *between* meetings.
    •    2.8.12.    Balance this with actually working on projects.
    ▼    2.8.13.    There are certain outputs we want. May be lesson, technology, data, debate, discourse, or other messages. May be examples or just building a community. Balance:
    •    2.8.13.1.    Get output to serve community
    •    2.8.13.2.    Use what's developed to advance internal interests.
    •    2.8.14.    In terms of information, we have various challenges in getting information out. Could do better.
    •    2.8.15.    Biggest challenge is sustaining technology.
    •    2.8.16.    Industry.
    •    2.8.17.    Open-source advisory service.
    •    2.8.18.    Open development communities.
    •    2.8.19.    Get someone to build and publish code. Put it up on web, say come and use it - and develop it!  Does not work.

Back to top

Group 1c - B

•    What are the activities that you do in the course of/support of humanities scholarship? - Facilitating
•    When working with humanities scholars, they're creative arts people.  This involves a range of practices. - F7
o    Works with jewelry/sculpture.  Pen-shaped tool that allows to see 3-D rendering, working with virtual realities such as second life.  
•    New ways of using virtual realities.  Injecting real world activities into second life so that real people appear amongst avatars - melding real and virtual.
o    These sorts of things are used to develop new practices.
•    Type of activity that may or may not class as humanities scholarship.
•    Acquisition of materials that scholars will use. - F8
o    Acquisition of primary materials to make available for scholarship (ex. Harold Pinter archive)
•    Sense in which humanities researchers acquire material themselves. - F9
o    Snapshot of current humanities uses of a/v material - creating copera of material
o    Collecting interviews - oral history, or interviews with artistic practitioners (poets, artists, etc.)
o    Collecting for personal use by researchers, though not necessarily a possessive activity.
•    Documentary makers may package material, but the rest of the material may be left for other scholars, and may be of interest to others.
•    Making work from faculty more readily available, scholarship research center - sit in middle, working with funding bodies.
o    Group that traditionally have a humanities background, complementing those skills with IT skills, making innovation more broadly available to the community.
•    Specifically, making tools available.
•    No longer research-active IT workers, providing and facilitating use of IT tools in humanities scholarship.
•    Concrete examples
o    Designing Shakespeare
•    Collection of material - theatre interviews with production designers and those related to the production, VRML models of the theatre.  
o    A/V archaeology
•    Excavation of site, common practice to film and take audio commentary of discoveries - documented live as it happens.
•    Constructing visualization tools, such as video walk-throughs at a later date
•    Both of these involve a level of reporting/documentation, plus a later phase of editing/building computer models.
o    One sense - model of site, another model of stage.
o    Two different fields, yet approach to resources is similar.
o    Making a narrative?  
•    Yes, a sort of aggregation of knowledge in different shapes.
o    Project output - models, photos, videos, go beyond standard print output of project.
•    Documenting artifacts in a museum
o    Project into Europe, art gallery doing similar project of "intelligent labeling" of artifacts on a sort of PDA, putting information in context of what the visitors had already seen.
•    No two people would get the same story.
•    Generate coherent text, integrated to context.
•    Device able to track visitor.
o    Moving away from a tool from research, but there's a lot of research into content and research into potential use of tool.
•    New types of research relating to how people/react in these spaces, merging with psychology.
•    Hard to draw boundaries around humanities research in this context.
•    How would I put someone in touch with these tools?
o    At the moment, they're not well-documented, which is the purpose of surveys.
o    Happens in the context of a project, and then disappears.
o    One of key issues?  How to keep these tools from being lost after the project dies?
o    Video tools can last if it gets published formally, i.e. in broadcast.
•    Broadcast as different form of publication.
•    Video, until recently, kept on a machine, copied and then watched.  Increasingly video is streamed.
•    Likely to become a dominant paradigm of interaction with video.
•    Difference in the ways we think and interact with video.
•    Crossover between research and teaching/learning?
o    Concrete activity.
•    Looking at websites first thing in the morning for new materials.  
•    About collaboration through websites immediately.
•    Might be with an IT member, or other university groups.
o    Must balance old habits with new ones - working at tasks to put projects in compatibility/collaboration with other existing projects.  
•    Can find something new and interesting for scholars?
•    Can new models be interesting?  Or just a gadget?
o    New structures of reviewing
•    If you manage online publications, must be sure all standards are in place, and must be higher than standards of print.
•    Without clear standards, people will not publish to online journals, feeling that this is the "bottom" in terms of publishing.
•    Activities of funding institutions
o    Simple structure - Receiving reports, talking to those in the field, aggregating that into strategy into report/brief to a committee.
•    Work is primarily aggregating/diseminating
•    Dissemination layer one - To others about what's being done (downward)
•    Dissemination layer two - Up to committee, about where gaps are.
•    Similar to scholarship in concerns about dissemination, with concern for audience, and how you reach people.
•    Strict rules on funding, which limits dissemination.
o    Filtering process?
•    "Well, that's the trick!"  Difficult in filtering is the major problem in disseminating content. - F10
•    Use people as a filter, bouncing ideas from one person to another.  
•    If you listen cleverly to people's responses, it tells you more about them than the process.
•    External reviewers who look at process, internal through departments.  
•    Doing something in research, talk to someone in e-learning who may have feedback on projects that may or may not work and why.
•    "Balance audience with context."
o    Distinctly see difference between "their" processes and "our" processes.
•    Teaching and learning, understand frameworks for pedagogy, though in research its harder because methods in disciplines are different.
•    Diversity is immense in research, while it's smaller in e-learning.
•    No simple way to find commonality in different levels of IT funding.  
•    How will Bamboo find commonalities in the humanities?
o    Bit of money in one spot can inspire immense change that will be picked up elsewhere, never really know who will pick it up
o    Can throw lots of money and nothing will come out.
o    Part of practice from outset for funding is to define what content of project will be.
•    Done through consultation with user communities.
•    Final list didn't include all.
•    How to improve process of funding the right thing or doing the right thing?
•    How to define the types of contents that need to be made available to scholarly community, in that it's something they want?
o    Something that gains maximum benefit with funds.
•    Funding as investment banking
•    Invest in a spread of ideas, and only a few will flourish.  
o    Same thing that anyone has to do in humanities or sciences?
o    Sometimes innovation doesn't come from the places you want it to come from.  Or from where you'd predict it would come from.
o    The importance of surprise and serendipity in scholarship.
•    Breaking practices into parts
o    Acquiring and creating electronic corpera
•    Recording conversations A/V
•    Annotating recordings
•    Searching for examples
•    Analyzing examples
•    Analyzing annotation and the thing it annotates
•    Recruiting informants/consultants
•    Annotation is typically a sort of transcription
•    Widespread desire among scholars to automate process of transcription
•    Maybe imperfect transcription automation would be valuable.
o    Or perhaps just transcription and annotation assistance would be valuable?
o    Amount of data in 65 years will be nothing in the future, so digitizing just that much can be immensely valuable, and is ultimately smaller scale than one might think.
•    Is transcription into written text the only way to think about approaching these materials?
•    Scholars think thematically.
•    Transcription to accompany video is the most fundamental way forward.
o    Annotation of videos
o    "Any information is better than none at all." - F9
•    Sense that knowing what one's looking for allows for selectivity.
•    Annotation and transcription for an unknown purpose is a more difficult task.
•    Automated annotation and analysis of video.
•    One of the best way of working out shot is int./ext. is color-analysis, via low-level "brute-force" analyses.
•    If these can be embedded in standards, it would facilitate abilities to look for "stuff."
•    Expectation it will come since it's being looked for.
•    Opportune moment to start looking at this and defining what we want from it.
•    Locating the archives
o    Where are the videos, and dig through the catalogue.
o    Will catalogues become increasingly redundant?
o    How can catalogers anticipate what researchers want?
•    Technologies being developed that would hopefully have a revolutionary impact.
•    Image-based image searching, for example.
•    Research cycle
o    Discover
o    Administration side, proposals for funding.
o    Experiment itself.
o    Publishing.
•    Unpacking administration side
o    Information about grants, which was more or less there... just getting it to desktops.
o    Helping to prepare applications by collecting successes and failures, as repository for referees comments
•    Less successful and less experienced researchers could learn to write more effective funding applications.
o    Generally a private side of the research process, it's not available for others to see.
•    Can we bring this out to the open?  It would may allow for more successful research administratively.
o    Streaming information selectively for grant opportunities works well.
•    Perhaps too well?
•    Massive e-mails with funding opportunities, no mechanism for filtering.
•    Process not as simple as it seems.
•    Information overload - some way from being properly solved.
o    List successful bids without financial information?
•    Unsuccessful bids disappear.
•    Avoid re-writing grants to a funding agency that doesn't want that sort of project.
•    Giving away ideas for everyone to see, means that other funding agencies can see where projects have failed.
o    Also risk of projects being snapped up by others if failed aplications are out there.  
•    As soon as something is funded it's in the open world, if it's not it shouldn't be out there.
•    Nothing to prevent institutions from keeping these on file, keeping privately public within institution -F10
•    Sometimes silly reasons for rejection
o    Excellent bids turned down.
•    Prioritization of bids being signed off on?
o    There is a responsibility to maintain things properly organized prioritized.
•    Remains a personal thing, since researchers are dealing directly with funding agency
o    Inconvenience to go through centralized control mechanism.
o    People are happy to bid to other countries, since it doesn't hurt their rating for interior funding.

Back to top

Group 1c - C

            - [ ] orchestra calls up. variety of programs, recordings, outreach, performance activities, interactions with faculty
                - [ ] we've got money, how much IT can I buy for X
                - [ ] build projects to demonstrate what's possible
                - [ ] cost isn't really a big issue
                - [ ] biggest issue is in the range of view -- too small, or much much too big
            - [ ] archival projects
            - [ ] digital libraries
            - [ ] campus learning platform
            - [ ] software for conferences -- need to manage bringing information together
            - [ ] mentoring
            - [ ] motivating
            - [ ] dealing with funding issues -- partial positions
            - [ ] translating
            - [ ] art museum example
                - [ ] fine small art museum
                - [ ] question is, how do you draw the 16-22 year olds into a museum. they're highly digital....
                - [ ] relationship between visual and haptic
                - [ ] "fruit machine" -- get a piece of something, collect information about it around the museum
                - [ ] would've been a museum, performance/touch, research partnership using technology
                - [ ] project becomes the practice -- theorizing the basis of the activity, studying the activity, and producing the work itself
                - [ ] tendency for funding to bias toward projects -- changes relationship & behavior
            - [ ] mashing
            - [ ] consulting
            - [ ] brainstorming
            - [ ] commenting
            - [ ] creating an ensemble
            - [ ] setting a strategic area of research
            - [ ] analytical bibliography
                - [ ] how layout influences the way we read a text -- how do you mark up. correlate theory with methodology
                - [ ] digging into text for close reading
                - [ ] history of german novel -- combine with what else is going on
                - [ ] prepare tools to enable analysis
            - [ ] read
            - [ ] consult databases
            - [ ] find materials, refine terms, expand terms
            - [ ] produce article/book
            - [ ] edit toward building a critical edition of a text
            - [ ] distill broad corpora with pattern matching
                - [ ] pre-existing condition: large digital text collection.
            - [ ] how to bridge theory/concept into search terms
                - [ ] linking concept and string -- can't search on the idea of freedom, only on "freedom"
                - [ ] semantic web hints
            - [ ] find a trace of something interesting
                - [ ] track it down
                    - [ ] travel
                    - [ ] search
                    - [ ] obtain metadata
            - [ ] search as a paradigm
                - [ ] best search is to find someone who has been there before
                - [ ] like archaology
            - [ ] collecting a corpus is key
                - [ ] not just read a book and spew
            - [ ] connect scholarly teams
                - [ ] across boundaries of discipline, methodology
            - [ ] consulting is key
            - [ ] we have all this stuff -- where are the questions?
                - [ ] Really? There are so many!
                - [ ] How do you find the people who want to ask the questions?
                - [ ] What about the methodologies to match the materials?
                - [ ] What about the understanding to use the tools?
                - [ ] Learning curve -- best practices?
            - [ ] tools don't care (good and bad)
                - [ ] who you are
                - [ ] what you know
                - [ ] how you use them
            - [ ] UK challenge -- dispersal and fragmentation of expert research centers
            - [ ] building a (social) network of scholars
            - [ ] building a knowledge base of activities, communities, scholars
            - [ ] need to show value -- balance infrastructure costs and the measuring of results
            - [ ] build a science, technology, humanities cross-disciplinary community
            - [ ] launch a new version of a project's public site
            - [ ] find a collaborative institution
            - [ ] solitary nature of many scholars can't be forgotten
                - [ ] nature of IT implies a need to look for a different kind of IT expert -- can't find someone who is an expert in your sub-sub field and an expert in technology
            - [ ] digital humanities center ISN'T the way to go
            - [ ] how can humanists be intelligent purchasers of technology?    

Back to top.

Group 1c - D

 -Different ways of digitization across archives can lead to researcher having to organize things non-electronically
-Easier to photocopy, maybe make notes on the computer re: context

  • Typical old well-established project has good work routine.
        -Switching all codes means everyone has to learn new ways > inaccuracy
        - In Germany, this kind of long-term editing project would be carried through by Academy of Sciences.
    In terms of doing research, not looking systematically at a single source, but using researcher's instinct to look at a variety of things including newspapers, searching library catalogs (esp. British library), see what literature is also relevant, looking for individuals' manuscript archives (national register of archives) to see what might be there
        -Open to critique of missing a potential source; relies on one's own judgment of relevance
        -Operating in a traditional kind of way; relatively little on-line material
        -One sub-problem transformed by availability of local newspapers on-line; suddenly able to trace a particular individual's movements in local press
        -Would've required months of work for little result; now half-hour on-line search > one piece of the jigsaw
        -Different levels of judgment working on British Library catalog (title, publication, author are background knowledge to suggest usefulness); if it's a good use of time on that item, it suggests connections to other pieces of evidence
        -If the first one is a waste of time, follow-up doesn't happen
        -50/50 trial & error vs. background knowledge; more experience > background knowledge takes priority
        -Time/money risks; 20 minutes in British Library isn't bad, but if it's in California you ask much harder questions
    -Try to work w/ younger researchers (grad students), want to meet w/ everyone when they start and talk about their own research and needs
        -Doesn't happen- many are part-time, can't give info up-front that would help them to be aware of relevant sources
    Information Skills for Research = online tutorial
        -A lot of people doing research are older people who may not be familiar with computers
        -Providing support all the way through the process (literature search, sources of funding, research support librarian)
        - Talk actively to publishers, see what people might actually want
        -In the middle: advocate on behalf of research/teaching community
    -Technical staff has different understandings of the workflow
        -We need more detail than they provide: how it should actually work or look like (output, UI, how much detail/support, how much knowledge the users need, knowledge users don't have
        - You have a software library that's prominent, everyone uses it, but you see it has major bugs > I do testing, but I don't have enough time
        -Searching done through personal collections, catalogs of varying quality
        -One project has requirements that work only on old Power PC Macs > software ceases to exist (20 year project) > Trying to separate UI from hardware
    -Tension from both sides
        -Specificity of scholar's question has ramifications
        -Too abstract: programmer makes choices that may not work
        -Too much specificity: constraining the technologist from finding optimal solution
        -Pre-defined nature of the problem > sub-optimal technology
        -It's about constructive dialogue and balance
        -From both sides: how do you even know that there needs to be a conversation?
        -How can we have a more meaningful conversation between intentions, specs, and product?
    -Can we have a tool where scholars can come in and do the editing they're good at?
        -TEI Publisher: create infrastructure where you can dump your TEI in > didn't go very far
        -We made something that worked, but never looked for funding, energy ran out
    -In my day job, lots of mentoring, training, intervening with people to understand research goals
        -Cut them off at the pass before they do things they'll regret later

Back to top.

Group 1d - A

D1: As a librarian, help organize/analyze data

-Helped with protocols/standards of what to mark up in order to find out what they wanted to find out

-Come up with framework for describing illustrations T1: After joining Open Content Alliance, now have 10,000 books digitized

-Working with faculty on what to digitize, but different scholars want to do different things with output

-Scholars wanted to use text mining, requiring some flavor of TEI (so just give it to me that way!)

-Developing a workflow of giving them things (OCR/XML), and getting back their derivatives (their TEI-encoded texts) for our archives

-Teaching grad students how to use Oxygen XML D2: Most importantly, problem-solver, connecting faculty/grad students with what they're looking for

-A researcher wanted to get video footage and make digital copies in archive (didn't allow), allow for free use but can't own/reformat; had to negotiate between foundation and scholar

-Another foundation is thinking about video streaming, etc. to get content to scholars

-Helping colleague with money to do digital Islamic medieval manuscripts - needs people with language skills > used an old-fashioned listserv with other librarians and developed pockets of expertise

-Hoping Bamboo is a place where we can discuss special needs (not exclusively needs that can be facilitated by technology) S1: Oriented towards teaching support more than research support

-Humanists usually don't deal with numbers (text/image/sound); recently, a lot of film

-Digitizing and making materials available for teaching > eventually useful for research

-Film people aren't interested, not high enough quality; non-film people use it as a means to explain something else

-Medievalists want to mark up texts and create engines that allow you to search

-Built TextGarden, allows it to be done; probably very few people have heard of it (local institutions, local tools, local faculty interest) > programmer left 6 years ago, probably no one uses that programming anymore

-How do you create something that can survive the loss of the programmer?

-Humanists need very specialized things, so you build the tool > hard to sustain, maintain, make available more broadly

-Tend not to do these one-off projects anymore; don't have the resource or know that in three years, we won't be able to go into the code and changes

-Would have to keep old computers around to use them; they were very beautiful when they were done

-Scholars' interest tends to wane over time, too > lots of "orphan works" that still have some potential value

-Limited resources, we're not thinking 30 years down the road > 1-2 years

-How do you embed works in a structure that will survive the loss of a scholar/programmer

-Tend to use all the features of version X.X because scholars want to do complicated things; these are very vulnerable to software change

T1: You don't realize how valuable it is; something dies, and suddenly you start getting e-mails R1: Two types of research:

1) Editing/correcting/analyzing ancient documents;

2) More extended historical work, based on documents

-These have different problems; textual problems are more uncommon

-Nearly everything I need to do I can do at home; have a personal digital library of all the resources

-Libraries aren't as nice a place to work as at home

-Can't really break it all down into "concrete tasks"

-Interactive process of reading (drawing on things I know, looking for parallel documents/images/things with similar handwriting)

-Partly images, partly text searching, looking at metadata (where can I find other documents like this?)

-This process has benefited a lot from technology, a lot has been digitized, metadata for nearly everything, even though it's not all in once place

-It doesn't fall into the sort of traps S1 is talking about, projects have been multi-institutional, standards-based, organized communities

-But we have run into a lot of projects like that in Europe; "hey, with File Maker I can do such-and-such!"

-With Mellon's support, we've worked on a prototype of a system that integrates all these things, uses TEI DTD used originally for inscriptions, has been extended for lots of ancient witnesses

-Providing at the data level a way to deal with that; the next phase is generalizing the tools, having a community base so they don't become obsolete

-A lot of work involves findability for things that don't fit into these kinds of search

-Where you have a word, ID number, etc. is easy; the impediment now is scholarly literature

-There is a bibliographic database, but it doesn't really let you go into the content (limited by coding put on it by someone, product of the 1970's)

-Not "where do I find a parallel for this phrase", but "where has someone talked about this problem?"

-Much of the secondary literature isn't digital, but we also have a poverty of tools for what has been digitized

-I don't yet see the path clearly for that frontier; with other things, I see the path leading to a sustainable method

-With other things, when I don't have the energy to sustain it, there's a community that can pick up the slack T1: Issue of needing translation skills

-In biology, plant names have changed drastically over 150 years

-Now going back and trying to develop a vocabulary that will allow vocabulary switching

R1: We have the same problem with place names; we're developing an all-embracing digital reference for that, which will be run against Perseus, Getty lists to provide vocabulary redirecting

T1: Issue is common, it's amenable to the same kind of baseline approaches

R1: The tools are probably things that could be used across a variety of problems if they're made available and open source

S1: You say "we're marking up the primary stuff", but we're not marking up your article? There's no semantic-web type capability for articles, unless I translate X into a series of keywords?

R1: Not everything is even in JStor, but even with what is there, that's exactly correct.

-Very primitive tools right now; even fewer tools to do other stuff like clipping, etc.

S1: You see Google now corrects; "did you really mean", but that's more of a spellcheck

-In the future, "Professor Smith is interested in X, and *also* interested in Y", sort of like Amazon > you can't go in as a scholar and see what other scholars are looking at

T1: People who want to work across related different disciplines with totally different vocabularies (civil engineers vs. electrical engineers)

S1: Do you think a scholar when they submit their paper would take the time to do some kind of semantic markup?

R1: Pushed to do that more by journals now, but that doesn't solve the problem

-More sophisticated tools that use Google-like technologies are more likely to help than pre-coded stuff

-Author won't guess what I'm looking for later

-I didn't know how to even ask the question in sociolinguistic terms

C1: Literature review in archeology is very difficult

-JStor is primarily English, and not even complete

-French have digitized their journals, but Germans have not

S1: Pattern recognition > "what is this all about", huge problem to solve

R1: If you build thesauri that cross language lines, we plan to do this for main metabase data

-Doing English translation of German metadata, should make it possible to develop other processes; could still put in French search words eventually even if there's no French version of the database

T1: Recognizing the knowledge of the people who came before you

-It'd be nice if your next colleague could take advantage of what you discovered

D1: Some people said this is terrible, I don't want people to know what I'm working on because this is research in progress

R1: "I just found this by serendipity, I don't want you to find it too."

-Paranoia in my field is breaking down

-Used to be, "can't put unpublished documents on the web, people will steal them!" But hasn't been one case where someone published something without asking permission first

C1: Is there a use statement?

R1: Each institution has put its own up, hoping to have a unified Creative Commons license for images, more generally

S1: My theoretical recognition system would only cover published works; the search "gender and letter writing", but the search engine would just be looking at scholarly materials in a more sophisticated way F1: Humboldt published 29 volumes on his American travels

-Published mainly in French, had to create text body where you could navigate in different languages

-Must find ways to gather collections together

-Different disciplines, texts, subjects, there's a narrative

-It's kind of chaotic, he wrote about everything everywhere

-His works were published in valuable editions, spent his estate on it

-Problem of interconnectedness; it's a philosophical starting point

-How do we deal with this kind of textual body? - A colleague thought it could be done

-We've worked on this so you can do data mining within the entire system

-We don't organize with PDF's, it's a relational database; you can bring up a paragraph where all words are clickable

-Would have Spanish translation show up if you click on the Spanish flag

-Can recreate a context and environment due to his precise way of describing what he sees M1: We started with a way of creating a geographical space as a way of organizing resources

-Originally, 2D archeological plans > had to move to 3D

-Creating visualizations meant sending to scholars who might have different parts of puzzle

-What's the routine for a goat herder? Does that make sense? Does it interfere with other things going on?

-Finding exemplar objects, navigating museum policies, etc.

-Interesting to use a single geographical space (ancient city) as a basis for collaboration > using that as a way to hang articles and knowledge on top of it

-Not part of the game, because it might distract gamers, but we can use it for research (we think about reuse)

-Variety of game systems; now using Vicious, starting to work in Second Life (wouldn't recommend it)

-Working on moving to different virtual platforms

S1: With Google Maps, people annotate and add their own information; here, scholars are the ones contributing information

M1: Has implications for education, trying to create as accurate as possible reconstruction

F1: Google Earth has had bad press, but we've put Humboldt's travels on Google Earth

-You can use it to enter the text at any point, could be useful for chronology, go to a particular point and find the relevant information

R1: Very relevant for scholarly purposes; you can find that the dot wasn't placed precisely on the page because you can get more precise coordinates on Google Earth; improving geographic database

F1: We've put his maps on Google Earth to see what cities he saw that no longer exist

T1: Have to allow for controversy in Humanities; historical placing of a city can be a topic of argument

R1: Your own program can allow for a community to comment; "I was there and took my GPS coordinates"

D2: Useful to think about geographic elements over time, documenting when things moved and why; recontextualizing

-Putting back elements that have been removed over time

M1: We need to get to a place where we can reuse those objects; this is why I'm excited about Bamboo 

Back to top.

Group 1d - B

What is a good day for research or as a researcher? 

(D1) Subject librarians acquire access to content that we *know* is going to be crucial for research that otherwise scholars would not find. We are "futuraligists" and "trend-spotters" in the library, particularly for the humanities.  "What is needed is usually gone or not available when the scholar knows they want it."  There are core collections which most well-funded schools have access to, but it's acquiring the special and unique materials that really support humanities research. This takes skill and networks of relationships because content is rarely commercially available.  This also takes collaboration to cover the turf and to share resources to make things as accessible as possible. What's the process of providing access?  Traditionally you have a book, make sure it's well bound, give it an appropriate call number, assign subject headings and shelve for browsing (related matter grouped together). But, catalogues are not necessarily the first point of access anymore. We have union catalogues (OCLC World Cat), which some people use, but Google has growing share of academic search. "People don't have to have to shop in 5 different grocery stores." Universal search is a one-stop shop, but the biggest problem is selectivity.  Knowing a field - who is teaching, who is doing what research, what are the key publications, and trendspotting - is what delivers the most value to the researcher.  Is it a push or pull model for access? Both. Experimental. Creating sites dedicated to specific needs (e.g. Digital South Asian Library) and working to increase their discovery and page ranking via Google. Libraries are thinking about (struggling with?) how to make their collections findable in the right set of ways. There is also "face-to-face" pushing. "We meet with scholars daily.  It's a 2-way communication where they tell us about their research interests, and we talk about our collections." Scholars want "just in time information" from libraries and IT. 

(D2) Area of research is literature/history. A good day for research depends on the time of the year and priorities, as head of programs. The school currently has 5 key research platforms and holds events through the year (public lectures, intensive workshops). Current focus is digital humanities. Personally, it depends on the stage of the project - are you doing research, reading, writing. "The best time is when one is on sabbatical [for writing]."  What's the research process? I am working on a chapter for my book where I look at a range of how subjects emerge in a set of texts published since the cold war ending - for example, terrorists. I read at least 2 good pieces or essays on "trauma" and how this has developed. Where do you find essays? Search library catalogues, JSTOR, and other digitally archived humanities journals. How do you decide which essays to read?  I know the authors work from reading other bibliographies, authors of books, or I happen to know them.  "You can no longer have a mastery of a field. The material available is inexhaustible." When you are working with international literature, much of the material isn't digital and you need language skills to access it or to employ a translator. 

(D1) There is a major change in amount of material available digitally with Google Books and other projects. How do you find material?  There are always boundaries set by the questions you are asking.  Non-machine evaluations can be helpful - a selector (a person) helps you know what might be relevant in a way that simple cataloguing, subject headings, cannot. How do you capture your thinking process? "End Notes is wonderful." I take off-line notes. Review them  

(S1) I use Zotero.  It has everything that EndNote and it is also a place for storing your notes.  

(K1)  I use a tool called Diigo. It works with webpages and allows sticky note and sharing. 

(R1) Kindle is terrific. 

(H1) Would text mining/results be helpful?  Extremely. Some tools exist: 

(D3) Devon Think - Intelligent desktop tools (OCR, wordcounts/occurances). 

(S1) My good day?  I can find material online never easily accessible before.  I was doing research found a prisoner number, found the prison, sent the information to them, and was able to pay for them to send me a copy of the documents. To be able to get materials rapidly from home rather than traveling, going the archives, etc. 

(D3) "Running a humanities computing center.  Nothing breaks." A great day depends on context.   Grant applications and reports.

(D2) This is a significant, huge piece of our work. "Ninety-percent of early phase project work is seeking funding." What's the grant-seeking process?

(D3) We review calls that come out from NSF and others. Consider how our projects match.

(T1) It is so hard to determine whether your project is a match.

(D3) It's critical to know the project or program director at the funding body.

(D2) There are also practices and protocols that need to be followed. 

(D3) We haven't talked enough about new types of scholarship and questions.  MSU has a project where researchers are looking at the evolution of gangs looking at their tattoos.  Similar technology can be applied to quilts, which we can now look at on a large scale to see the impact of black migration in pattern changes, for instance. 

Back to top.

Group 1d - C

"In a good research cycle I interact with Humanities Research by . . ." J2

department doesn't do much that interacts with Humanities Research

his departments is too expensive for most humanities project

used to be research computing in 1960s -- lost their identity

interoperability, ID management infrastructure

M2 - in central IT

understanding where the needs are, improving communication

departmental/ school level doesn't do a lot of research support

MH - one on one with faculty to address teaching needs (also humanities research)

helping to use software, hardware, designing Websites for scholars

[private research university] in Egypt Today - website that chronicles archeological dig  P1

field - Shakespeare in theater and film

publish in print and conference presentations ("non-linear multimedia presentation" - digitized media and digitized text, all essays have begun as presentations

multimedia archive projects - video archive and video annotation

believes that most digital humanities projects do form the basis of scholarly research

doesn't  consider himself computer savvy, but is media savvy -- manages his own system

WHAT WE NEED ways to use video easily in larger projects M1 -- Humanities Scholars feel they need to know more than they do

C1 -- did a study of what faculty their programers were supporting

Humanities 2nd (Social Science was 1st)

engineers/ cs/ scientists were the last -- "could feed themselves"

created basic tool for video annotating and editing

M1 Response -- our program is used by scientists

B1

depends organic networks in place in a university

need a trusting relationship Discussion of Markup and data acquisition

rapid development markup and databases

CAN WE MAKE THESE ONE OFF DATABASES INTEROPERATIVE?

would we even want to -- grad students worry about time

A1 -- have a career worth of notes that want to reference for new scholarship

W1 -- Devlin program on macs does that for him, IA searching on text and pdf documents

M2 -- trying to bring together people of different specialists and bringing them into contact with Humanists J3 - administrator, running a library -- trying to bring people together, cluster of relationships A1 - Identifying contacts (who should be talking to whom) as important as determining the specific technical solutions

P1 - agrees, MIT is very good at this NYPL has a standing weekly meeting with the Council's Office COPYRIGHT!! J2 -- can we create a space for research that is all fair use? Fair use harbor?

UNCONSCIOUS COLLABORATION -- accidental collaboration (working through footnotes, finding annotations in texts, blogging feedback)

how much do we let people see of our research process

J3 messiness is pervasive in the rest of the world -- resource discovery beyond search processes, break down conventions of order and control J2 -- Use Amazon to discover new bodies of literature (those who bought, also bought etc)  ZOTERO

A1 - lack of credentialing on Amazon - do we need peer review

J3 - Wikipedia battles

P1 -- HAVE TO CHECK EVERYTHING

C1 -- Scholars need to expand their literacy to examine multiple sources and multiple media The three main things out of this discussion

Developing successful contacts between those who need help and those can provide it

Unrestricted or minimally restricted information through sharing of materials, drawing on a wider range of sources and media (including people and places previously not considered authoritative)

technologically mediated approach where the relationship between the user and the raw data is a seamless as possible 

Back to top.

Group 1d - D

G1:  Have done conventional stuff, like journal editing. Concerned we are at end of 2 grant cycles. Faculty doing tight and discrete work in silos. Want to harvest info, in a super wiki to collect references and best practices. Virtual space, where people access others scholarship and teaching practice,. Need it now, tools there, but potential missteps. I represent academic side but IT concerned w/ ownership, security, access and lockdown.

R1: How do you achieve

G1: We use Blackboard in teaching and learning sites to collect these things. Units were generic depending on the year in cycle (this is 10 yrs), now doing in dozen different teaching fields for 4 yrs. Can invite people in to password-protected sites; want to take material out of that. Graphic references w/ hyperlinks, text. Going back 5 or 6 yrs.

R1: What done to date?

G1:  Like a course site but it's a faculty site. They train ea other, group leader for each project. Entails 3 things; sharing syllabus and assignnent, important advice, and modeling their own course sites w/ a peer review process of their own course site.  Past work doesn't serve me now. Used to working w/ individual authors and reviewers, a lot now done in different ways now.

K1: Working on a multidisciplinary project in Northern Australia: anthropology, biology, zoology, fire scientists, and me as an ethnographer. Started to establish a mountain  of data. Got some correlation of our respective stuff, aim to store but to also interrelate across disciplines. Failed to get each of us to do sufficient annotation of our material. Ran against this again and again. Hard reality to properly document info, this is the one thing we failed to do . Good things: best days recently to explore ways as we create data in field, test data visual - trying to annotate at time of creation. Metholdogy is recording rock art sites. We're using portable GPS computers, handheld, successful w/ aboriginal colleagues. A positive step. Good model for other things.

Data is language (aboriginal language w/ 3 dialects) and learning about the language. Environmental aspect to project. Discussions haven't been held before. Environmental data is encoded in these fast disappearing dialets. Photos (huge #), firemaps by satellites that have heat sensing to record fires in dry season, digital video recording, social history, biology data - big study on disappearance of native mammals, musical recordings. To annotate: with rock out - worked w/ chief of rock art recording who had developed a stylistic breakdown and the process of building recording database. GPS - xml export, synchronize and transform ending up in a repository.

G1:  Metatagging is a huge thing. Issue of permissions, specifically faculty permissions. Itunes, pubs and open access. Working with  a company to do this. But getting faculty to do permissions on annotations, who gets access to annotate, and permissions on access.  Make sure you have schema right to begin with so everyone doesn't have to think thru.

A1:  Issue of shoveling data is critical and variable depending on project or field. Was a faculty member at [large research university] and work with visual data. One project was to put together a db of images that would be annotated and searchable to share w. other faculty to make accessible for teaching mainly. Used Cumulus. W/ tagging I got lazy. Hard to imagine my colleagues using them, would have been a huge burden to do all meta tagging required. Several fields to make meaningful for all. Had research assistant to do it, but was a failure because I was only person who knew what it was. Typical issue when knowledge is esoteric. Someone in my field could generically explain what it was. Could interfere w/ other activities that are going to get you tenure. IT guys pounding on my door to get done. It's drudgery and stealing time. Images that I produced, IT digitized boxes of slides, installed in Cumulus db and waiting to be annotated. Mostly didn't get done.

R1: Building a context seems to be the issue.

A1: only some data is explicit, but most implicit.

R1: How do people pass on tacit knowledge?

G1: Sites like Merlot have tried to deal w this. Talking thru it. What doesn't go in, can't be too reductive. Merlot site: you can go in and read til eyes glaze over.

A1: To read in rather than type in. Speaking rather than typing. That would have facilitated. Even voice recognition. Notion that you talk thru and around visual data.

C1:  Most of my work is looking at communities and how people work together to create knowledge. See faculty leap into closed site. If systems are open and collaborative so everyone more involved. Students involved w/ tagging.

A1: Something like that... Most are static images but w/ video too. Experimented w/ showing images and video to people who know nothing abt it. Failure. Need some kind of cue.

R1: 2 issues: dialogical is your practice of annotation. How do you get physical tags into a dialogue?

A1: Limitation of tools we are provided with . Closed model doesn't make data useful.

R1: You describe better in a classroom w/ dialogue.

C1:  A governance model needed but could begin. Make it accessible.

C2:  Counterweight to collaborative mode, which is my practice too. Indiv private practice. Want it personal. I'm a chimera, Engl lit phd and lit theory but also a comp scientist. I'm a hybrid model of a humanist. Series of practices, some overlap. Technology is laptop, emacs, and text I'm reading, relatively low tech. On laptop I take notes, stream of consciousness connections, fetish is hyper text note taking. Not data driven, but architecture driven. Systems that model the way we think and the way lit and language should work. That's an underlying theme:  frustrating - ought to be a way technology should work, but hasn't helped w/ literary work. Notion of annotation and metadata and becoming formal has numerous degrees. To make it accessible and standards compliant - we've turned to librarians who have rigid standards for metadata. Can write intellectual search machines but has to get more specific. Question of data shoveling is also who is going to define?

J3: after you shovel you have to get the meaning.

C2:  Reseacher gathers to sifting to a more formal pattern, Someone has to go thru and be rigid but everyone too busy.

R1: What is the process of sifting?

C2:  Entails looking at materials, from magazines, a batch of pubs from 20th century were categorized in ways no longer useful. Critiquing existing metadata. Look at data itself to come up with own gestalt categories. Turn to librarians for someone else's ontology so not reinventing wheel. Discover someone else's imperfect ontology. Goal is to have something machine actionable to create a corpus that lets me read at another degree. Can ask questions of the material w/ enough specifity to get answers. Hopefullly not my perspective alone.

J1: You are not alone. Trying to enter profession. Feel like I have split personality. Primary research: rsrching material, some physical some digitized. Involves private pracs of notetaking, writing dissertation chapter. Backgroud in info tech; married w/ my teaching and scholarship. Experimental digital humanities project. Manually transcribed Proust into a db and tagged according to terms that represent different aspects of discourse in each passage, so it's searchable and includees imagesPhotographs I've taken and connected to passages, and annotated. Want it to be a collaborative tool so that other readers can apply.

As an instructional technologist I help faculty design projects and learning experiences - setting up a blog, designing writing projects, digitizing. Involves evangelizing to faculty to let students research in a digital format, where appropriate. Making students the author. Often a passive model of a lecture online and download. My relation w/ the institution where I organize other tech guys, archiving our workshop notes, archiving student projects. Was previously done in a closed proprietary system. I'm bringing out into the light. Using Opensource 2.0; I love it. (droopall??) Archiving links to blogs, workshop notes and postmorta and how they went. Past practices and critical evaluation of those practice. Work w/ grad students in instructional design, lots of turnover, rely on institutional memory.

T1: Collaborative - means at PI level the research looks a lot more like management and admin - staffing, training, resource mgmt, managing outside collaborators... Not a lot of systems in place to train for this. A lot of self training, and tacit knowledge.

C1:  Not a problem particular to humanities. Research mgmt issue missing.

C2: Long academic culture that supports this. Moving toward model that's closer to scientific academic community, which has been doing. Don't have the rewards structure

T1: People working w/ you who are doing some of these practices.

G1: Different culture; it's academic computing vs info tech. Project mgmt certification is how done. It's a corporate approach: risk mgmt, application oversight.

T1:  Looking for tools, a whole set of practices.

S1:  Comes a point where we know the rite thing to do - you choose what's doable or you decide to do it the right way. Maybe just decide to do it right on the next grant.

T1:  Mistake to think we can outsource this, totally intertwined, need a feedback loop. 

Back to top.

Group 1d - E

5 - Feedback from colleagues and peers, which may take a long time to run full cycle. Someone capable of giving and taking thoughtful feedback. Modes of interrogation, cognition. The object of the feedback is to make the system more reflective of the issues and concerns of the humanities and arts community. A resistant in the materials, the texts.  

8 - interrogation in the practice 

5 - after discovering the issue, the next step is publishing 9 - what about the time between resistance and publishing? 

6 - a critical feedback mechanism. Shaping your own and your community's ideas 

10 - what you personally do, not in general 

6 - showing work to colleagues, which they criticized, and the work was made better 

3 - start with questions, research questions. Collecting data to build perception. Going to collections, both private and public. Comparing and studying the images 

4 - there are steps and preceed the research questions. Creating a structured argument. Seeking similar projects to learn from.  

8 - traveling to specific places to view/study objects/artifacts 

3 - validating the questions among community members 

8 - a question appears in multiple places, but hasn't yet been fully articulated or investigated 

5 - standing on the edge of a discipline and inviting people into the conversation 

4 - responding to RFPs and other funding sources 

9 - we need to abstract a bit. Thinking about the features of the practice.  

3 and 5 - examples both end with books 

9 - begin with reading primary materials (a story, for example) and get an intuition. Then, begin investigating the intuition. Flesh out the intuition via traditional research-draft, share with colleagues, re-draft. A modality question-read online, read at the library.

1 - in the process of reading, you are not consciously and systematically defining. Instead, they are in the background and reformulating themselves. 

-10 - the mind is the data store.  

11 - a trained spectator of baseball 

8 - the commentary of religious texts, which can be greater in quantity than the original text 

6 - recognizing something yourself versus something else pointing out the key aspects of the artifact. Given the answers to the crossword puzzle.  

9 - a machine reads a book sentence by sentence or phrase by phase to look for similarities. What is your value as the scholar. 

10 - the trained eye. It is about having training, which takes time.  

9 - is the point that you as a researcher/scholars to point out/identify or interpret.  

8 - supporting faculty begins with a lot of reading (magazines, websites) looking for things that are interesting and fresh. Talking and sharing with faculty in meetings and listening for problems-the simple and the more complex.  Faculty present their problems as technical problems. They think of a tool that might address their problem. People asking for what they think they need or want.  

10 - a need to clearly define the research question 

1 - the reference interview, getting to the heart of the research question. To better support faculty research, asking a lot of questions.  

7 - functionality versus implementation. Tasks versus practices. Hemispherical institute digital video library for performance studies. A two year grant. Meeting with the subject experts. There are multiple cycles occurring simultaneously.  

4 - coming back to the money-thing. The alignment or orthogonality of personal and funding interests.  

10 - coming up with the germ of the problem. Then there is the effort of determining how data are to be collected.  

3 - the lonely scholar versus interdisciplinary research. How they are similar and different. A network of researchers.

5 - the floating mouse as a tool for annotating texts. Defining the attended audience 

2 - works in a narrow band. Gaining new insights into data through visualization, which gives the trained scholar a chance to view the material/data in a new light.  

4 - trying to find the stuff that we don't already know  

Back to top.

Group 1d - F

P1: "translation" - say, 13th century biography text to translate.  if in multiple editions, which text to follow?  how do we find out who are the people named?  how to corrolate chinese dates with roman? someone is given a rank, how do we understand what that rank is?  normal problem of words not understood.  what's the nature of the relationship between people mentioned in te biography? reading one paragraph involves many practices. "translation" becomes a secondary/tertiary phenomenon. reason for reading the biography in the first place may be to reconstruct a social movement. behind dereferencing a term are a whole range of other practices. creation of reference tools one part of the practice of translation ought to be developing a relational database; can't assume "i" know how to do it. 

 M1: "trying to develop the discovery mechanisms" for scholar to know what's already been done. what other pieces of content are necessary to be useful to the scholar?  struggle to have a corpus large enough.  example from art history of having a large enough collection of images of, say, vases from different areas and periods.  aggregation as well as context, metadata.  tension between common denominator approach vs. building sophisticated tools.  technologies, organizations, faculty with specific needs vs. trying to build common infrastructure for broad use.

A1: friction points? cost?  availability?  (only so many art history db's out there)  fit of products to needs?

M1: cost, labor, infrastructure, data migration, "customizable now but need to be sure we can migrate" 

P1: (ex instructional computing harvard) extend knowledge of database practice when researcher doesn't bring it assess whether RDB is necessary or something simpler (perl data structure, for ex.) identify specific tools design tools make research materials accessible to students can solution for person A be used by person B with similar needs?  economies of scale "my notion of longevity may be different from yours"

- K1: "thought i had a small project", now up to about 4,000 titles.  TEI: text encoding initiative, an xml tag set for humanistic coding, perl script to sort through all the books to find the stuff of interest. "publication doesn't lead to riches or glamor or glory" hope that when people have new titles they can enter them into the db themselves univeristy has nobody with relevant skills (TEI, oxygen for mac, xslt).  using the tech is a waste of the researcher's time. why shouldn't i just post my work on line as a db? 

N1: historical research which doesn't focus on canonical texts.  moving through lots of material very quickly, need for low time investment. need subsets of data which are constrained.  "what does medical practice look like from perspective of [patient, small town clinician, small child]?" how to avoid the tyrrany of the database?  db's involve overhead.  time to create machine-readable db often not worth it unless you have canonical texts. what do db's do well? what constraints do they impose? not sure the db is "the solution" for all kinds of problems. stitching together loosely structured collections, "metacollections" looking across broad collections when you might not even know what you're looking for "low overhead"  -

refer to "peter's world" spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to get from creating a digital bib. artifact, from something "print" to something "machine actionable", that the stupid pigeons can do something with.  how to get from easy to read to easy to program against?  whether or not the effort of the transition is worth it. the scholarly practice is about inventing new ways to work with citation (digital modes).  embedded in a particular set of subdisciplines (ancient world).  - creating citation ("check me")

 -  looking at ways we can do citations in distributed systems in ways that are available not just to scholars but to code working on aggregations  -- S1

[librarian] translation from operating in the print world to operating in the "desktop world". complexity of the formats of the resources.  understand which resources researcher is after.  mindfulness of budgets of time and money. many different sources (journals, newspapers, db's) some better than others enable discovery in a complex world search engine strategy across wide variety of formats (text, visual, etc.) "federation" 

P1: many universities don't have the resources of (say) harvard for a competent bibliographist  W1: analysis for storage in an archive looking at metadata so it's useful for unintended uses preparing material for eventual unknown uses invention of the "dspace" or fedora products how to store the information so that it will be there at all (format drift) incorporate discovery of online resources, push to "where sutdents and researchers are" (facebook etc.) rather than library home page as starting point 

A1 sums up: creating and using digital citation translation as a set of practices resource discovery, selection, and allocation; "resource collection building" where resources are not all local and not all present resource building: discovery, access, use digital curation project design and management methodological practice and design "trolling" (in the fishing sense not the newsgroup sense) finding appropriate, effective models

P1 on translation, same example of a biog. text from 1300:   what's the date, when there's no recognizable calendar?   place   titles   persons -- who are they?   alternate versions or editions of the text   secondary research on any of the above (citations) nature of social relationships, complex network. not enough to say x mentioned in biog of y, but what's nature of the relationship   ulterior motives in reading the biog in the first place. -- 

N1 on the payoff question technoloties aren't neutral; should interrogate the values built into tech. change over time is something RDB's can't represent well "i like tools, tend to get caught up in the tools"  but the investment in tools often doesn't pay off in terms of scholarship technological imperatives at odds with the ways scholars, teachers want "quick easy dirty access" 

P2: wrong, waste of resources to allow tech. to drive scholarship A1: desire to have the tool at hand can lead to a lack of self reflection on how a tool works, what it lets us do. 

P1: this problem is not new; anybody who uses a dictionary may not reflect on how the dictionary influences them.

Back to top.

Group 1d - G

A2       Rhetorician by training.  "what do I do?" wish someone had asked me that at beginning of grad school. Work towards publication.  Finding primary texts, and secondary materials. How do I do that? Mostly online; sometimes going to library.  In germany, most libraries are closed stacks.  Likes open stacks in US; serendipity of finding things; similar experience online.  Don't go to particular journal to find articles, but to database.   What else? Engage in scholarly communications; colloquia, conferences.  Sometime with people in different disciplines.  Villanova is making collection index look like iTunes, where you can see the cover.  Likes that. 

H1       Process of discovery. Can accomplish high level of granularity online; intersection of scholarly and non-scholarly.  What I can find through UVA library plus google scholar and google books is incredible 

S1        have built large database of social science data; 5 year project.  for social science scholars, but also for the public.  Funding has run out, can't find funding to continue; "on life support" through library.  Katz's law, "costs more to maintain a database than to build it." D2       confront this a lot. Get funding to build something, scholars come to rely on it, but when funding runs out, isn't clear how that it will be supported over time. 

T1        why was it built? 

S1        Encourage social science research on arts policies; needed to gather the data so researchers could ask questions, and have enough data to be able to get valid results. 

T1        so what's the practice?  In this case Gather data.

S1        part of the grant was to require people to contribute data 

H1       worked with other historians to have a place to contribute documents - mostly paper 

S1        another practice - develop a "business plan"  

W1      French Lit. historian.  What we do is learn to be active listeners.  Always looking for the conceptual underpinnings of the text. Need to setup effective communication channels and communities - often not technical.  Have to set up meeting to come together, listen to each other; listen to the same text together.  Values meetings that are based on exchange of ideas.  Can be enhanced by digital communications ahead of time - set up wiki's, etc.     At [private research university] don't distinguish between teaching & research; teaching students how to do research, how to read; have to understand new forms of cultural literacy.  Investigate with new students new forms of cultural materials. 

R1        look for ways to make conferences easier 

H1       starting to make audio recordings of letters in a database so you can listen to them.  How does the media affect interpretation? 

D1       what I do in my practice as a rare book librarian is look where we can add value or innovate with the technology. Work with faculty, curators, subject specialist librarians.  Putting electronics materials into online environment that will be useful and preserve the materials.

M1       when putting on a museum exhibit, it's a lot like putting together a publication. Putting all the materials online extends the value of the exhibit. People are doing interesting things in exhibits that let people get information about what they saw in the exhibit - bar code scanner that lets you get info about stuff you looked at.   

S1        collaboration is now more important to researchers. Previously worked more individually. Need to unlearn those habits H1       new medium is somewhat threatening because research used to be a solo activity.  Now have to work with technology people, etc.    threatenting to the way we've been trained to work for 40 years. 

R1        In the sciences, haven't been able to do research by yourself.  In the humanities, want to play it closer to the vest; I want a safe place to collaborate. I only want to share with the people I want until I'm ready to publish.  I want to decide when I'm ready to move it to an archival space with metadata; decide what's worthy. 

A2       Scholars only want to put out the finished product; want to hide all failures along the way.  One interesting thing about blogs, etc. is it makes the "marginalia" of the research process more visible.  Provide more exposure of the working process

R1        Blogs are like going back to an earlier form of journals. Wonder what kind of changes we'll see in 20 years, where young people have lived in collaborative open when all their lives.  They document everything. 

W1      have been putting together scholar maintained communities; participation evaluated by peers.  Researcher driven collaborative space.  Have graduate level of access -  "increasing levels of less and less trusted readers." 

P1        as an archivist, most of what I deal with is paper. "digital archive" doesn't exist. Mostly work with undergrads or K-12 who need materials for class assignments.   

M1       in museum, good deal of scholarly work goes into exhibitions, but most of the viewers are non-scholars 

P1        have encoded archival descriptions to help people find materials;  an xml representation of "finding aids" - description of materials, along with info about what box it's in. 

D1       With materials online, can no longer anticipate who the users will be in library, esp. rare books.  Can be overwhelming.  Don't see it as our responsibility to make guides for K-12 users 

W1      Have to fight Wikipedia; spent a lot of time writing a "correct" article on Wikipedia, 2 weeks later found it overwritten by a 16 year old who had more "Wikipedia points." 

H1       not that Wikipedia is factually incorrect, but "interpretively primitive." 

R1        a lot of people are not fighting wikpedia but embracing it, by trying to improve the content 

W1      can't do that anymore.  Gotten too rigid.  Now use the german version 

S1        does the open access model work as well in humanities as it does in the sciences. The whole system of scholarly communication needs to be revisited, esp. in the humanities. 

H1       but it's threatening and needs to be done carefully 

S1        if you think the model for open access is computer science, without peer review, then its OK.  But if your in a field with a tradition peer review then it's a problem 

T1        comes down to the question of authority of the source   

Back to top.

Group 1d - H

This group represents the whole workshop's representation

Task versus practice

        Practice is higher-order than task?

        "practice = set of practices accomplishing a scholarly goal"

Our intros

        Fedora Commons

        IT supporting scholars

        Scholars

        Librarian supporting faculty for teaching and research

        Dean: need for that level of involvement

Service practices

-Library perspective - learn about faculty needs, survey them informally and formally.  Librarians then educate their staff from what they've found.

-Web-based survey of e-research needs, 4000 campus faculty; 2nd largest group of respondents was arts/humanities

Two levels of survey: individual and mass

-Gap analysis can then follow, where to put resources, what tools to make/identify.  Can't meet all needs.

-One problem with gap analysis is where can people go next when the locals can't support (and this from MIT!)?

        General: difficulty in finding people who know both tech and content area.  Difficulty in finding people who respect other domains. Faculty-library gaps.  Discipline-specific knowledge.

        General: project planning skills.  Hard to import from industry.  Difficulty moving between disciplines, too (science vs humanities).

        Limitation: market analysis.  It's usually one person (faculty member); we don't do fuller analysis.What about finding generalizable tools?

        Problem with working across big, different data sets - different metadata, for example.  Name authority is an issue: if we can't bridge different authorities, we're screwed.  Build inter-source mapping tools..  We should move between command and control silos to open networks ; anxieties about information quality (faculty) and difficulty in managing collections in flux.

        Importance of watching what users actually do with data and tools.

        How far beyond established practices can we go, or allow, to support innovation? (Fendt's example of poor quality OCR)

        Project discussions, samples: an emergent Australian and New Zealand major historical project, digital encyclopedias working group.  Working with complicated texts.  Difficulty in finding unknown knowns.  But importance of the humanities in teaching the complexity of the world!  We can't see everything as easily computed.  Deep cultural divide: "the humanities work against these kinds of tools that we're trying to build".  We value ambiguity.

Two: common and uncommon.

Goal: find norms.

        Reading in another language

        Back to ambiguity and interpretation.  Contextual information management.  Annotation , or cross-reference.  "Every architecture needs to allow for conflicting statements about things".

        Building authors list.

        Text drill-down: whole text, down to specific point.  Need to cite down that far, at that granularity.  Other media? Yes.  Crane: "everything needs to be rethought" (!).  Ontologies - we consider the attempts to build them, but recognize that they are problematic.

        Public scholarship and the long tail.  Audience: broad, public scholarship is uncommon; narrow, internal-to-discipline work is the common.

        Importance of content export, the exit strategy.  History of preservation strategies.  Moving stuff between contexts.  What about doing something new: connected to OCA, easier to upload.  Such a project needs resources LACs don't have.  What object?  Digital surrogates for physical texts vs born-digital materials.  Cost of migration: loss of functionality and/or loss of perspectives.  How do we define our objects?  Could Bamboo take this on?  No.  Can Bamboo facilitate communities which engage a data curation conversation towards defining digital objects?

        Building tools; for one project, one scholar, a boutique; versus tools for general use.

        Project planning need is common.  Marketing should be part of that.

        "Some of us are not shiny people."

        Problem with timescale differences between a faculty's research timeline, versus technology different, versus technology curation

        Summa:

1.      ambiguity!

2.      Infrastructure for disagreement needed

3.      Narrow/broad audience

4.      exit strategy, mobility of info
 

Back to top.