Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
16 April - 5/10 Scholarly Networking (John Norman)
- Discovery of specific relevant resources and other projects'
- Support for isolated scholars
- Support for early-career scholars
- Discovery, communication and collaboration-enabled profile information
- Different sites have different profile setups
- Since the last meeting...
- Participants helping review different extant technologies (haven't analyzed yet, no conclusion, but a lot of promising stuff)
- At Cambridge, discovered a potential role for university presses in supporting scholarly societies
- VRE user research models
- OU has done extensive survey of faculty re: use of social networking
- Further exploration of how scholarly networking intersects w/ institution/discipline/individual
- Talks with Heurist - one of promising technologies
- Arithmetic of collaboration: 2 + 2 = 5 - this is what we expected, what went wrong
- 2 + 2 + 2 = 3
- For every institution, you put 2 in and get 3 out - don't give up, collaboration is hard, but it's worth it
Q & A
- Outcome of OU survey - scholars & students alike are using social networking sites
- I wondered to what extent that reflects practice at other universities
- A: Well, that's what's available - not necessarily because what people want to happen?
- Critical mass effect - I don't think academia.edu hasn't gotten the traction yet.
- "Network effect" - some existing networks are getting close
- Observations - all this shows us is that a need is there
16 April - 5/10 Narratives & Recipes (Duffy Gillman & Tim Cole)
- Scholars contributed a great deal of detail in W1 - felt disconnected at W2
- Artifacts that should've been there to bring people together were missing
- Provide a connection between scholarship & IT
- As you read the program document, scholarly narratives have taken on "how do we talk about ourselves/define the needs?" - keeping worlds aligned
- Scholarship we're trying to support, and the consortium trying to support cyberinfrastructure
- Technologist: how can we understand needs of scholars? How do we market ourselves to scholars/funding agencies?
- Scholars: What technologies support my work? What needs aren't served?
- PB needs a map: an artifact that keeps us all focused.
- From world of scholarship to tech on the other
- Bamboo "Tri-Group" team envisions such a map
- What recipes are within a given narrative? What activities? How do these map to tools/content services?
- This is a framework for our understanding
- Importance of understanding needs
- Narratives not always written using technology terms
- Going from narratives to requirements - recipes as model for doing that, probably needs some refinement
- Teasing out relevant elements to identify activities/needs/shared services/etc.
- Enables scholar to do what they're doing, better
- Bridge technologists and scholarship
- Scholars do work in their head while organizing information, but it's helpful to gather information all in one place
- Most scholars use some kind of technology, even if working in their head - even if only note cards, marginalia, etc.
- Demonstrator using XSLT (#45, Hooper) - reformatting TEI into HTML; this is kind of service
- Scholarly narrative can become a motivation and assessment measure of a certain service
- Implications for Bamboo: "forum" facet will advance narrative/recipe/activity service to make it more streamlined/efficient
- Is recipe top/down? Is that appropriate?
- Should there be a technologist's equivalent? Are we leaving them out?
- Translating between communities - language that makes sense to each
- Encourage people to put their stickers on narratives
- How best to curate this?
Q & A
- Bradley Cohen - Univ of MN - what about an active research process to assess practice and discover recipes rather than blanket calls? TC: ethnography & funded analysts & data gatherers will produce more and more useful results ... once there is interest/funding to realize that more focused effort
- John Coleman - Bamboo has not yet exploited extant surveys, including applications for funding (mentioned at W1 as a source). DG: Yes. But we don't have funding yet. This is the right thing to do, but we haven't had a lot of traction to-date given volunteer-only work. TC: Perhaps JC can identify particular sources that ought to be mined.