Navigation:
Documentation
Archive



Page Tree:

Child pages
  • W2 - Advocacy (Leadership)

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

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Advocacy (Leadership)

Table of Contents

Questions and concerns

Plenary notes

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


Risks, rewards and plan

Plenary notes - risks and rewards

Name

  • Quickly got into question of title - "advocacy" doesn't work, has many meanings, moved to idea of "leadership"
  • PB should be a catalyst for change, thought this leadership role ahd cross-cutting dimension; this could be taken on by oversight body but for now we didn't want to put ourselves out of business, so Advocacy group needed "advocates"
    There's a role for it, had specific ideas for it:
  • Role for PB as a clearinghouse for resources - more effective, less tyrannical
  • Provide information- those who want to advocate more forcefully can then use that info as they see fit
    Scholarly networks might come into play; clearinghouse could consist of information, also statements of principle - these could have PB achieve a more transformative impact; shouldn't just be neutral
  • Were concerned that advocacy as defined before had problems

Scope

  • For advocacy (now "leadership") working group, scope should be "porous"; facilitator should be in touch with all the other groups
  • As a leader in this field, want to be a provider of information
  • Not pushing specific recommendations, but providing certain models that various groups have adopted, available for others to see

Plenary notes - plan

Redefined to focus on principles, be a clearinghouse, make this more about Bamboo as a clearinghouse of information and resources - encompasses elements of all the groups
Need our own space - that's our first element of our plan
We want our own space on the wiki to collect info from all of you - on principles
Want to start working with all the other groups - volunteers from all the other groups as part of Leadership
Work together to establish common principles drawn from work of all these groups
Identifying broad categories of info and resources with input from all the groups for the clearinghouse
Milestones: once we have the space, we need to put out a call to all the groups to give us feedback on the principles
Want call out by Nov 12; if no responses, we would look for those principles implicit in the wiki
Want to get something out of all the groups, whether presented to us or not
By Dec 12, want to have a virtual meeting, before the next meeting we'd have a check-in date for the comments (Jan 3)
What will it take?
This will take buy-in from leadership council and their active participation, along with broad-based volunteer effort from the community
Demonstrators: 2 - presentation or visualization of principles (3 hour demonstrator)
Information architecture for clearinghouse of info (3 week)


Group notes

Questions that need to be addressed to shape this direction

  • 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
  • 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

Direction name

Is Advocacy the best title for this group?

Leadership is one option; catalyst is another.  Clearing house role.

Through the work Bamboo is doing as a whole, they're demonstrating leadership and have already been a catalyst. May not need a separate group to think about leadership and catalysts.

Do we want to make a distinction between a leadership function for Bamboo as a whole and a working group that deals with issues around advocacy of principles?

Perhaps an "advocacy" group would be bringing forward/articulating the principles out of the work of other groups (Standards, Services, etc.). 

Thinking about this in two parts in be helpful.  The role of this working group could be:

Practical application / how can we lead by example, what would we need to do to make that happen (this is the clearing-house and best-practices role). A part of this working group could be charged with creating a kind of top layer, to give access to information about best practices, standards, demonstrations - gathering from or pointing to other working groups.

Abstract application/ what is the mechanism for the principles (which are larger than this working group) to be collected, facilitated, and articulated. Principles coming out of working groups could be evaluated and some suggestions sent back (for example, an urge to come up with principles such as a commitment to openness).

Consensus is that LEADERSHIP is a better term for this group.

Risks and Rewards


Risks: Changing our title from advocacy to leadership is a reaction to the risk that Bamboo cannot be an advocacy organization - we believe that it's risky for Bamboo to position itself that way, at least at first, before we've demonstrated our utility.  

To avoid this risk, we decided to focus on the positive, non-directive side with leadership.

Rewards:  Access to resources, data, scholarly networks, etc. that will promote the mission of project bamboo

Scope

Generally, we thought that the facilitator of this working group needs to stay in close touch with all the other groups to ensure effective gathering of their principles. The boundary needs to be porous with other directions and working groups.

In Scope

IN: become a provider of information about those issues, what we consider best practices and effective

Out of scope

OUT: advocate for particular policies of promotion & tenure, fair use, copyright at this stage - that may come in the future, at least in terms of intellectual property.


Top priorities to address by W3 (Jan 2009)

Top three things that this working group can do:
1)    Collect and articulate a set of principles from the other working groups.
2)    Start the clearing house by populating the wiki with examples, best practices of other digital
3)    Longer term, become a voice for bigger themes such as fair use, orphan works, copyright and intellectual property issues.

We want to underline that this role or direction can be phased -- we can start with advocating for Bamboo itself, using our leadership position to articulate the principles being developed by the directions.  A more explicit advocacy role may develop with time, around issues like fair use, orphan works, and other intellectual property issues.

Another issue that may not be clearly carrying through from the original work on this direction is about advocacy for the digital humanities in terms of scholarly credit, tenure and review, and so on. We thought that by modeling good projects, preparing a clearing house of best practices -- not only on principles of building digital services and tools, but also on evaluating them -- that PB would avoid appearing to dictate particular behavior. One aspect of the clearing house we suggest for this direction is to gather or point to examples of how digital scholars can be effectively evaluated.

Workplans

# Given the scope, what is a rough outline of work through Workshop Three?

Set up a space in the wiki for collecting principles.

Rough outline of work: We're suggesting that this working group coordinate with all the other groups to gather their principles and articulate them. Collect principles from the other groups. Establish the common set of principles for Bamboo.

Collecting the categories, the kinds of data, the resources that would be in the clearinghouse:  defining it, suggesting how you'd build it.  What are the broad categories that would structure a clearinghouse, what are the things that would be included? Functional specifications. (Must-haves, nice-to-haves, could have)

# What milestones are critical?

By 12 November, establish a section in the wiki to gather principles, create a call for them.

Ask for messy, early guiding principles from each of the other groups (contributed to the wiki?)  We are asking for output from the groups - discussed whether we could ask for that in particular forms so as not to get a huge assemblage of contributions. But realized that we may get some contributions from groups but also from individuals. (Recognized here that the process will involve comfort with this ambiguity.)
 
December 1: send out another call

By December 12: Virtual meeting. If we don't have contributions, we could look at their work and say "Here's what we see as implicit in the work you're doing, please respond to this."

By January 3/4/5 - :  check-in/teleconference late in this three-month project to ensure that big issues are not left out (our original interest in issues of pedagogy, for example)

# What will it take to accomplish this?

Who does this work? (Are we all volunteering for this working group?)

This is a small group, tenuously formed by people who just happened to volunteer for this today. We need to get participation from the ongoing leadership of Project Bamboo.

We need not only buy-in from the Bamboo leadership - they need to participate in this process.

Before Bamboo can advocate for anything or anybody anywhere, it needs to know what it stands for. Before January, it makes sense to work at drafting and articulating those.

# Identify demonstrator projects if necessary

(1) 3-hour project would be a visualization or presentation of these emerging principles, so if you need to talk with your institution about Bamboo, you'd have an introduction to the project. (This might be similar to the Institutional Partnership group's "2-minute elevator speech" demonstrator.)

(2) 3-week demonstrator project -- An information architecture/website design for a clearinghouse of information that's being gathered by the various parts of Project Bamboo. (We anticipate that the wiki model is not going to be scalable for the larger project.)

# Are there any parties that should be involved in the discussion / consulted (toolmakers, industry)

Leadership council.

Faculty POV would be coming through the other groups, whose principles this group would be articulating.


Flipcharts

Flipchart photos

W2-Leadership-1
A) TITLE
LEADERSHIP - to serve as catalyst

  • Could be subsumed into oversight body at some point in future, given its cross-cutting directionality, but needs a working group at this point to address principles and what Bamboo needs to do to lead by example
    B) RISKS/REWARDS
    RISK - "Advocacy" - lack of consensus, questions of efficacy, shift in focus to "leadership"
    Project Bamboo as clearinghouse of resources
    REWARDS - Access to resources - data, scholarly networks, statements of principle, etc. - that will advance the mission of Project Bamboo
    C) SCOPE - porous
    Facilitator must stay in touch with all other groups
    IN: provider of information
    OUT: specific recommendations (P&T, etc.)

W2-Leadership-2
A) TITLE
Mismatch? - workshop 1 breakout questions, issues raised at workshop 2?)
Different things to different people
Cross-cutting direction
An issue for oversight body rather than "breakout" direction?
Issues: impact
Shift to resource/best practices and cross-disciplinary information clearinghouse/networks
Leadership role - B
"Mini-Bamboo"
Catalyst - set of principles
Just frameworks? Or support for projects, practical & applied?