16 April - Discussion of Poll #1
3.1- Scholarly Network
3.2- Scholarly Narratives
3.3- Recipes / Workflows
3.4- Tool & Content Guide
3.5- Educational & Curricular Materials
3.6- Bamboo Community Environment(s)
Discussion has moved here.
17 April - Table Discussion of Section 3
- Discussion about narratives - selected for usefulness?
- Danger they could not express the potential of tools for research; this is what they're doing now
- Also see they're useful; not useful necessarily for user requirement gathering
- Useful for sharing things with faculty, what this is all about, explaining how it's all tied to research, use of resources
- Discussion of recipes/workflows - both names problematic
- Found at Oxford some researchers who are resistant to gathering workflows (particularly in sciences)
- "Recipes" aren't appropriate/useful, either
- Danger of the recipes/practices - deal with a workflow for a certain project
- At some stages, people need to stop and discuss
- There may be a role for a humanities center / technologist that doesn't get represented
- PB playing role of moderator? Not feasible for every university to set up their own humanities center / technical expertise
- Expertise of individual researchers in California - but different funding model?
- Role for the Network - but problems w/ how it's set up
- Facebook Scholar? Questionable
- Virtual help desk? Fulfills main requirements for scholarly network?
- Discuss (technical) problems that are raised, research in humanities
- Registry of people with expertise
- Institutions need to see value of PB, for teaching and research
- Found that in terms of section 3, parts 1/3/4 seemed to be immediately promising ones
- Benefits of those were focus of conversation
- Benefit 1: enabling scholars to make use of non-textual materials (3D object visualization, GIS, etc); crucial to future development of humanities research
- Providing recipes: tools and services for helping possibly technically naive people - a useful service
- Network: not a social networking orientation
- Authorization level - successful level of collaboration between institutions
- Use of IT services for archiving material (possibly even unpublished research outcomes); this is important
- Supporting work of upcoming scholars in particular is important
- Humanities faculty just saw a lot of benefits in section 3
- One risk: came more from technologists; lack of incentive for participating
- Education/curricular: overall, should be a much better program of how research/education are combined - this is a false divide
- Strong emphasis needed on education, particularly in light of certain political conditions
- Institutions interested in PB who will probably drop out if there'es not enough emphasis on education, especially small liberal arts
- In many ways, rethinking significance of education can augment many of other categories within forum
- Thinking about service development re: recipes - this is a big industry for PB
- Relating teaching-based skills to new/newly digitized collections
- Digital humanities more readily at other institutions
- Tools/content - fundamental area; many resources are there
- Having a guide/index is crucially necessary
- How is this related to Service Atlas?
- Capacities of each of our institution
- This could advertise/promote collections not well-known
- How many collections that have been newly digitized/enabled need to be advertised, searching cross-disciplines, etc
- Working together for this kind of awareness, interoperability of collections
- Recipes: strongly in favor of this
- We can instruct people at different steps of their research process
- Recipes valuable for people starting out on new projects - how to approach digital research and reduce myriad possible research paths to refine what's a good first step
- Also important for advanced research (mapping, cross-disciplinary work, etc)
- Might be important for PB to consider how systems could test recipes, make them more efficient, make relationship w/ cloud more efficient
- A lot of what's been said about scholarly narratives/network has been covered
- Narratives: humanities center - how important they are to the process
- Opportunity for self-reflection w/in narratives - shouldn't exist in only one form
- Iterative process, rewriting narratives - part and parcel of work in the humanities
- Scholarly network: data suggests that new users to social networking sites like Facebook are often generationally older
- But once they're involved, they're even more regular users
- So schol network could be a really useful way to address generational differences in the humanities/digital scholarship
- A question about overall balance/focus in Bamboo between real infrastructural kinds of services and social networking/extension of social networking to try to change practice in humanities
- See pieces of both here, not sure any of us are comfortable w/ the balance
- Interesting discussion about the scope of digital humanities
- Clear that part of the scope of PB is "traditional humanities disciplines employing digital tech"
- Very helpfully reminded that there's a whole new set of disciplines that take humanistic studies to tech artifacts and activities of various kinds (Cave studies at Brown)
- How much of that is in the scope of PB, and how is it going to be supported?
- Had a discussion about the narratives/recipes/etc - suggested these are more complicated than they look
- In one sense, they're scholarship in their own right
- Could make a journal out of them if you did it the right way
- Have problem in terms of incentives for producing those in the context of PB as currently defined
- Set of issues about how those tie to scholarly practice, how transparent people want to be about methods/data, when are/aren't prepared to share material in the lifecycle of conduct/publication of scholarly work
- No uniform answers
- Whole collection of issues
- Also a point made about how these things may interact in messy ways with institutional policy (commercialize technology through tech transfer programs)
- Might be able to use some of the activity in PB to help establish some norms in this area
- Was a set of points made about the role of commercial tools/services, how we want to make use of them when they work and try not to reinvent
- Some of that in the plan, but focuses more on clouds than extant services
- At the same time, there's a point where we need to be more mindful of long-term stability of services
- They're becoming an integral part of communication of scholarly work; what's the exit strategy if the service goes away?
- Preservation and continuity issues; something like Flickr - wonderful access mechanism that people confuse with a permanent storage method
- If we're successful, we'll create what is "new backwaters" in the humanities - places where there are unique needs not filled by kinds of things that PB is going to generalize into infrastructure
- Got to recognize that - it's a risk
- A very interesting strategy question about the extent to which you're trying to connect people in given disciplines; collection of disciplinary activities across institutions, vs. seeking to develop interdisciplinary collaborations and tools/services to explicitly support that
- Different problems in requirements/definition/etc.
Question from Shel at Berkeley:
- Fundamental concern not that services are unstable, but there's more of a danger of what we define as stability
- Infrastructure cost to enable them
- Cultural adoption paradigm in humanities community, and how they've worked historically (library, etc.)
- PB process is a lengthy one; how might these things be adopted?
- Measured in months, not years; 6-8 months at a time, before evolution builds on to an extension/new tool of what we build
- Finding a way of building ecosystem that allows little barrier of adoption, coordinated movement from service to service
- "Bamboo Certified Service" - allow us to influence services being developed in commercial/higher ed communities
- PB Certification - visibility, funding, but there's requirements for sustainability, standards, etc.
Answer: Very wise set of comments; volatility of services is going to be real
- Was having a discussion about the history of reinvention here and frustrating lack of ability to reuse work over 20-30 year period
- As we move into more volatile service environments, challenge is going to become greater in some ways
- This question of migration across services is very real
- Content side, we probably need strategies that think in terms of preservation environments/use environments
- Content kinds of issues
- Need to develop a mentality that lets us be more liberal in our willingness to replicate content in different settings for different uses
- Very important issues
Librarians / Archivists / Content Providers / Other
- Section 3- developing ongoing understanding of how scholarship evolves, etc.
- What are user needs, really?
- Librarians have discovered on their own, but doing collaboratively would be useful
- Help break down silos
- Helpful to understand how materials are used, what materials are used
- How we can do new preservation strategies
- If scholars have OCR texts, need markup - which versions to bring back in
- Lots of concerns about different parts of what's in section 3
- Concern w/ 3.2 recipes - narrative/recipe model might be a little linear
- Very important for round-trip feedback process
- Think about recipes more broadly? Is naming the best sell?
- Research scenarios, perhaps?
- What's the value for some of the things, especially in the forum, for individual scholar
- Why would scholar want to use PB schol networking, rather than Facebook?
- Think about how we can leverage existing systems - can we interact w/ Facebook, get them to make things available to us, or add things to profile?
- A lot of these systems are very siloed, lack exit/interoperability strategies
- Don't think that data is important, should survive organization
- What if Facebook were replaced tomorrow?
- Important thinking about tools/content guides that are published
- Hard for Bamboo to do
- Need to be careful to not make a top-down guide approach, but more of a bottom-up thing
- Can describe my tool, and how I used it - more important to scholars
- Short-lived tools, as compared to interoperability standards, exchange standards
- Having bottom-up approach: things scholars can recognize
- If a scholar talks about how he uses a tool, that's more interesting than a 3rd party referring to it
- 2.5 - a little artificial
- Not try to classify content as educational or research
- One person's research is another person's classroom
- Something built on social networks, sharing knowledge in the way we actually talk
- Developing relationships
- Information on what we do - scholarly interest
- Talked about providing information about ways in which facilities and resources are being used
- Existing technology used in slightly different ways
- Opportunity to actually share unused interests, even personal interests
- People with similar hobbies
- Scholars used to working alone; using technology to help combat isolation, work together
- Couple of concerns: narratives
- Could be difficult to abstract things, prioritize needs
- Level of adoption that might come out of it
- Are they representative - these are individual views?
- International collaboration - not something we personally experience as an issue, but worth highlighting
- Diverse group of institutions
- Came to standard response: this area would put people in touch w/ each other, create social network, help others move forward in digital world
- Looking at posters, focus on research, looked at other areas in proposal - teaching/learning didn't get a lot of mention
- For liberal arts institutions - concerned about this
- Divide between research and teaching/learning
- Strategically, since the cloud is taking away a lot of services the IT side would provide (e-mail, course management systems, etc)
- This changes the strategic game; we can communicate w/ faculty re: projects and not be swept aside
- On risk side: for academic tech folks, what the real value is here at a small place?
- What value does this social network have for academic technologists at a small liberal arts university?
- But it helps us more easily pass the buck somewhere else - "could you help me with my random project?" "Eh, go to Bamboo" - we're not saying no
- Risk: this is all talk? Fear, uncertainty, doubt might prevent faculty/others from taking advantage of these services
- Would people really come? What's the incentive for people to take advantage of these services?
- Area of domestic recipes (I like the comment) - recipe discussion for small liberal arts, a recipe that works at a research university might not work at a smaller institution
- If the recipe means "get some fresh halibut at the store", and we're a small liberal arts university in the mountains, we're not going to find fresh halibut
- What value recipes would be across diverse institutions?
- Benefits of technology: keeps us focused on core mission of university, which is exciting
- Risk: appears to administration like it's tech for tech's sake
- We have to show a clear value to participants/administrators
- Need to have a 1-year implementation forces us to do that
- Wondered what the grouping was about? Figured out we were technologists; but are we different from others?
- Long history of attempting to have links like networking, forums, etc in the sciences
- Talked a little about differences; in humanities, humanists are more interested in process
- Technology can help with that
- Sciences evolved a lot of the technology, there's a lot of evolution for people in the * sciences to leverage
- How is that different/same?
- Humanities is a little bit different, but now being able to see ahead of the game, now there's a notion that we need to make the leap
- Leap comes in in some ways; "there's a tool that already exists", and it comes with a "yes, but"
- What the advantages from the technology can do in section 3
- Community design of tools/applications
- Forum: along with narratives/recipes/etc are benefit
- Software development - coming up w/ user base, and how to plan/design/build
- Come back the other direction - getting hte info of what exist, what's possible, back out to the communities
- Number of training opportunities - where to go for training to understand what tools are available
- Figuring out what the scholarly questions are
- Where the technologists are trying to be collaborators, rather than just tool creators
- On risk side: still has problem of falling into us/them (tech vs. humanists)
- Community design - how is this going to work out?
- How are we going to implement this?
- Some notion there's a risk in the sense of tools that are developed - seen as being of limited scope, don't get uptake because it's not quite the right tool
- Focus on too small sets of data/application
- Come out and establish that this is a tool, connect w/ narrative
- Convinced table to agree there's a problem here
- Looking at 7-10 year program, why we're doing Bamboo
- Have to go back and justify to administration why they should be invested in PB
- Maybe we don't need to hassle them with document, we need something that catches the excellence of why it's worth coming together
- Risk in document is the document itself - creating high expectations of what PB can develop
- Benefits - faculty might be grateful to us
- We should get on with what you can do with a million dollars a year
- Not publish a document re: what we'd do with 20 million dollars, because we're not going to get it