Navigation:
Documentation
Archive



Page Tree:

Child pages
  • W4 - Polls

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

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

16 April - Discussion of Section 3 Poll #1

 

High

Medium

Low

None

3.1- Scholarly Network

21

6

5

0

3.2- Scholarly Narratives

11

14

4

1

3.3- Recipes / Workflows

15

11

5

0

3.4- Tool & Content Guide

17

4

9

0

3.5- Educational & Curricular Materials

12

7

6

3

3.6- Bamboo Community Environment(s)

13

15

3

0


  • Katherine Harris (SJ State): 3.5 is not as well developed as the other sections ... this is a concern for a teaching institution
  • Tim Cole (UIUC) - Considered whether Bamboo had a unique role (were others addressing area) when making priorities; most of the sections are potential to be high - for a lot of people, it's either high or low priority, with little medium; my colleague and I think education is very important to push out DH into scholarship
  • Greg - U Minnesota - Educational and Curricular materials important for us too, to drive transformation of scholarly practice
  • John Butler - U Minn - Centralized vs. highly decentralized ... interest and ability to contribute tended to be higher when there were narrower areas in which to contribute
  • Chad - What can our institution do, in what area can we marshal interest and a team
  • Neil Freistat - Sustainability plan. Who will house and for how long? Libraries are in a unique position to sustain. Recipes: might there need to be some back and forth between recipes and scholars. Is this a librarian?
  • Robert Gibbs (Toronto) - Struck that SNar got lower percentage of highs. Anxiety is that this is the place where we have the most direct interaction with humanities scholars. Striking that this group seems less deeply committed about hearing from scholars directly than other activities. DAG: Not sure that's the right deduction to make from the voting. Will be interesting to see what happens on Saturday.
  • John Norman (Cambridge): Couldn't see what was in it for the scholar, which had him vacillating between High and Medium.
  • Tim Cole - Must round-trip the narrative: not just tell the story, but bring back to the teller some news of digital tools that might help; seems to be a gap between recipes and individual trying to find their way, need back-and-forth between scholar and someone else who mediates the recipes or something; could librarians fill that role?
  • Duffy Gillman (U Ariz) - Resource issue is a concern. There's a lot of time involved getting and analyzing the narratives. Interprets recipes as the bridge between scholars and technologists. Might be that certain narratives will have greater influence in illuminating the links between scholarship and technology services. How to identify these and apply the resources there.
  • Katie H-- (ANU) - Wonder whether a more refined poll - saying whether an inst would be interested in engaging at Explore, Plan, Build level
  • Scholarly narratives - this might be a gap that universities have
  • Mark Williams (Dartmouth) - Sch Narr highs represent institutions who know they have narratives to tell? Medium might mean that more good narratives are needed (question) . Re Education - suggests a possible divide between research and curricular orientations, the research vs. liberal arts colleges?
  • Stacy - Didn't want to vote all high priorities, so something had to be low. Education got low because it seemed there would be other ways of getting educational materials than by Bamboo's creation and curation of them. Narratives: there's a point of diminishing return, once you'd collected a useful body of data perhaps you're done.
  • Elli M (Brown): Voted low on Educ. There's a tension between the "convince the dean" problem (which would suggest higher rating to Educ) and the value of research ... figuring that from Brown's perspective, doing research is what faculty actually engage in fully.
  • Low on Educ because someone else likely to do this
  • Jeff - CUNY - Rated Educ high for same reasons others rated it low. Education and Instructional material needs to become more visible in the proposal.
  • Mark W (Dartmouth) - Where are the "Labs" - is that where education has gotten to?
  • Chad: Let's talk about this more deeply, later. Maybe during his presentation this afternoon.
  • Research isn't just what you do
    • There's seminars that look a lot like research
    • We don't have to call it educational/curricular materials
    • Might be important to use that language to pitch to administration
    • Do curricular materials filter up, or does research filter down?
    • When faculty do things, they teach them; when it's "just instructional", they don't do it
    • "That's an IT thing" - gets back to us/them

16 April - Discussion of Section 4 Poll #1

 

High

Medium

Low

None

4.1- Service Atlas

19

9

1

2

4.2- Bamboo Exchange

12

13

5

1

4.3- Shared Services Lifecycle

12

13

3

3

4.4- Tool & Application Alignment Partnerships

13

14

1

3

4.5- Content Interoperability & Partnerships

19

8

2

2

Q: Partnerships are critical, but I'm not sure how it fits in
On services stuff - seems like section was different than everything else because it described a process not activity; described a way to do things
Implication that we'd follow this process to produce services, but that didn't come through for me
A: Exchange is entity - mechanism for (in broad way) all sorts of exchanges of resources
Final two sections - we'll hear more tomorrow; working w/ existing DigHum projects, possibility of refactoring so they could expose services; substantially different endeavor than just sharing resources across a broad community
Opportunity to take steps forward to work with those repositories, connect to services/tools in a stronger way
Haven't defined where to start with this; broad approach to take a lot of resources
Shared services lifestyle - leads up to deployment by PB consortium for sustainable services that can be used by many people
Banding together

Q: High numbers for atlas;
when we think of services, it's hard to track from underlying content up
"Shared services" for scholars = accessing some content

Q: Does content interoperability section - suggests there's a copyright issue in play, but only a single sentence about that
Does there need to be a formal conversation about acknowledging shift in policy that universities may need to take?

17 April - Discussion of Section 3 and Section 4 Poll #2

 

Lead

High

Medium

Low

None

3.1. Scholarly Network

5

24

12

2

0

3.2. Scholarly Narratives

6

14

8

4

0

3.3. Recipes (Workflows)

4

11

11

4

1

3.4. Tools and Content Guide

0

16

9

3

1

3.5. Other Educational and Curricular Materials

6

16

9

2

0

3.6. Bamboo Community Environment(s)

3

5

18

2

2



 

Lead

High

Medium

Low

None

4.1. Services Atlas

2

32

8

3

0

4.2. Bamboo Exchange

1

10

14

3

2

4.3. Shared Services Lifecycle

2

9

15

1

0

4.4. Tool and Application Alignment Partnerships

5

17

17

0

0

4.5. Content Interoperability Partnerships

11

25

11

1

0


  • At least every category has at least a couple leads
  • Seems like four seems more implementation/concrete than 3; thinking "we can do that"
  • Reflection of scholars coming to this and wanting access to resources
  • 4.4/4.3 - fewer leaders
  • Service atlas - isn't going to be easy, aren't 10 people who want to take charge
  • "Everyone and their aunt" wants to share interoperability
  • In 3, networking/narratives have a large group of people wanting to lead
  • Reflects interface w/ humanities faculty/scholars
  • Key function for many of our universities for making PB go
  • No idea why 3.4 has no leaders - lots of interest, no leaders
  • 3.1/2/3 have 4-5 leads on them
  • CJK: In the "3 collection", in 3.5 (education) there's the most leaders

  • Distribution in leadership for section 4 things - reflects the primacy of the way things have to move
  • If we acknowledge we can't build the "gold society", have to start w/ tools/content we can find, structure agreements, and move towards a more complete picture
  • On the 3 side, talking about social networking/scholarly narratives - how do we sustain a community and have a vision where we're going

  • OU put down for scholarly networking, have some interest in Exchange
  • Exchanging ideas, repositories, resources

  • What can we do in a particular period of time?
  • Systematic relationship between the components
  • Would be nice to have an atlas that can provide some of those relationships
  • In the case of interoperability: anyone working in an IT profession is fundamentally conscious of this
  • Something like narratives need to be linked into recipes to make narratives something that can communicate between humanities scholars and IT areas of institutions
  • At the moment, these are accepting "equipment" of narratives from scientists, and providing resources accordingly
  • Important for us to keep in mind those relationships, rather than "we might do this in one year, but not this"
  • DAG: We're going to have to during break figure out which of these we'll form action plans around
  • Should we take something about narratives/recipes, which are linked, and have plan of action for them together?

  • Putting those two together, you may not be taking about the same thing; we'd need to fill in information about the steps
  • CJK: If one focuses work around the process - are we collecting the right things in narratives that can become recipes?
    don't necessarily need a lot of domain specialists to focus the work
  • Scholarly narratives has a working group, recipes came out of tools & content partners
  • This is an opportunity for working groups that have talked about working together to actually do it

  • In terms of developing an action plan, won't have the same individuals there in each group, but these groups have to coordinate with each other - makes more sense to work together

  • Concerned about the dots dictating the priorities - there's a "baby and bath water" issue, where columns represent different things, may be matter of degree especially in the first year
  • Are we wrong in focusing on where the dots are?
  • Are we missing the larger relationship on how to do the planning for the next 3 years?
  • DAG: Purpose of program document - look at overall, in long term
  • Some sense of what to tease out in the shorter term, not forgetting how these pieces are interconnected
  • Try not to go too far on the other side

  • Don't want to be general about just about anything
  • If you put recipes/narratives together, need to at least join with whatever we've got going * on in one-year timeline
  • DAG: So, want to make a conjunction of that work with pieces emerging in section 4 as a priority
  • Want to make sure that happens in the next several weeks
  • A: Yes, so if there's a timeline in which narratives/recipes live (1 year), larger timeline can also include other things

  • Only issue for me with what's been planned out - tendencies among all of these - the one that has no leadership right now
  • Scholarly narratives are related to tool guide; result of what recipes/narratives are describing
  • People who are willing to step up and take charge of one of these; this will get us through this afternoon, except that one thing
  • So what do you do with that? It is related to the other items in that section, as well as section 4

  • Expression of interest/engagement/capacity, may be missing a conversation about strategic planning
  • Need much more specificity, proof of concept, being clear what the value is for the institution
  • Related to 1-2 year plan, educational materials, service atlas, etc.
  • Haven't yet had the conversation as a group, but we think that's strategically the best thing to do
  • DAG: Looking at different work, interrelationships to them
  • Based on these pieces, next step is to tell stories over 2 year period of time - what happens when? What's the value?

  • If function/benefit is between one of these, separating for discussions, then what?
  • Could be talking about sample projects, examples- probably take advantage of every one of these 11 areas
  • Going to be one manifestation
  • Project, set of three features, multiplicative effect that will enable all of them
  • But separate conversations makes it hard to come up with those ideas
  • There's got to be another way to do it, I don't know what it is

    DAG: This is just a first step. We'll discuss them tomorrow, need to tease out among people who've aid it's important, they want to lead - what are short-term steps?

  • This is beginning of dialog between these groups, but need to get people who put the dots up "do we have the right understanding? what are our priorities?:
  • Don't want to harp on tool guide, but it's in the section fora reason, does relate to other pieces
  • If no one's going to lead that, where does that sit?
  • I'd like to fold it into another group if possible
  • CJK: In two-year window, doesn't seem to be leadership for that now, but as some of the other discussions/potentially projects evolve, may be an opportunity to come back to that
  • Long-term prioritization; other ones, too
  • Low leadership numbers for some of them, may not be the thing you tackle first, but relate to everything else

  • Everyone should be encouraged to talk about everything - there's dependencies

  • Does seem that part of what we're seeing is the big networking atlas tool guide, stuff that is going to be built that's going to reflect a wide scan/resource base of what we share, it's not something that'll happen in a year
  • If we could get some interoperability with Zotero/Sakai, get some narratives to explain that - that's something we could do in a year
  • Part of issue would be: try to think about that kind of action plan, but doesn't mean we're not hoping that these very full clouds with all that connection and information and ability to exchange stuff will form
  • We can't achieve that project next year

  • Bamboo proof-of-concept
  • Something that actually works in the way we're talking about, within a year or 18 months

  • Clustering has started happening - tools and content cluster; another thing that's not there is work on activity definitions
  • This is part of creating services, but it has been its own set of activities, too
  • Where do those live?

  • Tool & content again - there's a lot of work going on with this
  • Things sponsored by many organizations
  • On the radar of a lot of people already; does PB need to do this?

  • "What am I gonna tell my administration? Why support this? Why do we do anything? How do we evaluate/justify what this is going to be?"
  • How can we measure? Quantitative? Qualitative? I don't see that.
  • We're assuming we know what we're doing, why this matters
  • I don't have a concrete narrative, but ti's beyond that
  • I don't have anything I can tell the administration about how they'll get more bang for their buck, why not just put the money in financial aid?
  • We need to crystallize this
  • It's sorta in scholarly narratives, but that's just raw material for this - it's not this
  • DAG: This came up in the last workshop; sense that in order to make that case/value argument, we had to do some more narrowing down to make the argument clearly
  • A: We don't want to grab preliminary metrics that will constrain us in the future
  • Want to build a better plow with better steel blades
  • Can pick some criteria - language (barrier for research: how many languages do you work with?)
  • Instruments whereby you can address that - can measure intellectual reach (quality/number of documents)
  • Space, interacting in space/different media
  • Are there things we can come up with now? Here are the results you're gonna get. We know we can make progress. We can make cases, even if we can't measure.
  • Those are things to put up front in a non-binding, provocative way
  • No labels