This wiki space contains archival documentation of Project Bamboo, April 2008 - March 2013.
- [ ] unpack an uncommon -- mindfulness & personal enrichment
- [ ] mindfulness - similar to self-reflective sensemaking
- [ ] thinking about what we're doing, and what the implications are
- [ ] kinds of knowledge that can be evoked
- [ ] what can bamboo do about all the diversity of areas that have already tackled topics
- [ ] can we un-invent e-mail? we've unleashed a frenzy on ourselves
- [ ] no way to view the context of others -- line out the door
- [ ] how can we make this not another burden?
- [ ] reduce complexity
- [ ] can we build spaces that will let us be more mindful
- [ ] share methodologies for taking control of e-mail -- developing an armor
- [ ] how can your tools reflect your needs for mindfulness?
- [ ] control over how it makes demands on you
- [ ] developed with consideration of what those demands will be
- [ ] what timeframe is a response relevant within
- [ ] where are your "same stupid responses" -- your repeat activities
- [ ] a scholarly version of a project management system?
- [ ] make the tools serve you instead of you serve them
- [ ] how can managers of project bamboo be more mindful?
- [ ] harmony over conflict
- [ ] recognition of toxic habits
- [ ] what thought process might be suggested?
- [ ] what can we tell the computer about how to interact with us?
- [ ] can we create mindful space as part of bamboo?
- [ ] part of institutional commitment?
- [ ] develop models of work that allow space for these activities
- [ ] big players host a "camp" -- a 3 week "retreat"? -- something to give people space and time away -- some kind of rhythm
D20: early television (for which there's little text), he deploys traditional oral history, which produces a context in which you need to think about those methodologies in rigorous ways, as a dialogic exchange what-have-you with the rights of someone to represent themselves, etc.
It can lead to some values of research that lie outside the box, or which aren't typically articulated
the oral history itself becomes a text that you work to produce but which someone else has a claim on as well
so what you do with it after that could be something traditional (e.g. paper or book) but you could also go back to the person you interviewed and have them comment on it
the tools we're talking about and the significance of user participation can lead to a more dialogic product, and those exchanges can lead somewhere interesting
A12: one of his colleagues decided in the context of a field investigation (which is normally v. hierarchical both in organization and in interpretation) to implement a multivocal experience where they took video and interviewed the low-ranking students, the workmen, etc., to get multiple voices about what people thought they were digging for
he attempted to publish something about it in print form
and he wants to make this stuff available universally
D7 had one of those moments: he was working with urban Appalachians, had been documenting one guy's house, didn't have a wide-angle lens, tried to capture interiors... urban Appalachians live in bourgeois houses but in a nonbourgeois way
this guy offered to take pictures of his house for D7
so D7 wrote a piece about the structures of this guy's videotape and of the house, which informed each other
the idea of the subject of study speaking back goes back to a broader idea where the study itself is reflexive, there is a general ethos about the significance of being reflexive in your methodology
trying to list concepts related to producing nontraditional materials:
- trying to collect languages faster than they die
e.g. train up native speakers in ling rather than linguists in the language
- aesthetic of just-good-enough
better to do something badly than not at all
- scholarly work done by nontraditional scholars or non-scholars
- e.g., PhD candidate who produced a hypertext document for a dissertation and was asked to print it
- web archiving: policy constraints and restrictions
- "Linguists talk about archiving stuff, when they mean slapping it up on a website, and that's not archiving, in my view."
"Tell it, brother! Testify!"
- dynamic texts (only snapshots possible)
- law blogs getting cited (case law volumes are themselves an ongoing scholarly conversation)
- creation of virtual environments
- looking at popular media in art history
- what your tenure and promotion committee is going to look down their nose at
as a pragmatic definition of what we're talking about
- we would like to hang on to everything for posterity, but that sticks posterity with the problem of picking out what's valuable
letting a thousand flowers bloom vs. existence of evaluative criteria
so in the digital world there ought to be clear ways of evaluating and sharing evaluations
- data sets
- query results (persistence of ability to generate a view on data?)
- citation of unusual/nontraditional materials
e.g. some stuff on an island in Second Life
- stuff like reviews moving from journals to the web; will that make book reviews less considered for tenure and promotion questions? And are they being archived by libraries?
- nota bene: for blog stuff, that edublog outfit out of Australia is way better than Six Apart
A12: we aren't talking about changing the basic scholarly practices, we're talking about refining it and incorporating new things
convergence: we began talking about data sets, tagging, metadata, and getting better at that, getting consistency, and now we've come back to that cluster of subjects
- Grand Theft Scholar
A12 is a Burkean conservative: "There is a wisdom embedded in the social product of a couple of hundred years of the Western academic tradition, about how to do this, without killing each other." The great achievement is that we have a safe space for arguing/fighting without hurting each other. So we want the digital to allow us to have better & more arguments, and more kinds of arguments.
those arguments are happening in smaller circles, because readership for monographs is smaller
but the web, kids! bigger audiences!
virtually any knowledge can be unified in a GIS subject
because Homo sapiens is wired to experience things spatially
Smashing / Confess Stupidity
• Smashing = questioning extant structures; metaphor that is instantiated in practice: smash a plaster cast (art piece) and from the rubble make a new piece of art
• Confessing stupidity = identifying places where learning about error can enrich the process of research, enables constructive forward movement ... discovering through trial and error
• B10: why doesn't Mellon post the projects that did not succeed? That would enforce some accountability, and enrich proposals by allowing them to learn what didn't work ... nothing to be ashamed of ...
• John Unsworth: digital disaster
• If you come to a dead end it'll help others to not go in an unproductive direction
• Accounting is a really rich term for describing this process: being accountable and responsible for the results of work
• Peer-review is a way of discovering flaws. Critique. Public response.
• Open academy to admission of "incomplete knowledge" -- invite help
• Geneology is an area in which "amateurs" do a lot of work and have a lot of "self interest" in a form of scholarship
• Crossing disciplines: critique from other disciplines might provide unexpected "correction"
• Critique must be built into the lifecycle of scholarly disciplines
• End-of-grant reports deemphasize "what went wrong" -- it might be better if one were rewarded for frankness in this area of self-evaluation
• Qualitative social-sciences have a greater tendency to engage in critique
• Could be a value in intervention before one gets too far along in a project
• Concept that ideas are developed collaboratively might help to make inroads to the "prejudice" against collaborative work that is currently embedded in tenure processes.
• Testing: might some form of testing one's ideas (about culture) by "implementing" a theoretical framework provide a "reality check" and somehow enrich/strengthen the development of the idea/concept/research
• What might we smash (or "remake"):
o Boundaries between academy and community/public
o Boundaries between teaching and research
• One faculty member described a review letter that warned against the overlap between his teaching and research that might not be viewed in a good light by future review committees
o Boundaries between disciplines
o Boundaries between sciences and humanities
o Devaluing of student-faculty partnerships
o The concept that undergraduates are simple vessels into which knowledge is poured, and not sources of knowledge
o Promotion and tenure models
o Teaching and learning
o Perceptions of libraries and IT
o Perceptions of faculty and staff (as distinct classes incapable of working collaboratively)
o Central vs. decentralized (e.g., in IT service provision)
• What do we really want and can we really do the smashing/remaking?
• What concrete practices might effect the abstract ideas
o Reflective practice
o Submitting YouTube videos to your tenure review committee, and insisting colleagues take them seriously
o Celebrate mistakes
o Collaborate with students
o Collaborate across disciplines, seek new opportunities to do this
o Provide and solicit peer review and critique ("getting people to do peer review is one of the hardest aspects of running any publication ... there are so many ways to do a useless peer review")
o Strengthen feedback/advocacy loop to celebrate risk takers in administration ... political activism for change in the university ... not sure how ... the question might be "who can smash" ... people must be prepared to appear to be "the crazy person" who makes unusual suggestions
o Exercise the fair-use muscle
o Make one's scholarly product available "for free" ... employ open forms of distribution ... "give stuff away" ... "don't insist on getting the maximum tenure bang for your buck" -- but how to make that a more general practice, and not an isolated practice ... perhaps use of humanities zines and blogs instead of scholarly journals is a practice that will catch on as it is exercises.
• "I would smash the paradigm of print" ... the concept that ideas must be packaged in alphanumeric printed and bound text in order to be legitimate ... and perhaps one can preserve print while allowing alternatives to print to become more valuable ... so it's not smashed, per se, its hegemony is just dialectically challenged
Unpacking the Uncommon: Political Action
The last theme very directly and nicely related to the idea of Political Action. The group thinks Bb will become a political player, will lobby for change in the academy but also because a political player on other issues such as bridging the digital divide in the world.
Through 1) open access, 2) international outreach and 3) mirror portals in foreign countries.
If Bb decides it is primarily an academic space or community, it should leave space for explicitly non-academic activity as well.
Should broaden base through action, investing resources and open communication.
Danger of Politics: Bb should not let any one institution or organization dominant, or one type of institution (i.e. rich private research universities)
Danger: it should be a community not club model
B9: self-interest - what does it mean?
C6: new generation of students are multicasting, socializing...is this a cohort? or is it a maturation effect? MW's second video. What's the role of reflection in this context?
C6: We're constantly connected, always on/in a network. It'll change the ways we do our intellectual networking.
E2: course management systems - all force you to end your relationship with your students at the end of the semester.
[The richer the networks you build with blog & wiki like tools, online discussions etc., the more damaging this break becomes]
B2: Worried that Bamboo may change the way we interact with a research process - erasing the individual scholar.
C6: in the sciences, for example, data provenance is tagged at source, so that when it gets re-used, credit for the original data is carried along.
B9: Field linguists go out and collect language, collect lexicons. The dissertation is given importance, and there's a mass of related information that never gets published, that is put in a box. But it takes a lot to put it in a box (assuming someone will take it). The discipline also needs to recognize the value of this primary data. Right now, only traditional forms of publication are given sufficient value. As a result, not much effort is put into preserving this.
D7: University presses need to step up to this challenge. They're going down.. and they need to create new ways of letting repositories be recognized.
C6: Canonical ways of networking are professional conferences, workshops.
E2: Network of citations in published works.
D7: I hear from people who are working on similar materials, subject matter.
C6: Production (AV) networks (temporary organizations), contrast with academic network, where everyone's working for themselves. There's less of a path up, less of an incentive for people to network.
C6: Another traditional network are around humanities center. Also people who studied at a particular program.
B9: In mailing lists you can lurk, and still get something from that experience. Very different from older means of introduction into and engagement in a mailing list.
C6: You need to be able to demonstrate competency in some collections. New technologies allow you to participate in these communities without the traditional entree.
C6: Hubble data - one person's waste data is another person's valuable data. Also people sharing a patient - you've already got em', so when you do your e.g. FMRI scan, please also do x, since we don't get enough of that kind of patient at our location to do x test.
E21: Networking also very important to create collaborations to fund fieldwork.
D5: Fieldwork is hard to fund because the date is raw, not yet organized > not yet cited/proven.
D7: Fieldwork needs to be returned to the source communities. Requires an archive, could lead to unexpected use later. Public and academic constituencies. Can be produced in different formats. People who engage in fieldwork are both creators and critics. The concept of a "public humanist" is not very well developed, even though there are public humanities councils in each state. Digital media allows one to perhaps reach broader constituencies.
D7: I work as much or more in public situations than in academic situations. With community organizations, labor unions etc. Native American Indian tribes to help them develop educational systems, etc.
D5: So what's your pain?
D7: People die. Well known people in their communities. The other pain is that although 75% of the world's people are ignored, the people studying them are also ignored in universities. One falls between the cracks of disciplines in universities.
B9: Do you get restrictions imposed on you in your fieldwork?
D7: Yes, all the time. But that's ok. We don't have to tell, or know everything.
E2: Do you get institutional releases for your fieldwork?
D7: I try to avoid my institutional IRB because I don't like the way they work. I have release forms but I use them in the way that makes best sense to my community and my work.
E2: If we want to share data, we need to respect one another's ethical codes for sharing information, artifacts etc.
B2: Is it possible to be create a kind of raster or grid that systematized these kinds of relationships.
D7: Yes, it's generally possible (gave some case examples).
B2: Transana.org - transcription tool.
B9: Transcriber. ELAN. - other transcription tools.
▼ 5. Exercise 5
▼ 5.1. What's uncommon?
• 5.1.1. Content, subject matter.
• 5.1.2. G3's fights. He actually fights with people in order to learn from them.
• 5.1.3. In linguistics there's a long tradition of not looking at data.
• 5.1.4. Language use: sometimes it's doing something quite distinct from what it appears to be doing. "Do you have any Marlboros?" "Yes, 5 pounds please."
• 5.1.5. G3 & G4: talking about giving something back. This kind of return isn't characteristic of much of humanities. The desire to return to the studied community. Reciprocity. Principle of fairness: someone shares something of themselves with you, you owe something back.
• 5.1.6. If one is dealing with people rather than objects, there's a set of obligations different from when dealing with artifacts.
• 5.1.7. Music, dance, fists. Body.
• 5.1.8. People think of music as a commodity, not as something everyday. Never think of ABC, Happy Birthday, Farmer in the Dell when asked what they know.
• 5.1.9. What people say may not accurately represent what they believe or think.
• 5.1.10. Wait, what's the point? Back to first principles.
• 5.1.11. People tend to think of H. as autonomous objects isolated from everyday use. Byron is surprised when he engages people in practice of these elements. Artwork of burying people, marrying them.
• 5.1.12. It's only by practice, and not by the physical object, that you understand the genius of the practitioner.
• 5.1.13. You need to understand the context of the data in order to interpret. Harvard crimson.
▼ 5.1.14. What might be the outskirts of the humanities? Maybe this sketches out the boundaries of the project?
• 18.104.22.168. I can barely give a paper at MLA, or in art history, because my interest is in the creator and her background, the origin of the work, not in the formalist assessment of the work.
• 5.1.15. Avoid counterproductive orthodoxy
• 5.1.16. G4's artists
• 5.1.17. We're looking to accommodate the weirdest of the humanities.
• 5.1.18. What should not be accommodated? What should be left open and not put within the rigid structures? It's the fuzzy stuff. Serendipity, eureka. You can't create metadata for that.
• 5.1.19. It's a process that everyone goes through, so it's common, but it's uncommon because of the particulars of each.
• 5.1.20. Intuition, what makes people people, what makes them good researchers.
• 5.1.21. AI community. Satisfactory reconciliation. Don't create a surrogate, create a replica.
• 5.1.22. Post-its are the fabulous technology innovation of the time. Easy capture, display. You can't get it all, but you can get and make visible a lot.
• 5.1.23. Capture what you can, recognize that it's limited. Live with it.
• 5.1.24. Over- and under-promising in technology. A realistic expectation of Bamboo is to recognize that it's limited. Infrastructure systems do well when recognizing their best minimum cases, and providing means for experts to come in and adapt/adjust.
• 5.1.25. Certain things have to be done in a way that's peculiar to the case at hand.
• 5.1.26. The theme: there's an intuitive interactive, conversational process, sometimes extending to interactions that people are studying.
• 5.1.27. The uncommon observation is that it's idiosyncratic.
• 5.1.28. Do not presume that things are non-idiosyncratic.
• 5.1.29. Part of where we started out was in the quotidian, everyday. Giant post-it on the wall. The banal and vernacular get ignored, but these might be an area we might want to focus on as answers emerge.
• 5.1.30. Most people like to think that what they're going is uncommon and unique. G9 might be able to help them because he's seen people doing similar things before, but this can a hard sell. Not recognizing these themes is a barrier: people are slow to recognize that there might already be appropriate tools.
• 5.1.31. One can take the notion that there are things that can't be captured in a normative way too far.
• 5.1.32. People have a notion of the uncommon.
• 5.1.33. It's essential to the endeavor of being an academic ... lost thread. To have space and resources to develop thought?
• 5.1.34. A general problem with resourcing is willingness to experiment. It's choking off the pipeline, causing a loss of vitality. Losing the 30+s, not the 50+s.
• 5.1.35. Philanthropies were always the outlier, the people you could go to, but not so much anymore. If you don't bring a product, we have no business.
• 5.1.36. It argues for the process of Bamboo, if not the product.
▼ 5.1.37. Have the right resources
• 22.214.171.124. Inspiration
• 126.96.36.199. Time
• 188.8.131.52. Space
• 5.1.38. Having the right resources doesn't mean everyone needs the same resources.
• 5.1.39. An uncommon thing is recognizing what resources you do need.
▼ 5.1.40. The most important part of the project so far is to get funders to understand the nature of needs for our work as scholars.
• 184.108.40.206. For me $6000 is a lot of money to go to a site and hang out.
• 220.127.116.11. But it would never cover technology needs to send for transcription, and so on.
• 18.104.22.168. [some study] Once you apply new technology, it takes 1.5 times longer than it would have taken without.
• 5.1.41. Highly heterogeneous
• 5.1.42. Cannot come up with a convergence because of variances
• 5.1.43. Need a common means for incubating these different approaches.
Bamboo, Exercise 5
• Fleshing out the uncommon - Facilitating
o Modeling and visualization - connecting to performance
• Expectation that people would be more interested in this type of visualization resulting in different types of digital artifacts.
o Only a very tiny portion of buildings that get designed actually get built, so allowing people access to those that haven't been built.
• Documentary outtakes parallel.
• Architecture for the blind which ends up in sonification (sonicization). Designing by sound, which then has a number of applications in the humanities.
o Major point of modeling is to make the invisible visible. - F7
• Virtual sculpture - Making the non-existent exist.
• Sonification - Making the unseen perceptible. - F9
o Ultimately results in sharing "the thing."
• Perception of a building is not the same than if one was to just build it - modeling provides a new experience/perception
Modeling and visualization - Breaking down
• Show and tell - F10
o Necessarily impermanent, available for only a single experiment
• Live vs. archived.
• Text is meant to be permanent
o Walking through a building is different than experiencing the model of that.
• Interactive visualization - where the subject maintains an impact on what is being shown.
• Interactive vs. pre-determined
o Passive vs. participatory experience.
o How then does subjectivity determine the experience of it?
• Things can be re-represented in different modalities - both temporal and not.
• Potentially revealing wave in which time complicates the content and context.
• Or in part determines it.
o Final product of research?
• Opens different understandings as researchers take different perspectives upon this.
• Necessarily interdisciplinary - Revisualizing may not be something that would interest the humanities, but then the final product becomes a source for humanities
• As the model passes through different stages of creation, it engages different disciplines.
• Reconstructing fragments
o Virtual unification of things that are physically disparate.
• Multi-spectral imaging - 3D imaging that one might walk through, slices through archaeological artifacts.
• Exploring inside of artifacts instead of simply surface
• Can be used in literary contexts as well.
• Non-linear narratives like Joyce's Ulysses (Wandering Rocks) at points can be visualized.
• May open up understanding of a literary object to see the action of piece of literature represented virtually.
o Model may be used to show an insight, or an experience.
• Is this the sole binary? The sole possibility?
• How would I find the ability to do these things as a researcher?
o YouTube, commercial spaces.
o Some require specialized software.
• 3D visualization
o Development of cheaper alternatives to do the same types of spectrographic visualizations.
o "It's not there yet. It's not as normal as television or taking a book off a shelf."
• Wrong to see these things as built into a massive architecture that would then be used across the board.
o Ultimately looking at obsolence too quickly.
o Provide a resource center? Or a repository? For tools, software, etc. to be used.
• Funding opportunities for infrastructure to developing these tools.
o Every collection of tools will be outdated immediately.
o Full involvement of community to delay obsolence, and to avoid unnecessary expenditure of energy for something that might ultimately not be useful.
• More likelihood for people to be willing to invest in software that they've already used, and that they're familiar with
o Obviously, open-source makes this more feasible.
• Scholarly activities
o What might be modeled?
• Models of archaeological sites
• Models of theatre/stage sets
• Virtual sculpture
• Tele-immersive dance/other performances
• Level of performance engagement
• Modeling historical events - military campaigns, etc.
• Locations and buildings
o Modeling soundscapes that represent spatial structures in modeling for blind
o Nonexistent/unrealized designs/buildings.
• Unification of fragments ("Puzzling")
• Modeling the fit/completion/constructing/aggregation/puzzling of things.
• Computer art
• Visualization of destruction
o Abstracting - Writing is about rendering a visualization in the mind of the reader.
• So much of discourse is discussing the nonexistent
• Understanding world as it is by thinking about the way it could have been/could be.
• Ultimately, the model can then be rendered as art.
• Alternative to publication?
o Sits between publication and broadcasting.
o Bamboo platform could provide a means (Bamboo theatre - Hu-Tube (HumanitiesTube)
• Institution could engage a third party for commercial exploitation - F8
• Where might revenue enter?
• Is it a dirty word? Or viable for this type of exploitation?
o Leads to other possible types of business models.
- [ ] ex5 -- the "uncommonality"
- [ ] what kinds of oddball research activities have you seen?
- [ ] "walking" going around thinking about things--deeply intermingled references, creative writing
- [ ] visualizing cultural artifacts in 3D, arranging them according to a critical theory
- [ ] writing in French without using the letter 'e', then translating that, also without using the letter e
- [ ] is there more to life than a corpus?
- [ ] what makes things uncommon?
- [ ] unsystematic systems
- [ ] personality
- [ ] might look more like art
- [ ] can you mark up for color?
- [ ] incidence of tools as a guide to what's easy to write and/or needed the most (maybe?)
- [ ] black swans and outliers
- [ ] prediction is statistical, not specific
- [ ] unexpected uses -- paleography->genealogy
- [ ] finding new sources of materials
- [ ] finding unpublished objects, manuscripts, etc.
- [ ] asking individuals to map their experiences
- [ ] assembling shards of an objects
- [ ] non-indexed materials
- [ ] discovering your archive
- [ ] is the whole of the humanities curious? are we all just some strange tribe?
- [ ] relationship between art & research -- art lets you see the world in different ways --> so does research. yet the practices that define art occupy this heavily uncommon space and the practices that define research seem to occupy heavily common space. Why?
- [ ] artists can say they don't care about the facts
- [ ] are there other ways to write history?
- [ ] are we all just here because of a (powerful) metaphor?
- [ ] or is it all about resources?
- [ ] is it just a matter of being disciplinary specific?
- Creating paper-based shadow system
- Problem of one-off technology > You're not likely to curate beyond immediate needs of project
- E-mail to save documents because there's no effective backup system
-Or version control, which is even worse - 30 copies in your inbox
- Huge range of different disciplines, each with their own set of working tools
- Many things reduce in practical terms to images or digitization
- Then how do you handle space when you move from painting to architecture?
-Or into music where you're dealing with text and space it's performed in
- Issues of metadata; access to object itself, but in many multimedia you have access in effect through searching through the metadata
- How do you search for an image? - How person A describes it isn't the thing person B would look for
- Score, abstract notion of what ought to be performed; Live interpretation; Recoding of live interpretation > These are not interchangeable items
- Lots of issues re: different formats for recorded versions
-With text, at some level you can move from one platform to another
-Much harder for video
- YouTube doesn't cut it for scholarly analysis of most performances
- A fair number of film annotation projects
-If anything, there's a lot of redundancy
-No convergence yet around any project
- There's a burden of when you choose to and not to digitize.
- I might tend to do more with images, because then I know I might be using those images for other sorts of things in a readily available form
- If there's things likely to use in research > digitization
-Students might want to use them, I might for PowerPoint - potential for multi-use
- Opera is tricky because faithful video recording is almost never audio, and vice versa
- Once your materials come from different sources, then the question of putting them in comparable format does become a burden
- Lots of things can be digital, but what good does it do you if you have PDF's of images, then HTML from other things, and then you might as well treat them as analog
-"There's a professor, and we did all this work"
-This is the problem: If I'm doing a project, and I don't have your "we"...
- If there isn't an impediment to digitization, how do you cross-reference
-How do you make it functional?
-How do you cross-reference digital with folders?
-How do you maintain that to find what you need?
> Using analog sorting system
-For dissertation, I did a shadow database, didn't know TEI existed, I invented my own markup scheme and went on to do it
- If you have 3000, 10,000 files on your computer but nothing but Word to access, you need something else, is very ad hoc, different for everyone
- As increase in technical sophistication, least common denominator will ramp up slowly
-No other way to address the problem unless you're willing to address the pain of dual systems
- You want to know from someone else working on a comparable thing, what have they done it?
- LibraryThing, building up your collection and sharing with others
- There's things like EndNote, where you can manage it and build a database, be advised about proprietary systems. What we could do is set out the options that we're aware of, that exist. Being a place where you can come and get all the info.
- There's an opportunity for libraries, personal information environments and relationship to institutional environments
- Commercial vendors are developing tools for scholarships
-Apple's Bento Box - looking like personal information environment that can handle media objects
-Personalization in scholarly context - more than the ability to annotate and search on annotation and organize by it? I can imagine an argument that all I need in scholarly context is to store materials I have-- as long as I can link back, I don't care where they are-- but the environment notion
-Isn't it about tagging and bagging?
-Bagging into conceptual bins, maybe one object in multiple bins
-Tagging w/ something that distinguishes in those bins, or strikes you, something that's a mnemonic
- This would really work for hybrid system; whether you're in research library looking at document you can't take away, or have digital file - if there's enough of that tagging to get you back to it, and can put into multiple categories...
-If you could set up some kind of paradigm saying these are important categories and tags, these are kind of what Windows does in Word, it's slightly inefficient but it wouldn't take care of hybridity but would give you access
- Once I have those photocopy pages, there's a physical process of juxtaposing pages
-You put the materials together, you could do it on the screen, but the problem is hybridity of documents
- More than bagging and tagging, also ordering
-Also difference where while you're doing project work, they do take an awful lot of time to do (workflows, databases, ways for people to manage information) but it's different when you're doing your own thing
- What AHRC is saying is that you can get $ for digitization and working electronically only if there's a serious research component
- If you made it accessible socially and could get citation credit for someone else using it, does it make the benefit higher? If they could use their annotation.
- Rarely does credit trickle down to individuals who do the work. Being 26th is great, but it's mostly pain for first 25.
- If Bamboo can change the cost side of that-- benefit side is real but weak, so uncertain
- Sent me reviewer comments, "she hasn't done a lot of scholarship, her work has been archival"
- Say nice things about people who do archival work, but don't give them tenure and don't mind if they don't do it
- If we could get rewarded for those kinds of things in a systematic way, more people might do it.