Navigation:
Documentation
Archive



Page Tree:

Child pages
  • Exercise 6a 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

0. lots of activity happening with the study of this new diffusions of technologies, cultures
. participant observation

0. pairing interests of art makers and technologists
0. empower the scholars with the necessary resources to invent new tools themselves
0. create packages/platforms that let the researchers apply them to problems
0. parallel computing / Infrastructure - access to it critical
0. support for prepackaged tools - e.g. Facebook, Zotero. Access to skills and support
0. social / research networking
0. "we don't have the staff to do these things" in terms of applying staff to do these innovative projects. Empowerment is key.

0. Disciplines under attack and outmoded because new methods tools expectations
0. Need people to grease the wheels to kick start projects
0. New faculty brave and will try new stuff
0. Career incentives
. Worried about what they're judged upon
. Move the tenure culture towards incenting the development of tools
. (similar to Stuart's Computer Science tenure comments)

Back to top.

Group 1a - B

Y1: eagerness to work together across boundaries
Y3: established curator of contemporary art. This person is focused on what is happening right now. pay attention to the present. we are looking for people who have this consciousness. On an ongoing basis
Y1: rhyzome person discussing on digital and real, blending stuff we may not consider art.
Y2: My students are doing things with blogs and twittter (microblogging).
Y4: there are fuzzier boundaries with personal space. Different definitions of privacy.
Y2: Are people using wikis, google docs, collaborative software. Illuminate is software like skype that allows you to collaboratively share. The physical space also includes whiteboards. Students use whiteboards to present. we have three in a room and students can take control from their laptops.
Y5: Where does funding come from?
Y2: 10k
Y5: I don't want to be a critic but... We build a lot of white boards. On the low end, just changing the format of the class can do pretty much the same with very little money.
Y4: Making the space smaller and more collaborative.
Y6: Second Life is interesting.
Y7: There is an expectation that more sources to be available digital in an open, non proprietary way.
Y7: What are we hoping to see in new hires, students? What qualities or characterists?
Y5: I want to see more people that break the rules? The hiring and tenure system really opposes this? What do they want? No peer review?
Y1: Peer review is also changing?
Y7: We've done some amazing things because I wasn't smart enough to know that I couldn't.
Y7: We want to be loved.
Y5: You have to be experimental
Y5: Sponsor of a senior person critical
Y5: Connecting to industry is important?
Y2: Our students are in a very conservative curriculum?
Y5: Junior faculty are least risk taking?
Y7: Are young students in a program that appreciates experimenting.
Y1: Students are good at organizing things like
Y2: undergrads are lot more innovative. grads just want to get in and get things done.

Back to top

Group 1a - C

Z8: We haven't had new hires lately. New grad students use blog like environments to relate, communicate, think about their content. Relational links. One place where everything is. Text, images, other modalities. Virtual desk. RSS feeds, links to other sites they find interesting.
Totally different from 'my' practice. I have different sites. Stacks of printed articles. I don't like to read online. They are much more comfortable reading online. I use a lot of paper.
Z9: Colleagues with books on computers. New media, but still reading.
Z10: New MFA program in digital arts and new media. Everyone's work is on a WIKI. Entire discussion taking online. Grading is done online.
Z12: I would say that the blogs are individual, vs. wikis for collaborative. UG is group work in a way that is not done before.
Z4: Are the wikis short or long lived?
Z10: For the MFA it persists for the life of the program.
Y5: Who supports it? Who is paying for it?
Z10: Our staff is paying for it supporting it.
Z11: Is it institutional?
Z10: No, it should be.
Z12: We don't have a system support. ITS is responsible, but the divisional liaisons responsibility.
Z10: ITS central cut is more likely.
Z13: Younger scholars are interested and expect access to primary data. We didn't have access, it's now expected. They want to trace arguments through data. They are willing to make data available even if not published. Maybe in a decade's time that these objects will be 'published' contributions.
Z8: If published by URL?
Z13: Field work, notes, deposited into archives, then you can cite them.
Z9: What about privacy, IP, who owns the data? If you are supported by the government, the public owns it. CusZ5ary that the data does not get released until it is published. Digital tech changes this. Haystack organization started by Kathy Davidson and David Goldberg. What it points to is that we need to have lawyers to provide new regulations to figure out who owns the data.
Z12: Part of the change is that the idea of IP is fundamentally changing. Staking and claiming. Now there is a push to open up the data much earlier because this is the fundamental way people are working.
Z4: Not altruistic.
Z9: Engineers make money by starting companies. Humanities are rewarded by publishing a book, glory of the book. We are at the cusp of a reward system changing for humanities.
Z4: Want to understand how releasing data earlier is better.
Z11: Political and economic motivations. Open access initiatives. Social justice. Idealogical ideals are pervasive.
Z13: When you make it more widely available things can change.
Z11: Not generational. Purely rational. In some fields in a competitive environment if you share it's stupid. This will persist. Zero sum gain in humanities funding. NEH panel grant and another incorporates your ideas, they will win. Normtive political philosophy. You can't pursuade an NPP to put up a blog.
Z12: Social documentation and human rights archives tend to share, others don't. I have a friend transitioned out of teaching put everything up on line for commentary.
Z11: After tenure there is still promotion. Insiders have access to personal contacts. Substantial correlation between willingness and marginality.
Z4: Fringe ideologs and those who are concerned with promotion. What is the middle group.
Z11 et al: This is a class issue, not generational.

Back to top

Group 1a - D

• X1: New hires want to communicate w. students via blogging, IM. Faculty is posting everything teaching related. Closely related to research, as in sharing research via content mgmt system, but then also use it to share work.
• Z5: We're seeing blogging for workflow management.
• X2: Seeing much more focus on transparency
• X3: More social networking savy among new folk
• Z1: There's a blurred, fluid movement between social and other networking for interactions. Tremendous use of FaceBook, MySpace for things, including research. Their interests are interwoven: can't easily separate personal & research interests.
• X1: When we look at technologies to support folks, we need to be aware of networking effects.
• Z1: Need to be aware of multi-media. Lots of people come in with skills in m-m. We found humanities grads were very proficient in using various forms of m-m.
• Z5: Younger people have less tolerance of the inertia in the existing systems.
• X2: We're seeing it too .
• X3: They want to immediately come in & make changes.
• X4: When it comes to scholarship, there's trepidation ; they change when they get into graduate programs
• Z5: I have a good example of this. Had a conference w. collaboration. After conference IT wanted to close down the collaboration site because an external person was accessing it.
• X4: We're asking what do you share, why, & with who?
• X1: The new thing is the openness, but there are still many who aren't willing to share. We took emails of grads & undergrads. Some grads had FaceBook; others didn't want to share info. in that way and they consciously didn't do it. It has to do w.l personality.
• Z5: When have to build your credentials, people think they better not share so much.
• X5: If a requirement of a dissertation is to prove novelty, there's a disincentive to share.
• Z1: As grads move along, they more conform to the expectations of their professor.
• X1: We did a study of collaboration in humanities. Found post-docs were open to the idea of collaboration despite dissertations, etc.
• X4: People are very choosy about who they share with. There's an intergenerational model on publishing. There's a back-an-forth interdependency: You might now depend on a GIS grad student in order to do a degree in a different dept.
• Z5: People are getting $ partly through memberships, professionally. Among younger folks, memberships are becoming more peer-to-peer
• X6: Lots of students blog heavily in their earlier yrs to engage, but when people get more invested in their own research there's a bit of fear, including of things being taken out of context. Don't want someone saying "a UCB researcher says...". Can get someone in trouble. Also, when look back at things written in earlier years, can be embarrassed.
• Z1: What about sharing info. about sources and where to find them. I see a wiki about where to find things in different languages
• X1: Yes, they're building shared databases
• Z5: X1 & X6 agree.
• X1: Seeing a lot of GIS data and visualization.
• Z1: To what extent are new folk replacing library search w. Google search. X2 says "huge".
• Z5: Frightening how exclusively people rely on Google.
• X4: It's the first place people go (to Google).
• X1: There's a reliance on electronic sources (Some young people have never seen book journals.)
• X3: Students don't always understand the big investment U's pay for online journal access.
• X5: To what extent are online journals a scholarly source for research? X3: Authors are cited much more when journals are online. X4: Not definitive. Need to disaggregate what's ref'ed for research versus teaching.
• X5: In my field no one uses journals (technology field) because too old by the time it's published.
• X4: Parallel systems exist
• Z1: Varies widely by field. (Others agree)
• Z5: Within just astrophysics, there's a lot of granularity w.i. subgroups on how research is done (context of online vs. journals)

Back to top

Group 1a - E

• Map places and relationships
o Map places and relationships in a novel or other text
o Graphic ways of representing social and romatic relations in literature
• Digitally identify narration type in a text
o Machine learning for identifying types of narration (e.g., is this a descriptive sentence, narrative sentence).
• Visualization of social networks
o In a text or other corpus
o Map relationships
• Contextualize objects of study
o Across disciplines
o Contextualization: not just the text, but the social context, place in which it was created: a historical turn following recent linguistic focus
• Collaborate to create digital artistic works and/or exhibitions
o Digital collection in artistic production, e.g. across the US/Mexico borders (UCSD)
• Multitasking: multiple IM, iPod, writing, "continuous partial attention"
• Cross organizational boundaries (little respect for organizational boundaries)
• Blur personal/work life - hours of work not fixed
• Less dedication/loyalty to organization
• Sense of freedom from having to work at a job they don't like: if there's a project / opportunity (maybe philanthropic) they want to do, they'll ditch a job to do it
• Handheld device, immediate contact, persistent digital presence is becoming the norm ... Future is not the phone but the camera
• IP is broken ... Perhaps the future is that if you're paid a salary or a grant while producing knowledge, ownership does not stay with the producer ... It's work for hire ... Or it's in the public domain?
• Communicate via IM, social network site, etc. (rather than e-mail, letter, phone), Second Life
• Grad students are more interested in databases and such tools, whereas undergrads snub such "old fashioned" digital tools more readily
• Techie - Fuzzy divide will persist for a while ... How to prevent digital humanities scholars from becoming ghettoized within their disciplines? Perhaps if enough was digitized, gravity would attract those who are not interested now in digital tools.
• Quality assurance is a task of the University

Back to top

Group 1a - F

Blogging/posting materials -teaching related -librarians -sharing research
Also trepidation to share too much? Disincentives to share as credentialing progresses?
Openness, transparency
Social networking
Blurring work/research/social domains
Combing formal & informal interactions
Multimedia, visualization, GIS, etc.
Less patience w. inertia, bureaucracy
Desire to change academic norms
Intergenerational collaboration w. tech-savvy students
Replacement of traditional library searches w. Google
Reliance on electronic materials
.end of whiteboard.

Back to top

Group 1b - A

- [ ] what do you see from the up & comings?
            - [ ] why only one grad student!
            - [ ] social component is huge
                - [ ] social networking & social connections play a larger role
                - [ ] facebook popular with save minority languages movements, find events
                - [ ] merger of graduate work and social movements --> departments find themselves admiring and responding to these changes
                - [ ] not a wide-eyed trend, more of a cynical/suspicious
                - [ ] ability to communicate with one another
                - [ ] does take people away from the library....
                - [ ] some amount of solo work is required -- books to read, films to watch closely
                - [ ] tendency to work on multiple facets independently
                - [ ] humanists somewhat dispirited if they're working in areas that don't have this open, sociable, interaction
                - [ ] but the job list doesn't match the work people are doing
                - [ ] working in new forms
                - [ ] need for institutional support
                - [ ] do they need to be in "digital humanities" departments?
            - [ ] distinction between technologists and people who use technology are disappearing --> people "think through technology"
            - [ ] ability to think a bit more about programming
            - [ ] not all universities have this divide -- is there always distinction between new hires/grad students and current/established scholars? is it a post-tenure activity? some universities have one paradigm, some have the opposite trend
            - [ ] some students have mastered cultural algorithms, but it doesn't mean they're better critics or analysts or more engaged or deeper
            - [ ] is it deep or is it surface? are we promoting more thinking? what does it mean to build a humanities social network?
 

Back to top

Group 1b - B

•    D5:  Very into simple tools like blogging, capturing and disseminating information from conferences, etc., often takes place using these new tools.
•    A11:  Weblog was never intended to be professionally important, but it just happened in her case.  "It's not officially valued but it's opened a lot of doors.
•    A3:  This generation of grad students are more insistent on being iterative in their work.  This isn't just a software development methodology, but occurs in graduate student research behaviors.  Tolerance for smaller failures, recognition that progress isn't linear.
•    D8:  At journal, using google text, lexis/nexus, amazon books ... all brought in by grad students
•    D7:  In a hiring process re: social implications of communication technologies, seeing grassroots (as opposed to top-down) communications technology awareness in younger candidates for hire.  D7 himself is a "holdout for old technologies" (for quality reasons ... sound, video, etc. ... there are limitations in quality, possibility of obsolescence to digital technologies) even though he sees the value of converting to digital for archival, sharing, etc. purposes; yet he is impressed with younger students' methods of going out into the field and getting information that can be disseminated immediately.  D7 is "learning to be bi-technical."  Each has a value.
•    D8:  Persistence of older technologies is something Bamboo should take into account.
•    D3:  realizes she needs to attend to both digital and non-digital archival concerns.
•    B8:  A project at my university re: how ethnic groups use technologies, using GIS techniques, looking at public library as a way to engage digitally without owning a computer or going to a café.  
•    D5:  Newer (IT) staff are more adept at agile development, mashups ... whereas older staff have a grounding in persistence, robustness, data management, data curation.
•    B5:  Inquiries re: what technologies students need and expect to have supported.  Newer students are more eager and able to engage with new technologies even if previously unfamiliar.
•    A3:  More of a "groupness" sense among younger students/scholars.  Swarming behaviors.  Comfort with group, not so frequent an occurrence of solo scholars.  It seems technology has to do with that.
•    D14:  How much does digital distraction figure into pedagogical contexts?
o    Age development issue among undergraduates ... many incoming freshmen haven't yet learned to work in groups.  A social, not a technology issue.
o    Is technology bringing people together or isolating them?
•    D3:  Technology allows the "subversives" among staff (often young) to subvert slow-moving, slow-changing organizations.  At least some younger faculty and grad students are participating and paying attention to these changes.
•    D14:  A funky time caught between academic freedom and research ethics.
•    D7:  Using digital technologies (and the net) to do/arrange 60s & 70s kinds of things:  plotting out freight train hopping, picking up rides arranged on line given that hitchhiking is dangerous, working on organic farms, etc. ...
•    D14:  if there's too much stimulus, students who come to University without critical thinking skills can end up losing ground because of digital technologies ... distraction is a barrier to developing critical thinking skills ...
•    A3:  agendas are moved along, power is acquired, differently and by easier means than "authorities" are used to
•    D3:  tagging as a way to make exterior what humanities scholars have tended to do privately
 

Back to top

Group 1b - C

D10: Finding everything full text on the web, versus going to the library, if it's not online then it's not of interest.

E9: Handheld devices, students wants to be able to access it through their own devices.

A4: People in my department are resolute about maintaining their old practices. Proudly conventional my department is. Not sure why they do this.

E10: New colleagues are networking heavily on many different listserves, far less archival, far more interdisciplinary, just scholars - lots of new combinations of things. Makes it hard to fit them into traditional departments. Familiarity with sub-fields, but lose depth of knowledge.

E11: In the applications we see, there is an efflorescence of interdisciplinarity, lots of orthogonals, many with digital applications, which means they need a support group to make this happen. And a worry about how this will be taken up by their colleagues. Foreign colleagues are less informants, than actual colleagues. International studies are more equilateral.

E5: My perspective is more science oriented. Younger colleagues are much more techie, more international, adds more pressure too, too much access = not enough time to properly work with.. so less time to focus on your own thinking. Profession has changed, tech. driven, some loss from this.

E12: High print based, self-selected group of students. Behaviors at my inst. are extensions of traditional methods. e.g. Google books, Zotero. Social networking. More of a blending of their social and their academic networking. Facebook used for both. Blogging random thoughts and academic interests. Which leads to an interesting re-configuration what a colleague is..

E13: Networking not used so much for research - for their own purposes. More in the sense of when students are assigned to use these tools. Visualization techniques are up and coming practices. To compare content that otherwise had to be described. Also used for ethnography, creating websites that map out terrains.

D18: Research is important, people are hired on the premise that they will do a lot of research, they arrive professionalized. Mostly traditional. Self-selected for accepted and routinized methodologies. Undergraduates use technology in a transparent, conventional manner. Everything non-standard is terra incognita. But wikis and blogs for examples are fringe. So for example, didn't know how wikis work, and so didn't know how to engage with it.

E20: Assumption by our students of ubiquitous networks. campus is quiet, everyone ensconced is their own personal spaces. technologies arrive with stuff that makes me completely irrelevant or completely throw me (e.g. beowulf cluster). Dorm telephones. No one uses them anymore. Publishing of student work on YouTube - students and young faculty are doing. Raw, w/o IP issues discussed. Students know how to do rich media. Faculty don't know how to grade a new media work.

D16: My view is filtered. My students are fearless, high expectations, 24/7, intolerant. A 13 and 14 year old are worse even than those.

E12: Research has become more fragmentary, in process, and work-in-progress. And people are fine with that.

A4: Do you think it's the publicizing of that that's different? So for example that you can do it with strangers, internationally.. .because we used to have these discussions around the proverbial water cooler. People will come at 2am to look at it.

E11: The rise of the visual as a subject of study. Imaging is more important.

E13: Iconic use. Visualizations of what's in one's head. New ways of thinking and knowing that are visual.
 

Back to top

Group 1b - D

When you look @ new incoming faculty/grad students, what are they bringing with them?  Or in my case undergrad.

•Sea changes w/ both young faculty, also incoming students---this is all documented
•Online predisposition, an assumption of ubiquitous connectivity
•assumption of online collaborative applications
•incoming students particularly being at the center of their own information universe, bringing handheld devices (campuses have gone quiet)
•bringing with them technologies and/or practices that completely overwhelm me (e.g. the Beowulf cluster) or render me completely irrelevant (e.g. the Beowulf cluster).  How do I keep up?
•bringing with them practices that really push the edges (e.g. publishing student work on YouTube without regard for intellectual property or maintaining the work in perpetuity)
•example 2, students wanting to do rich media projects/comps instead of writing papers---how does one grade that?????.
 

Back to top

Group 1b - E

D19: Hiring package for new hires may include server space, research computing help. Geospatial technologies. Departmental structure does not follow intellectual structures. When we think of computational usage in other discipline. Digital Humanities has focused on making new resources not doing scholarship. Ed Ayers in History, Valley of Shadow Project, an article that works closely with the database. Faculty want to have access to large digital archives.
        D20: Everyone feels as a collaborator.
D21: Social networking, GIS expertise in the Library,
B2: Intensely networked. When to introduce a high-end tool to students. Do these tools interfere with the process of learning. It is Open-ness not Generational. Post-tenure, mid career faculty are doing most of the important work - as mentors.

Back to top

Group 1c - A

▼    1.    Exercise 6
    ▼    1.1.    What's unusual in terms of practices?
    ▼    1.1.1.    Rigorous confirmation process, determines what's doable in scope.
    •    1.1.1.1.    Research question
    •    1.1.1.2.    Methodology
    •    1.1.1.3.    Expected that it's well-defined 9 mos. into PhD.
    •    1.1.1.4.    Old expectation: define question during the writing of thesis.
    •    1.1.1.5.    "Push for early focus"
    ▼    1.1.2.    One university. Panel in which you define research questions.
    •    1.1.2.1.    After 9 mos. you have to have some sort of focus.
    •    1.1.2.2.    After four years, still everything will be different.
    •    1.1.2.3.    Get them to think early on.
    ▼    1.1.3.    University with large on-line program.
    •    1.1.3.1.    Similar process.
    •    1.1.3.2.    Driven by increasing political pressure to delivery completions on time.
    •    1.1.3.3.    Don't want people coming in at bottom with too little progress.
    ▼    1.1.4.    Do approaches have to change from what you've seen?
    ▼    1.1.4.1.    Research university: very draconian five-year process was a failure. Students unable to carry out research during time.
    •    1.1.4.1.1.    In my time, could master material. Now, would not be able.
    •    1.1.4.1.2.    Student: interesting challenge, not bothered by fact that she would be unable to conquer topic, satisfied with a chunk of it. Fun is in the quest.
    •    1.1.4.1.3.    G10: One way in which the field becomes boundless is in connections to everything else. Is that part of the process?
    •    1.1.4.1.4.    G11: Yes, something about getting the failure you'd expect.
    ▼    1.1.4.1.5.    G4: I don't have graduate students, but observations at other institutions I've been affiliated with indicate that students are not in a push for completion time, but for tenure. Students want and are encouraged to write a statement of purpose. This is what I'm going to do for graduate project; this is how you get in, not so you can complete but so you can get a job. To be competitive you have to move quickly, be focused, publish, present.
    •    1.1.4.1.5.1.    I do think they ask questions that I could not imagine, as a non-interdisciplinary scholar with i-d training.
    •    1.1.4.1.5.2.    The way the see the world connected, they resist focus and boundaries. In particular, methodological boundaries.
    ▼    1.1.4.1.5.3.    Practices for new hires.
    •    1.1.4.1.5.3.1.    Already know video editing, digitizing
    •    1.1.4.1.5.3.2.    Already solves problems in these areas
    •    1.1.4.1.5.3.3.    AV presentations (powerpoint, keynote)
    •    1.1.4.1.5.3.4.    Phenomenal amount of background training
    •    1.1.4.1.5.3.5.    Broad questions
    •    1.1.4.1.5.3.6.    Connected with "cyberspace" / electronic world
    •    1.1.4.1.5.3.7.    In art history, it's extremely common for students to use new approaches. Student developed podcast-like installation in which you move through a city receiving poetry, music.  G4 was blown away. When delivered, all the artists said it was "derivative". [laughter]  -- meaning there's no artistry in the composition.
    ▼    1.1.4.2.    G2: I don't feel less masterful.
    •    1.1.4.2.1.    There's so much more material available now
    •    1.1.4.2.2.    I can discover elements much more easily.
    •    1.1.4.2.3.    To say there's less mastery isn't accurate; people can find much more about relevant topics.
    •    1.1.4.3.    G11: in the 1920s one could find ever so much more *of* a topic. Easy to be confident of the completeness of your findings.
    •    1.1.4.4.    G7: Early American history: labor-intensive, part of the exercise is knowing where to find things, but there is much to be found.
    ▼    1.1.4.5.    Agency administers several relevant programs, give awards to new graduates.
    ▼    1.1.4.5.1.    We consistently see extraordinary competence across a range of areas
    •    1.1.4.5.1.1.    Computer languages
    •    1.1.4.5.1.2.    applications
    •    1.1.4.5.1.3.    Amazing facility with tools
    •    1.1.4.5.2.    Between availability of information and the earlier point at which they use it easily, students have much more progress available (question)
    •    1.1.4.6.    G4: new hires are ill from all the pressure
    •    1.1.4.7.    Take knowledge to competence. How do they know what are the right tools? Who teaches what the right tools are? They discover for themselves, have perhaps a vague idea. Stressful. Teaching is not moving fast enough to each undergrads what to use.
    •    1.1.4.8.    G4: quite accurate. In new hires, it takes a long time... it takes them twice as much time to prepare a lecture as for me. No mastery of tools. They have a better sense of connectedness and integration, but short on mastery and shortcuts.
    •    1.1.4.9.    F4: Who tells them what's worth the time?
    •    1.1.4.10.    G10: Traditionally, our library offers sessions [information literacy] on how to use the library. Intro to what kinds of databases we have & how to use them. Maybe there's another layer having to do with new tools & software.
    ▼    1.1.4.11.    G7: Junior faculty will not approach librarians to ask how to use new tools. One reason: librarians don't know themselves anymore. Nobody has much to say to YouTube generation.
    •    1.1.4.11.1.    Ongoing reconciliation between subject bibliographers -- iterative relationship -- and faculty.
    •    1.1.4.11.2.    Also observed that among undergraduates [18-21] learning styles are different.  Much more group/p2p learning, less master-student learning. Learning utility from one another regardless of whether it's correct.
    •    1.1.4.11.3.    I asked: how does he frame this utility? "It does this really cool thing."
    •    1.1.4.11.4.    Changed how the library is going to support the relationship.
    •    1.1.4.11.5.    When we asked "how do you learn" you could see a clear change between ugrad and grad -- they learn from each other -- and advanced/faculty -- they are apprenticed into the discipline and learn from predecessors and masters.
    •    1.1.4.11.6.    We now have the data, and it conforms to what you see when you walk into the library. Culverts, cul-de-sacs. They like to walk into the stacks (expensive, we want them to go away) and run fingers over the books.
    •    1.1.4.11.7.    G11: young scholars at Stanford used to be below par. Would never have taught a course in which we automatically used computers. Now they are changing, this is getting better. There's a real transformation; students are naturally putting things together, making presentations. Quite fascinating.
    •    1.1.4.11.8.    G7: [?First thing: go to a peer.?] Second thing to do is go to a librarian. Last thing: go to a faculty member. When peer support system isn't good enough... It's not that they don't understand the machines, it's that they don't understand the question.
 

Back to top

Group 1c - B

•    New and different scholarly practices coming from new hires or up and coming graduate students, followed by magic wand.  

•    Musical desktop publishing - F11
o    Studio software like ProTools that enable the publication of sound
•    Lack of knowledge among younger students, new hires in specialist tools - F12
o    More specific knowledge of general tools like Google and such, without knowledge of specialties.
o    Archaeology - Work tends to be collaborative, so there needs to be knowledge of specialist tools
o    English on the other hand being solitary, there's a lack of collaborative knowledge
o    Disagreement - F13
•    There are areas where people become adept where the field is developing.  
•    Lack of experience with language tools - F1
o    Looks for experience with Wikipedia in teaching, or with text 2.0
•    Surprised to find that most students, younger hires have little experience in blogging and such.
•    Know mobile phones (handy) better than the internet
•    New hires pushing envelope - F14
o    Expectation that new tools will be available when they're hired
o    Forcing change more than academics who have been there for quite a long time.
•    Not much of a technology push to architecture undergrads, instead they tend to take to technologies themselves - F7
o    Most practices, huge amount of computing for design process
o    Design and Digital Media course - take people from wide range of backgrounds, knowledge of mobile technologies
o    Use of mobile devices as a means of access
•    What besides familiarity with technology is different among new hires?
•    Use of library printed text tends to be in decline - F12
o    Availability of journals online means that students aren't going to the library.
o    On other hand, not necessarily negative - F13
•    The interdisciplinarity of younger scholars and desire to crossover is striking - F13
o    Range of things younger scholars are expecting to do is increasing.  
o    Changing what they'll do on the job market.
•    Only experience is in interdisciplinary areas - F7
o    Continually attempting to draw students into interdisciplinarity, though it's becoming increasingly easier as students want to do this on their own.
o    Students looking to work interdisciplanarily without needing to be pushed.
o    Need for graduate students to have more training in the variety of available tools to know what they can use for the work - F13
o    Need for interdisciplinarity in tools.  How can they work better together? How can they work more effectively together? - F7
•    More training in technologies for graduate students and young scholars - F12
o    Told to bring that to Bamboo by colleagues
o    Best to give up on older generation
•    Great investment in the UK in training graduate students in the humanities - F13
o    Some training is generic (how to present a paper, etc.)
o    Others in more specific straits
o    But what is missing is training in interdisciplinary technologies.
•    Need a concerted investment by universities to train in technologies.
•    Training is broadly interpreted as "anything that's good for you," need for specificity.
•    Students seem to be technologically aware but there is no second level in specific technologies. - F15
o    There should be a different intuition in how to navigate in virtual environments.
o    Perception among students that they understand technology, though there is a lack of specificity.  
o    Students are a bit afraid of technology.
•    What's there and what might be changing?  Important that students are made aware of this.
•    Information technology is used according to specific tools, and when such a tool is supplanted they are unaware of the switch and how to use a new tool. - F7
o    Need to approach this problem, but it's quite difficult to teach technologies on a large scale.
•    So students don't know HTML, but can use a tool to produce HTML.  What's so bad about that? - Facilitating
•    "It would be good to know that your car isn't driven by magic." - F1
o    They don't need to know the details, but they should be able to troubleshoot in the details if it's necessary.
•    Interest in getting students to think about structured information - F15
o    Need to create things for environments.  If one doesn't understand how new environments work, how can that happen?
•    Is it necessary for a humanities scholar to understand how a book is printed - Facilitating
•    Not the right question, more of us are content providers now, so we need to have an idea how content environments circulate - F15
o    Perhaps there was a time when printing knowledge was necessary
o    As we move into new environments, knowledge of these details are necessary
•    Putting stuff on the web and the like are tasks that are increasingly self-reliant - F7
o    Used to give what would be on the web to a technology specialist, but this is changing.
•    People are producing and posting their content directly
o    As people learn how to use interface without understanding what's behind the interface, they can't use the tool very effectively.
•    People think "if I have to find literature, I just Google." - F1
o    They need to know databases to find specialized literatures.
o    "In same ways, we are in a kind of valley at the moment."  We had procedures for printing and producing content.
•    As these older procedures are being replaced, new standards of working intellectually need to be established.

Back to top

Group 1c - C

  • People used to have mentality of as things came across their desk, they'd decide keep/not keep
  • Now people want to keep everything so they can later do whatever
  • Need metadata, huge storage department > people want huge e-mail quotas
  • Junior people engaged w/ rich media, social networking, collaborative
  • Don't want to fill out a form except through browser
  • New hires aren't generally like that - more difficult to get hired as a historian
  • Mixed environment - not a feeling among the students that electronic students are on leading edge, just techie-type people
  • Teaching-oriented has strong selection bias towards junior faculty comfortable w/ mixed media, etc. - want to use in their teaching
  • The MLA, AHA are starting to run courses for grad students to develop these skills to be more marketable
  • Focused on using audio/video and images in teaching, "going beyond Powerpoint"
  • Newer faculty/post-grads, more than willingness, want to challenge hegemony of scholarly article
  • Want poster sessions, rich media applications, databases but worried about their career
  • Research: 1) people want to present in ways that match new pedagogy; 2) Doing research - different thing that more materials are electronic
    -Have to acknowledge distinction between doing/presenting research
  • On-line museum collections; now detailed photography, etc, but is it the same thing?
    -Someone's filtered it already - new generation doesn't realize that vase photo doesn't equal vase
  • Not that researchers don't use libraries, just want to use libraries in different ways; librarians need to change practices
  • Different generations use it in different ways; different strategies
    -People get frustrated when they can't get right to the stuff
    -Librarians try to add metadata, and it doesn't help
  • Old faculty see as a tool - just easy, quick, efficient; and it does what it does and move on
    -Younger researchers are more enthusiastic; will invest a lot of time in figuring out what it might enable for them
  • Some students create self-identity around idea of looking for stuff, finding printed materials to access stuff people didn't know about before
    -In some places, spaces > recreational, in others, increasing public space devoted to research rather than hanging out
  • Social learning space links into collaboration space
    -People want to collaborate, but have to have a space and the library can provide that
  • Students don't only access library things
    -Also have a bunch of other windows open
    -Talking while in the library; "Look what I found"
    -Difficult to use in traditional library space; sit in cubicle
  • Plagiarism vs. collaboration needs to change definitions; people aren't doing that
  • Watched grad students resist grad e-mail list, to cohort where consensus view was that they wanted it and Facebook group, departmental blogs
  • No one more concerned about premature publishing of things they want to submit for publication than students in humanities
    -Willing to blog, but publishing what they're thinking about > paranoid about idea being stolen
  • People think "because this is true, I must get this out in attributive form as soon as possible, then rework" - credit first
  • Traditional work comes from face-to-face trust; they know the other person won't do that to them
  • My current generation, several UK universities, trying to host student conferences that are well attended
  • Extent to which relationships spend time face to face, meet in person is dwindling
  • Grad students networked across institutions
  • Social networking not intellectual networking > Only in finding like-minded people, building networks, arguing about ideas not tightly coupled to what you see as your original contribution
  • Do they have a broader range of the kind of core skills? Are they more confident? Can they negotiate, write funding bids, do they have other range of skills?
  • Like hybrid materials: assumption that everything can be electronic > Skill sets only on one of those sides
  • What's coming up in scholarship: tremendous pain points around software support for scholarship has to be around annotation

Back to top.

Group 1d - A

(S1) They want smart phones (iphones) as data gathering devices.

(P1) Harder for them to get involved in digital projects even though they no more than senior faculty. Why not? Their projects need to be too broad - no support for small, focused projects.

(J1) Persistent network of social connections that travel with them.  Pervasive connectedness and operation within an information environment that cuts across personal, professional, published, and unpublished. It is porous. (S1) They don't see boundaries.

(C1) Grad students are running their own conferences with topics often more interesting than those at scholarly associations. They are less inclined to be members of societies.

(S1) I opened open journal to the campus and only the grad students are using them, but they've created 4 journals producing good scholarship.

(S1) Increased digital literacy? We are seeing a significant change in the aggregate when we interview students for media literacy.  (C1) This varies by campus and the communities they draw from.

Back to top

Group 1d - B

Incoming Students

9 - incoming graduate students have a high level of tech literacy, but limited understanding of how that can be used for research

1 - technology gaps between students and teachers. For example, in research gathering

4 - students don't know much about the structured bibliographies

6 - students are well connected, which may not be valued in the classroom

9 - wishes statement from 6 was true. Students are no better at doing group work.

11 - the ECAR survey on video games -- In their longitudinal study of college students use of information technology, for example,  Salaway, Caruso, and Nelson (2007) report that more than 3 in 4 (78.3%) college students on average play computer and video games either online or offline, but just over 1 in 2 (53.3%) likes learning through video games and in their coursework.

7 - how they work together. Copying and pasting pieces of

9 - collaborative work versus individual assessment

8 - poor division on labor in teamwork

10 - a larger social trend? The pressure of the standardized test---what do I need to do to succeed?

9 - the changing role of the professor. In CS a member of the learning community. In humanities, maybe not.

5 - cultures vary greatly from institution to intuition and department and department

6 - in engineering, a community of collaboration

3 - CS students still feel a conflict within collaboration; industry versus school

7 - is part of being a CS student, being collaborative?

10 - what about new faculty and staff

2 - students: being lead by the students when it comes to technology; feels okay with being lead. Responding to 9, a panel of 4 write the report, 4 critique the report, 4 critique the collaboration.

Incoming Faculty and Staff

2 -- The object of study versus the object of analysis.

About new faculty: may have the tech capabilities, may not have opportunities to use the skill set in the day to day work. Issues of evaluation and tenure. What is valued and not valued. Get the standard thing done.

9 - hired an engineering PhD. Missed tenure, book was late. Hired back on

2 - issues of tenure evaluation can discourage technology and innovation with digital humanities scholarship

9 - no other person is doing it. The lone scholar

7 - the most capable cannot afford to let their career path become effected by work that may inhibit their career advancement and/or tenure. Questions of leadership

10 - senior faculty can better handle the risk

2 - questions around assessment and digital humanities scholarship, what is valued. A narrowing of what is considered research.

4 - some things that were once valued are not valued to the same extent

9 - Abolish departments. For example, institutional constraints - biology to molecular biology, psychology to neuroscience; history remains constant

2 - an organizational structure that is more responsive to the disciplinary work. Universities are accommodating work.

4 - the 20th century work, temporal axis, geographical axis

5 - from an IT perspective, the optimization of certain activities and skills.

9 - identify areas (media studies) where technology is central and faculty/students are distributed. Develop nodes of activity. An organizational focus.

7 - technology is part of the study of film and so on. There is interplay

Back to top

Group 1d - C

W1    For grad students - Nothing.  It's shocking what they don't know.  I have to introduce them to the new technologies.  It may because many of our grad students are coming from Europe

J3    I don't find that their information seeking skills are very good

W1    They're not savvy and they're hungry.  For new hires, colleagues are not looking for technology skills

J1    Different results in different disciplines. In library schools, looking for people who can contribute to informatics.  Are competing with computer science programs for grad students and hire.  Many grad students are international - many of whom have better math and tech. skills that US students

T1    What are the skills you're looking for?

T2    grad student asked me, "how do I target schools that are doing what I'm interested in?"  Look for libraries with digital humanities projects and centers

J1    that Library engagement will be faculty driven

K1    In languages, it's expected that incoming hires will incorporate technology in the classroom.  They use blackboard, can digitize clips, work with library, Instructional technology.  I look to my new colleagues for inspiration on how to use technology.  Non-tenure track people take more advantage of grants for teaching.  Standing faculty are more about just writing books

W1    That's true in my area, too.

J2    Some new faculty coming in with digital humanities projects tie those interests directly into their teaching.  

M2    can be a challenge when those faculty relocate, because they want to continue their work, but can't always bring the resources with them

A1    In music, what do incoming students bring in? - nothing. Because of the kind of undergraduate training they get.  They have a superficial fluency, but not a deeper curiosity about they way things work.  Occasionally, some do.  But computer music programs can attract people with very deep and specific skills.  But it varies greatly between areas.

W1    different types of hires - grad students; beginning faculty; tenured faculty.    Computer aided instruction is different from computer based research.  Library staff are better with the technology than the faculty.  Graduate students have gotten good jobs because they had good pedagogical skills; but they didn't get tenure.  

D1    most of the digital research they do isn't designing web sites, but using things like GIS systems.   Need programs to train them.

W1    need to revise tenure system to reward them

K1    in a small place, it's easier to review tenure procedures.   But if they don't get tenure at our place, it will be hard for them elsewhere.

M1    we tend to hire library science people rather museum people for their technology schools.  

D1    can't make too many generalizations about any one group

T1    Libraries can really be the engine.

J3    when trying to hire someone for library to work on both public services  with subject expertise, but also work with faculty on digital practices.  Hardly had anyone to interview.  Wound up taking a chance on someone who didn't have much subject expertise, but did have good curiosity.  Will have to train him on how to do collection building, etc.

T2    at our university library use grad students and undergrads.  Grad students come in with subject area knowledge. Undergrads work with faculty on digital media projects

D1    Humanities research centers are another place where people can learn how to do digital work on these projects.

A1    targeting select senior faculty who are not dinosaurs and developing their projects can help.  These are the people who can influence tenure decisions

T2    once faculty get involved in projects, then their teaching is transformed.  Get the faculty on using technology in their research and they'll bring it in to the classroom.  Getting them involved with the library really helps

W1    got to have the physical infrastructure to support it.  We have building that aren't wired or wireless; not all classrooms have computers, etc.   It's our library that has really saved us.  Our library has become an amorphous, multi-purpose institution.

T2    at our university, Library used to be the only source of support for the library.  IT people only supported the sciences; that has since changed

K1    coming from a small school, it's interesting to see problems of big schools.  We have lots of classroom technology, but 0 support for research.  No one can help me with XML or XSLT.  But we've dumped tons of money into teaching facilities

D1    It really varies school to school
 

Back to top

Group 1d - D

D1: Decrease in disciplinary boundaries
D2: Grad students expect digital surrogates of print forms provide enhanced access (allow them to do more)
J1: Is added value seen as coming along with the surrogates themselves, or that tools can be brought to bear on the surrogates?
-Will future scholars see tools and bodies of material as closely linked?
D2: Tools can be brought to bear on them, but the surrogates have to be structured in a particular way
-Grad students don't care how it happens
D1: If it's digital, there's an assumption we can read it anytime, anywhere
D2: Internet Archive, we've submitted things including an enormous pdf file we can't figure out how to do anything with
-An enormous pdf file isn't helpful, but having tools to dissect and analyze it, give enhanced access would make it useful
S1: You end up reading/understanding/remembering it differently in digital format
D2: They want to do different things, take scholarship in a different direction
S2: Pushing the boundaries
D2: They're looking to make their mark, have their work build upon others', hope that technology will help them do that, and if technology doesn't, they don't care so much
J2: I'm a graduate student, I don't know what others are finding, but I value the ability to do non-traditional projects in a digital medium, exploring digital media for substantial scholarly use
-Teaching isn't really talked about at this conference, but using digital technologies for their ability to help students perform active research independently
D2: I've had faculty who center on a seminar structure say their research and teaching are inseparable
-They teach their research, their teaching informs their research
M1: When I meet with grad students, I sense a greater anxiety about getting published earlier than when I was in grad school
-In a service unit (library/IT), breakdown of administrative boundaries too; impatient with administrative change
R1: Me too, a young person is leaving the library because it's not supportive of his efforts to move forward digitally; whatever we try to do to support him from IT, he still has to report from the library
D2: In our place, the middle-aged librarians are supportive of the younger ones
-Younger people are great, we're trying to keep them around
S3: Any generalizations about why anxiety is greater?
M1: Job market has created a huge category of non-tenure-track lines; allows a post-graduate to spend more years in the teaching field before they get to a tenure-track job
-They have more publications by then, make outcoming grad students less competitive
-Increasing expectation of two books in humanities field
-Demand for publishing on administrative P&T side is leading to a lot of production
D2: Business models vs. academic; trying to run a university as a business means tenure-track is not profitable; reducing tenured/tenure-track positions
J1: I agree; also driven by job market (perceived/real assumptions about hireability)
-Younger grad students/librarians/etc. come in with a greater sense of empowerment, facility, frustration with not getting stuff done sooner
-Access to means of production/tools at hand more
-"Should you be blogging about your work?", different conversation than among older faculty; different set of norms
-Less hanging back, being socialized/normalized into a profession
-Comfort with visibility/public-ness skewed young/grown up in an environment of Facebook, MySpace, blogs, etc.
-More willing to stumble in public; willingness to show ambiguity
S1: Important to establish niche earlier; so many niches are public
D2: Technology helps you find something uncommon and interesting to make your mark
J1: Use of technology means there's an audience for you sooner
-Earlier, the beginning of your grad school is very localized, maybe a couple conferences, slow network building
-Now you can set up direct contacts; end up more prominent more quickly
D1: Modes of discovery of content, because research depends on what you can find on the screen, relative rise of searching as discovery (vs. browsing in a structured universe of shelved books), scholars would know about something and find it, then find related things; now, people find things with greater increase in serendipity; finding stuff on the stacks was result of librarians' intentions - not serendipity
-Keywords allow you to find things out of context
S3: Context is provided by an algorithm not made a librarian, you might not even know why two things show up together
D2: If something has subject headings AND keywords, subject headings are just another mode of access
D1: Focus groups of OPAC's - people don't use subject headings much; people want a box where they can type a word
D2: If they type a word and it comes up in a subject heading, they're happy

Back to top

Group 1d - E

Identifying future scholarly practices

T1: would like to see funding agencies look at costs of proposal preparation and adjust expectations accordingly.  (NEH paperwork act underestimates costs, Mellon has an iterative process of working with investigators and doesn't fund overhead)

  - complexity of application process
  - increase of cost share, 20-30% that gets handed off to institution

R1: technology aspects of building granting system would be important

P1: would like to see incoming grad students be put through boot camp in fields important to them; learn what resources library provides for those fields; concerted effort by librarians across insts. who work in same fields to build dynamic (drupal) research portals rather than static pages; goal is to bring people up to speed on tools already available

M1: undergrads and grads may be very good at SMS, facebook, but don't know databases.  that's not where their tech experience comes from.  we assume that because they're raised with computers that they have those skills, but their skills are social.

K1: not enough to teach the tech but must combine with theoretical aspects to understand relevance.  problem i see is more with the faculty, need to make them aware of the need for using db's.

P1: understanding how a paper map works to understanding GIS is a conceptual leap.  highlighted text => text that's been tagged, etc.

R1: grads, junior fac., awareness of creative commons has been expanded by wikipedia etc., they want to change intellectual property ownership.  ex: someone negotiating monograph asked to retain copyright, was turned down, given other stuff instead but was terrified to even ask to retain copyright.  "who gets to own it?"

A1: creative commons has a form...

P1: they're more attuned to social networking software than "we" are

K1: they update their profiles better, share their activities with their community

A1: "community"?

K1: internal/departmental community; often don't see each other often.  friend networks, peers from college...

T1: 30-45 age range is now coming into the networks, people start to express their professional persona.  I'm more aware of what people in my discipline are doing, ex. grad students in Europe.  helps lower barriers to raising questions on e.g. e-mail lists.  has been discussion of potential for SN sites to assist in unexpected discovery.  large mass of stuff "filtered for you"

R1: blogs as "publication" side, not quite social media

A1: any experience of a tenure committee looking at a blog or wiki?

Many: not yet but conversation comes up

T1: lots of experiences where broad geographical anync. collaboration is central.  we make dossiers out of what people have done (in blogs etc.) so user can include a precise of their participation in the process for reviewers.  how that will pay with review committees, can't say, not tested, but groundwork is set.

C1: in archeology profs who've developed web sites and blogs for students at expense of publishing, denied tenure as a result

Back to top

Group 1d - F

R1:  What are you seeing in grad students and new hires?
C1:  At Brown, intersection of science and rhetoric; didn't know much about computing but became interested in text and code. Became fascinated by the idea of text encoding and markup. She's not remarkable. There is some network of support indirectly, but not officially approved.
C2:  In general at Penn State, grad students don't come in w/ depth of knowledge related to technology. Flexible and agile with guidance. 12 grads got hooked - Wiki, Twitter. Not showing up with more experience but take to it.
M1:  New PhDs are very much in touch, and much shrewder negotiators than previous generations. Could erase some rigid boundaries between humanities and sciences, etc.  The new generation of grad students and faculty are connected, and not only within disciplines. Hired from Chicago someone in French, and she was in contact with all other Chicago PhDs at our campus, outside of their disciplines. Might that be something we could manipulate?
N1:  Our grads and recent faculty are expected to know Twitter and enough about Facebook, and digital presentation to put together courses. They have to keep up w/ new technologies. But no connection to research. Still use archives rather than digital resources. Reward system - tenure and research is not there, but teaching requires technological skills. Research different because of different kinds of sources. Computer based systems becoming insufficient.  Our upcoming grads have to invest in more things. Can't be a traditional historian, you have to be better at teaching. There are fewer jobs. Bamboo has to make investments in social networking, visual presentations, make it easier to combine tools for research and lectures.
T1:  Some areas you are getting push back in not getting credit for research. Campuses don't know how to give credit for work that's online. Have to go to conferences, particularly in Wiki, but get no credit for it.
G1:  Strong community of a dozen people w/ tenure who will reward ... Problem is people produced are for a 20th century world - single author articles for established publications. The higher the level the administration is the less resistant; it's the department level that has to support and sometimes don't. Weird dichotomy between established programs and incoming faculty.
I lose my best students to computer science. Everything there is open access, everything online. More appealing to my students. Center of classics not being done in classics, but in various computer departments. We may not be training people for today even. What are the goals of the field in the world?  Resentment from depts. Those that are very senior have a bias toward the world they grew up in. Some humanities disciplines have large body of peoples from the '70s and '80s. People actively dissuaded from thinking about problems down the road. Students being conditioned to be less progressive.
M1:  New guys have been heavily mentored, taught to refuse service assignments, know all the lawsuits. Incentive to take risks in investing in learning technology is low. Get tenure first then invest.
G2:  Do not in higher education have a culture of professional development as in K-12.  Learn scholarship and research is a medieval model, an apprenticeship. It's person you work with. Grad center created interactive pedagogy program. These people get snapped up quickly. Need people who work w/ computers. Instructional tech fellows get 25K a yr to help campuses and faculty do work in instructional technology, localized and focused. Have a network and they know a lot about different disciplines. Learn from each other how scholarship moves forward that others not aware of. A lot is fortuitous, created a field that know a lot more than I do.
D1: Grad student practices - we have 3 areas of expertise: visual culture, museum culture, and mapping. Produce creative theses, have to do a dissertation, but also produce a film (visual anthropologists) but we came up to limits of our digital facilities. Electric  installation art - have to write about it but also produce one himself. Problems:  creating his piece of art, depends on audience interaction. Found it difficult to accommodate every dimension of that w/ in a video context. Sought all kinds of expertise but existing resources didn't enable him to produce a thesis w/ all elements. Talked to supercomputing who helped him come up w/ modeling to simulate entire process.  A lot of PhD scholarship is collaborative in our institution. Developing search engine to bring indigenous art from all over the world. Funded internationally.  School not equipped to deal w/ these challenges.
G1: We have oldest field and we don't know what to do with it. Then we have people who know technology and are lured.
N1:  Difference between hired and getting tenure. All want someone who knows technology, but won't necessarily give that person tenure. It's the personnel committee who I worry about, not my dept.  Mentors will dissuade technology work and encourage to work toward tenure.
C1:  Articulated 3 kinds of intersection of humanities and tech:  1) the superficial: the social networking, peripheral to central mission, 2) Interdisciplinary model: someone with strong tech abilities; comfortable with that and juxtapose w/ more traditional scholarship 3) direct infusion into traditional areas.  
G2:  Problem of tenure at most basic is a problem of hiring too: people don't want to think. They want people "pre-vetted." Further up you go less people know what you are doing, don't know articles or journals. We need a peer review for the stuff that matters to us now. Way of referencing a vetting process. Attempts to do that:  Merlot w/ pedagogical tools. More than a social network. Work and digital scholarship for peer review.
M1:  Rather than a parallel peer review system, what we should do is look for senior established colleagues who can take risks and who would do something different - persuade them to publish something in a digital form. By taking that step it makes it more respectable for junior people to do. Peer review in place for this digital journal (Cambridge --).
G2:  There are forms of scholarly work that don't fit - might be service, scholarship at same time. Need other way of having this work outside of our own institutions.
M1:  Make it easier for junior people to take a path that is more accepted.
G2:  Resistance to collaborative and co-authored.
G1:  Danger is still internalizing assumptions:  a print body and a digital tail. Need to build a whole new world from scratch, rather than an add-on. If Bamboo could identify pools of faculty who could shepherd thru nontraditional projects, that were assessed on intellectual merit. Not rewarded or penalized for being technological. We could do it at my institution.
C1: How does that work institutionally?  Still have to come up to dissertation and tenure committees.
D1:  Current resistance is what we are talking about. Peer review extends across a range of outputs. We introduced an assessment exercise, some in place, can take on board.
T1:  Resistance not just review; metrics not there to evaluate online edition.  Faculty numbers are not growing but nontenured track is growing significantly. Depts need research professionals - nonclass of academic staff. Shouldn't create a separate academic class but how to measure the merit.
S1:  Tenure system declining - 15% of faculty have tenure. Disappearing for practical economic reasons - reality of salaries. Small number of institutions who are maintaining this system. Don't know if Bamboo should help maintain 18th c system. New hires in IT expect to work collaboratively, writing mashups, access to huge libraries of systems, pull them off of existing systems and mash together. Similar to research perhaps, want to work collaboratively. Common in sciences. In IT you can't say who wrote a program.
T1: Research programmers hired at higher salaries than faculty. Tension. Not good environment. Replace tenure system or bring together academic staff and avoid divisiveness.

Back to top

Group 1d - G

New Hires, Up and Coming Graduate Students

G1 -- under 30s, understand problems really quickly and start working on them, older generations have more baggage or just don't understand them (ex. persistence, sustainability of web presence)

H1 -- undergrads more amenable than graduate students, history graduate students aren't reward for thinking digitally but the younger the student the more willing they are to learn -- generation gap will only

D2 -- looking for new hires want 2 skill sets (humanities and CS), but where will graduate students learn the skills for documentary editing?  they'll learn computers on their own -- therefore excitement and concern

J1 -- generation gap isn't really true, "luddites in the pipeline" or familiarity with computers is not the same thing as computer literacy -- beware the "mouse kiddies"

W1 -- younger generation more accustomed to instantaneous communication

H1 -- new a way to train, professionalization

D1 -- younger generation has a different view of intellectual property, particularly undergraduates

What do we want to do about intellectual property?  Do we need to enforce the rules?

A1 -- does a lower bar for borrowing give less incentive for creativity?  Table responds NO (mashups, sampling, etc.)

S1 -- we do a great deal of consultation and training as well as maintenance

H1 -- What is the role of the library vs. the publisher? -- S1 responds that his library is becoming a publisher, At Penn State the publisher is under the library,

Melbourne is heading that way as well and more towards commercial publishing -- this was being pushed for by younger scholars who wanted online publishing under Melbourne name, print on demand volume actually made money! Doesn't cost much on the University's budget, all the work is done by the scholars (just have  servers and archiving)

Back to top

Group 1d - H

 New grad students, faculty?

        More open to risk

        Presentation styles

            More open to live work

                More multimedia

        More open to collaborations across boundaries

        Academic computing staff: into chat, graphical tools; less CLI

        Accustomed to shorter developmental cycles, more rapid and granular release

        Still bound to traditional avenues for production

                -still individualist

        Avenue for research: are younger faculty doing this?

        Gaming

                -process versus output maintained

                -could blur

Back to top