Page Tree:

Child pages
  • W2 Plenary Sharing 2

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

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Plenary Sharing 2

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

Service framework

Group 6

  • How do we expand on what's available and make it accessible?
  • How is scholarly practice attached to a service identified? What is the method for selecting that service?

Group 1

  • How will existing tools work with to fit the service framework?
  • How might we make sure that our framework supports the live creative act (capturing that content for use)?

Group 5

  • Does not follow directions; spent all our time talking about institutional commitment

Tools and repository partners

Group 12

  • "Stuff" - should this be renamed "tools and content" - representative of the things we care about, not just technology
    Sub-question: commercial partners, license, IP-restricted content - relates to our need to get at stuff
  • Tool interoperability; want to specify not only tools and also environments - how well do they play with each other
  • Incentives for sharing

Group 4

  • Questions of identity - better managing identities can allow for a variety of research accesses to materials that might otherwise look like threats to those kinds of installations (multiple hits from counting tools on data sets)
    Might be related to, how might we negotiate with owners of collections of archives that are protective of their sources? How might we create a sense of trust for sharing materials?

Standards and specifications

Group 2

  • Can Bamboo offer a clearinghouse for standards and help people make informed choices?
  • The kinds of standards we were talking about were less technical - more vetting, peer review, etc. - can this be shaped towards best practices for applying standards?

Group 8

  • How does Bamboo position itself vis a vis standards to meet the needs of scholars?
  • How to engage with professional academic organizations in articulating these standards?

Group 7

  • What should/should not be standardized?
  • As we look at what we're trying to make work together, we have to decide what it is first
  • How will these change over time, and who will make these decisions?

Social network

Group 7

  • How to create a safe place that's also open?
  • How to attract and retain users?

Group 6

  • What concerns might researchers have for participating in social network environment (IP, reputation)?
  • What is the relationship between scholar/their scholarship in a social networking environment?

Group 11

  • What is it for (in Bamboo context - not an end in itself, but what wider purposes does it serve)? Education & training agenda, knowledge and expertise, etc.
  • How do we manage it so it delivers? (How do we manage it to give the right people access to it/get involved, getting democratic but not too democratic, how does it avoid the extremes of being too selective - peer review - and "an assemblage of rubbish no one wants to read or contribute to")

Group 12

  • What's the purpose of a higher-level social network? Renaming this as a scholarly network might lower the barriers of participation.
  • What is the problem we're trying to solve?
  • This could also support sustainable tools theme in terms of discovery, vetting, reputation of tools
  • How do we mimic this on our own campuses? How can we build on already existing networks rather than starting from scratch?

CJK: Is renaming as "scholars' network" something that resonates more with people?
-The term "social network" can also be an adjective, so I was seeing it as an adjective describing a whole set of things; a "scholar's network" makes sense, but if it's an adjective, we're still talking social connections
CJK: Let's leave it.

Institutional partnerships and support

Group 11

  • Is this the best or only way of Bamboo networking with other structures?
  • Looking to scholarly societies, other structures as well as institutions.
  • Assuming we are working within institutions, where is the agenda set in the institution? Faculty, librarians, tech specialists, scholars, students, all of the above? How does one articulate and lead a consensus and agenda?

Group 3

  • How can project Bamboo gain an adequate understanding of existing models of institutional partnerships/lessons learned
  • How to interact with capacity and scarcity of IT resources in different institutions?

Group 5

  • What can Bamboo do to try to appeal in broadest possible way to humanists on campus who are somewhat resistant to spending time/energy/resources in this endeavor?
  • Money: to garner support means financial support in some sense; we had people from different kinds of institutions, and everywhere it's hard to get an institutional investment at this point.
  • What might happen, how might we get that? What kind of argument can we make ot our administration to support Bamboo financially?

Group 1

  • How do we get top-level administrative buy-in? How should it be funded?
  • At Berkeley - first time they'd had a top-level buy-in, and that was due tohow it was presented to administration
  • How will you go about pairing resources we have with scholarly projects? Outreach, understanding what's there.

Group 10

  • Two of our questions already taken by Group 5
  • Different resources are available, so how can Bamboo connect those institutions and facilitate interaction inter/nationally?
  • Figuring out ways the ideas and programs of Bamboo could be presented to deans, provosts, presidents, boards of regents, trustees, etc. to get financial support
  • What could Bamboo do to impact scholarly organizations and professional meetings?

Education and training

Group 10

  • How can Bamboo develop training programs that will be of optimal use/relevance to faculty's research/teaching, programs that will catch the interest/commitment of humanities researchers, many of whom don't have much experience with IT.

Group 8

  • What does education mean? Marketing? Outreach? Consciousness raising? Teaching and learning?
  • What new forms of teaching and learning might Bamboo generate? - challenging model that education comes from faculty down; some might come from students up
  • What forms of teaching might get choked out by this initiative?

Group 2

  • Desire to be careful about language used to frame the activity
  • Shift from education/training to mentoring/outreach/communication
  • Graduate student education and outreach to faculty colleagues
  • Can we develop a rich, attractive dig hum culture by mainstreaming e-scholarship methods, practices and educational opportunities into traditional disciplines
  • Easier for scholars whose work is primarily methodological to engage with digital humanities, vs. those doing interpretive work

Group 9

  • What forms should education/training/outreach take?
  • Through what processes will B help people discover each other/tools/resources?
  • What would training look like? Most effective form? Should PB specialize or generalize?
  • Who should PB be training? Every faculty/student? Admin? IT staff? Collaborators?

Group 4

  • Relationship between education and research.
  • How do we create a method that encourages multi-directional flow of teaching and learning, colleague to colleague? (In some of the language, suggests faculty need to learn stuff from technologists/librarians; there needs ot be learning going in multiple directions)

Discussion: should "Education" be split?

DAG: Is this still one direction? Or two, with a focus on outreach and another on a focus on teaching/mentoring?
-How to integrate tech into pedagogy is a different question than how to get colleagues in the humanities to make more intelligent use of technology in research and teaching
-Our group would disagree; we wanted to transform grad education, take a longer view and look at next generation of faculty
-Group 10 agrees with breaking them apart; distinction between undergrad pedagogy (and some graduate) different than relationships between faculty and IT specialists
-Group 8 agrees with splitting them

-The word "training" is a bad word; concerned with grouping along with professional development
Part of what PB's got to do is come up with productive ways of using technology in humanities work
Training is incidental to that - you have to show them what button to click on, but you're not training people in the big picture, people are learning and internalizing methodologies
Training is a reductive term

(vote: Some in favor of dropping training, others not)

CJK: Two groups, same data
One: education and training
Other: Education
Then have a discussion tomorrow.

-Main distinction is between education of students and professional development of faculty within/across institutions
-It's not only faculty that need development; it's librarians, technologists, all support structures too
-With or without the term "training", keep operations out of all discussions; any words alluding to "how" institutions do things will get a lot of pushback

-Important to think about grad students; they're in both worlds, and a key player
-Have information on interface and usability
Undergrad and grad education has research component; the best academic technology is that which feeds into teaching that facilitates research of the scholar
Powerful undergrad education is undergrad research
Neophyte vs. expert researchers - tools that respond to skill level
-Instead of going in opposite directions, think of it as two sides to the same coin - there's a relationship that's sometimes oppositional, but not severed

CJK: Where does this leave us?
DAG: Opportunity for people to structure two working groups; one with a deeper connection to undergrad education, another to rich forms of professional development for everyone in Bamboo - find some way for those working groups to talk to each other


Group 3

  • How can PB determine the boundaries of its remit re: advocacy in "high-commonality problems" (such as identity management, IP, promotion and tenure)?
  • How can priorities be set?
  • At the different phases of PB's development, what are the concrete methods of advocacy - who and how

Group 9

  • What is PB advocating for? And to whom? - resources, legitimacy, institutional
  • What standing would PB reps have in internal discussions?
  • How would PB acquire the necessary standing?
  • Certification and legitimacy of dig scholarly practice - PB's role? Is it even possible?
  • How does technology change scholarly practice - what are new characteristics?
  • How will PB work with societies, accreditation boards, etc; who else will PB collaborate with?
  • Should PB be evangelistic and idealistic, and how much so can it be?
  • What are risks? What is moral responsibility?
  • How can PB come into an institution and tell them what to do?

-Risk of mixing directions for Bamboo (things it should try to do) and things that Bamboo has to do to be a project (there has to be outreach).
If you want to influence pedagogy of humanities scholarship, that's a mission you decide you want to take
They're not both directions - you can say Bamboo should advocate for digital humanities, or it can do marketing of what it does

Discussion of Advocacy

-I heard a lot of pushback on advocacy; some are rebelling against the Chicago workshops in thinking that we don't need advocacy

DAG: Problem with the word, or with the concept?

-Isn't that for disciplines to sort out their P&T on their own?

DAG: If we had one that's focused on advocacy, raise hands (a few hands raised)
Other thoughts for framing?

-I put "moral responsibility" into our question
If we develop tools for scholars, we have to understand their intellectual climate in the professional world
We have a moral responsibility to at some level become advocates - that doesn't mean we have to define standards of scholarship, just supply a form or work with groups more involved in doing this kind of work
Could even be a secondary role

-Recognition that at different stages of its maturation, PB will be better/less well equipped to advocate
To be pragmatic, first to advocate for its own relevance
Later, once that's established and there's models in place showing how it can function, maybe then it becomes an advocating body (by example, explicitly)
Talking about advocating as a generic whole from the beginning is too abstract

-Problems with term "advocacy" - didn't think it was something I was interested in or applicable to issues I deal with in University Press
Gets confused with PB advocating for itself, and advocacy in a larger way for digital humanities
It's not the right term

DAG: Description was focused on cluster of issues people in workshop 1 were interested in, in regards to advocacy

-When we were discussing these directions this morning, came across two different interpretations that need clarification:
1) Advocating to other humanities scholars, raising their awareness of what can be done
2) Advocacy from workshop 1 - trying to change things out of the control of most people
Very useful to keep this direction as a core thing

-Social networking came into this discussion of the culture of humanities, peer review, etc.
Need a hand in the conversation about if there's ways that tools can be constructed to allow for humanities contributions to databases to serve for those purposes
Not going to advocate for faculty contributing to repositories, but that could influence how repositories are structured (including things like timestamps, etc.)
Not going to the deans and advocating to them, but keep those issues in mind as we develop other tools

-I wish we wouldn't talk about it at all - there's plenty of other things to talk about
Better ways of doing this and that; waste a lot of psychological energy and time going into meta-issues of faculty prestige
Things are changing - more positions available for new media specialists
Things will take care of themselves; we've got enough to do building better tools and resources to help people do things better and faster

-Issue of disinterestedness; may make it easier to articulate the sheer use value of the tools part if Bamboo isn't also getting into more political issues
Won't have to identify itself with positions on those issues

-Counterpoint: some form of advocacy is going to be needed; whatever PB is doing will change the landscape, and that's inherently political
If we don't engage with professional societies (may have vested interests), business models for publishing, this could inhibit what PB wants to accomplish re: interoperability, access to scholarship, etc.
Need to address larger structural issues in the Academy

-Be more pragmatic; it's hard to evaluate digital scholarship
PB could provide set of criteria, peer review techniques for evaluating it
Tools for understanding the value, rathe than saying "it's good" - show people why it's important and how to demonstrate the importance

-Clearinghouse for what's happening in all these disciplines
Is the term "advocacy" appropriate?
A lot of the deans don't know what's happening in all these fields; PB could be the place to go to keep up with what's happening
We could represent that with visualizations (use our own technologies) - could be very constructive

-Need to be cognizant that there's standards for evaluation already; MLA already developed standards
PB should consider who are the faculty who are coming in to work on these things
If you don't have any advocacy, you can't get junior faculty to do this

-Building on model seen in CNI; very broad organization, multi-institutional
Trying to advance a common cause; seems like a natural model for a broad-based group like this to advance the cause of A&H scholarship

DAG: Important case made for a modest approach; ways tools and services could play into academic recognition portfolio
Seems to be people who are interested in being involved; there's an opportunity for a group of people to talk about a modest version, discuss how these questions interrelate with other directions

-Sounded more like the question of how Bamboo is going to partner w/ institutions, rather than how institutions should be organized within Bamboo
How do things happen in an institution to help support this?
DAG: This sheet is a starting way to get discussion going; we want to hear what the most fundamental questions that need to be addressed are
Strong statements around institutional support