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

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Large Group Sharing


Thursday morning sharing

  • Do you have any questions regarding how these directions interrelate?
  • Do these directions include your interests and concerns?

Thursday afternoon sharing

  • What questions that need to be answered as we shape our directions

Friday morning sharing

  • What are the rewards, risks, scope, and priorities of the directions

Friday afternoon sharing

  • Outline of work, milestones, effort

Saturday morning sharing

  • What kind of consortial models could work for Bamboo?
  • What guiding priciples should Bamboo adopt?

1 Comment

  1. Unknown User (masover@berkeley.edu)

    Large Group Sharing #2 - Steve's Notes

    [These may be complimentary to Quinn's notes, or may not add anything at all ... use as needed]

    Services Framework

    G#6
    a)    how can we expand on what is available and make it universally available
    b)    how is a service attached to a scholarly practice

    G#1
    a)    how will existing tools be made to fit the service framework
    b)    how will we be sure that our framework supports the "live creative act"

    G#5
    a)    we are bad at following directions:  didn't talk about SF at all!

    Tools & Repo Partners

    G#12
    a)    rename "Tools and Content Partners" to more closely represent "stuff" that is of more importance to scholars
    b)    tool interoperability:  not just functionality, but what environments they work in
    c)    incentives for sharing tools and content

    G#4
    a)    identity ... how to better manage identity in order to allow for various research access that might otherwise look like threats to a content provider
    b)    how might we negotiate with archive owners a sense of trust that would motivate them to share materials

    Standards and Specifications

    G#2
    a)    can PB provide a clearing house for standards rather than create them?
    b)    humanities scholars are more concerned with scholarly rather than technical standards ... so best practices re: application of standards?

    G#8
    a)    how does PB position itself to be of value to scholars
    b)    how to engage with scholarly societies

    G#7
    a)    what should be standardize vs. what should NOT be standardized
    b)    how will these selections change over time,

    Social Network

    G#7
    a)    how to create a safe place that is open as well
    b)    how to attract and retain users in this social network

    G#6
    a)    what concerns might have with participating in an SN, given reputational considerations
    b)    [missed this one]

    G#11
    a)    What is it for?  How will it serve wider purposes of PB?  Education and training?  Sharing of expertise?
    b)    How do we manage it so that it is democratic but not too democratic ... and how does it avoid the extremes of being too exclusive (peer-reviewed) vs. too open (full of rubbish)

    G#12
    a)    scholarly network a better name?
    b)    [missed this one]
    c)    how do we mimic on our own campus, and how do we build on existing scholarly networks

    Institutional partnerships &* support

    G#11
    a)    Is this the best or perhaps the only way of seeing the boundary, at institution?  Or are scholarly societies the right place to place this activity
    b)    if institutions, what part of institutions:  scholars, libraries, etc.?
    G#2?
    a)    [missed this one]
    b)    how can PB engage with issue of scarcity of resources

    G#5
    a)    how can PB appeal to scholars
    b)    how to financially support this kind of effort ... difficult to get institutional investments

    G#1
    a)    how to get high level institutional/administrative buy-in and funding
    b)    how to go about pairing resources with scholarly projects

    G#10
    a)    given different resources at institutions of different sizes, how to connect to national international cooperation
    b)    how to present PB to deans, provosts, regents, etc. to garner financial support necessary to move ahead
    c)    what can PB do to impact scholarly organizations and meetings

    Education and Training

    G#10
    a)    how to develop E&T programs of optimal use and of sufficient interest to really engage scholars

    G#8
    a)    what does education mean here?  marketing, outreach, consciousness-raising, teaching-and-learning?
    b)    what new forms of teaching and learning might PB generate?  Faculty down, students up?  What forms of teaching might get 'choked out' by the PB initiative
    G#2
    a)    can we shift from E&T to "Mentoring, Outreach and Communication"
    b)    can we develop a rich and attractive digital scholarship ...

    G#9
    a)    what form should education, training , outreach ... what will training look like ... what would be the most effective form of training ...
    b)    who should PB be training?  faculty, admin, it staff, collaborators?

    G#4
    a)    Should we think about relationship of education to research
    b)    How do we create a method that creates multidirectional flow of teaching and learning, colleague to colleague (broadly construed)

    DAG:  is this one direction or two (pedagogy vs. marketing)?
    Martin M:  how to integrate tech into pedagogy is different from how to integrate tech into research and teaching.
    ?:  Our group would disagree
    F. Allan Hansen: Our group would disagree with breaking them apart
    ?: Two directions within the direction

    Advocacy

    G#3
    a)    How can PB determine its boundary vis-à-vis "high commonality problems" ... and how can priorities among those issues be set
    b)    at different phases, what are concrete mechanisms:  who advocates and with what objective
    G#9
    a)    What is PB advocating for?  To whom is PB advocating?
    b)    On certification and legitimacy of scholarly practice:  is that PB's role?  How will PB work with professional societies, university presses, etc.?
    c)    how evangelistic can/should PB be?

    Post-discussion:

    CJK:  Should we split Training and Prof Development from Learning & Pedagogy?
    Tim Cole:  Yes. 
    ?:  Training seems a bad word.  Not the right way to describe the task of discovering and publishing productive ways of using digital tools in humanities scholarship?  [inconclusive voice-vote...]
    Chad:  "Education" and "Education and Training" groups .... see how it falls out after folks discuss
    ?: leaves off the interesting question of how to productively apply digital tools to H scholarship
    F Allan Hanson:  educating students vs. prof development is the most important split
    Diliwar:  keep "operations" out of discussion to avoid pushback from individual departments, etc.
    [...]
    ?:  How should tools respond to difference between neophyte vs. expert researchers?

    DAG:  Advocacy -- is it the word or the content of the proposed direction?
    ?:  Someone asked -- isn't this a matter for disciplines &c, not PB
    DAG:  how much interest in working on this (about 1/2 dozen)
    P Tuttle:  moral responsibility to supply a forum or work with groups who are better positioned to address the effect of digital tools in scholarship
    Catherine Mitchell:  earlier, PB is not in a position to have credibility to advocate ... maybe later as it establishes some standing from which to advocate
    Laura Cerruti:  "Advocacy" without the fine print didn't seem interesting, but once the fine print comes into focus the direction seemed more useful.  It's just not the right turn.
    DAG:  Not about advocating for PB.
    ?:  Advocating to other humanities scholars (marketing, championing) what's possible; vs. trying to change things which are pretty much out of the control of academics (regulatory, employment, funding contexts) ... Thus good to keep, otherwise PB can't be effective (question).
    Alex --: We need to have a hand in how tools can be constructed to facilitate scholarly participation in digital humanties space
    Martin M:  I wish we wouldn't talk about that at all.  The meta issues of faculty prestige will prove a waste of psychological energy and time.  Things are changing.  [Implication:  change doesn't need PB to steer it.]  We have enough on our plates.
    Julia F:  Is there a question of disinterest here?  Maybe best for PB to be effective as a tool facilitiator if it stays out of politics.
    Eric Kanza:  PB is going to change the landscape, that's inherently political.  Failing to engage on these issues may inhibit PB's other goals.
    ?:  PB could provide criteria for evaluation of DH projects
    ?:  Clearing house for info on what is happening in disciplines.  But "Advocacy" isn't the right term for that activity.
    Katherine Harris:  There are guidelines that have been established re: tenure review.  But it's not PB's role to get institutions to look at them.
    Jim M:  Is there a role for PB in the less political aspects of advocacy, e.g., what role does digital stuff have for the humanities
    DAG:  might a group tomorrow talk about a more modest scope for "Advocacy" (however named) that might still be a PB direction?
    Okay...

    ?:  Institutional Support direction:  is this about how PB should engage with institutions or is it about how institutions should organize internally?  DAG:  Both.