Bamboo scholarly networking

"need also to think about WHY people would use a higher-level social networking tool, one that's not just limited to people in our fields? do we need to think more about what the social network is enabling? is it communicating or is it presenting researchers with their own page? what are we trying to facilitate a network to do? if we could produce the information once and distribute it---this is what an ideal social network would do" (W2, Scholarly Networks, questions and concerns, group 12 notes)

"also, think about renaming "social network"---perhaps call it academic network? scholarly network? you could use social networks just as a model and build someting quite specific that doesn't have ads etc. to sell it to colleagues, need to think about what problem this social network solves. there are ways of thinking about characteristics of social networks; what's really needed is a definition of what would make a scholarly network "scholarly"? what do people want it to do? there is a need to be very careful to not reinvent the monkish nature of arts and humanities practice; are we talking about building something that retains an old way of doing arts and humanities scholarship? maybe what scholarly network means is that it's an easy way to bring together a group of scholars across geographies, disciplines, time and space, to examine/study some group of texts or images?" (W2, Scholarly Networks, questions and concerns, group 12 notes)

"Reward: Talked about connecting networks - not trying to create another competing segregated group, but something that'd enable the connecting ("hub")" (W2, Scholarly Networks, risks and rewards, plenary notes)

"Risks: Safety and reputation for scholars who join. Word "community" came up. Would have to be easy to establish the content; intuitive. Risk that there is no value in it - has to appeal to senior scholars too. Not re-inventing the wheel or duplicating such that there's no value in joining. Ensuring relevance." (W2, Scholarly Networks, risks and rewards, plenary notes)

"Scope: Starting light, creating a network of networks and a safe space. Would this be a working space? Not at first, but whatever we use as a place for this would have to accommodate growth/functionality; might eventually support work. Accommodate visual communication as well as text-based. Be able to opt in at different levels; not everyone would want open and inclusive. Mentoring - giving access to young scholars." (W2, Scholarly Networks, risks and rewards, plenary notes)

"Diagram of characteristics of successful communities - worth paying attention to Community first, technology last." (W2, Scholarly Networks, risks and rewards, plenary notes)

"How/why scholars connect - not leaving out the learned societies, or duplicating what they're already doing. What's the value added of Bamboo in creating such a network. Finding out what's not doable right now or what's difficult to do - is this something our direction can address?" (W2, Scholarly Networks, plan, plenary notes)

"One model: concierge - a simple, easy profile; bi-directional, can look for other connections" (W2, Scholarly Networks, plan, plenary notes)

"Concept of opportunity for casual conversation - "pub"" (W2, Scholarly Networks, plan, plenary notes)

"Workplan: Determine useful questions to ask scholars about scholarly practices and networking. Ask them. Build a demonstrator that is part (video?) presentation, part toy that can be tried out/shows benefits w/a small "Aha!" payoff. Seek potential user (scholar) feedback on demonstrator. Adjust proportion of participants to tip balance a little further towards faculty, who are the end users" (W2, Scholarly Networks, workplan)

"Workplan: Search for existing video demonstrations that would help show what social networking is. Identify and possibly adapt an existing tool that would be useful to show what intellectual payoff could be (Possibility: Six degrees of citation.) Build a demonstration that incorporates the above" (W2, Scholarly Networks, workplan)

"Useful metaphors: Drinking from a fire hose (Being overwhelmed when trying to "drink in" information), Concierge, Cocktail party, Hubless hub, Push Me Pull You" (W2, Scholarly Networks, workplan)

"One of functions of scholarly networking is providing examples and resources." (W2, Scholarly Networks, group notes)

"Domain specificity. Not necessarily junior/senior but cross-disciplinarity.. Scholarly networking rather than social networking. White boarding. Calendaring. What do you need to add to commercial concept of social networking to arrive at something that seems effective scholarly networking?" (W2, Scholarly Networks, group notes)

"Important stuff @ conference is the informal, unstructured ways of eavesdropping. Twitter is a model. We're not all sitting here typing @ each other. Getting out of that model. Things don't come across correctly via email. Integrating a voice technology. Visual, too. Cost not an obstacle anymore. Second Life. Virtual simulation. Move around in the world, interact as if you're in a space together." (W2, Scholarly Networks, group notes)

"Concept of "just b/c we can doesn't mean we should." Bamboo needs to do things that are impossible or virtually so w/o technology. We can already do a lot of social networking stuff, which aspects are we going to computerize? -- Arrogant of us to pick and choose. Just put tools and allow communities of practice to use them. -- iGoogle, where you assemble the bits & pieces that work for you. You can take out the audio, for example, if it interferes w/your thinking." (W2, Scholarly Networks, group notes)

"Scholarly communication might need to invite learned societies. Conceptual reason: they're already loci of social networking. Pragmatic reason: they're in middle of technological change, losing annual meeting and journal, two revenue schemes. If Bamboo wants to arrogate one of their other tasks, social networking, this could be perceived as hostile if they're not invited in. -- Facilitate interdisciplinary conversations, since learned societies already take care of disciplinary ones." (W2, Scholarly Networks, group notes)

"Piece of technology like a concierge. Keeping aware of scholarly communication in the same way that a hotel concierge can act for you in recommending a show or restaurant and connecting you in the same way that s/he can get you a ticket or reservation. Concierge is a hubless hub. Push model: RSS feed/aggregator is our current model. Pull model: Concierge. Can monitor spaces and pull threads intelligently." (W2, Scholarly Networks, group notes)

"here are already things like cocktail party conversations and tools out there. Most faculty don't like those. But what they're looking for is a conversation that maps to practice. Want to get in a more substantial conversation, not trivial cocktail party. Find individual at the cocktail party." (W2, Scholarly Networks, group notes)

"Once concierge tells you, where does cocktail party happen? -- Might happen in ASA's space. -- You need to be able to go where the party is. -- The party happens when you get there. -- There might also be a party happening w/in Bamboo? -- Bamboo sends out invitations to party. We all have institutional pages. If they can talk back to each other... You'd update your own vita more often if it automatically put the word out. -- Needs all this functionality to have party there as well. Chat, etc. -- @ least connect out to institutional sites." (W2, Scholarly Networks, group notes)

"Encourage not just how they work now, but encourage collaboration of humanities scholars with people from sciences and technical side. Bias from previous work that a lot of this has to start with face-to-face communication, then continue virtually - prefer face-to-face to start. Replicating in new media what people do already, establishing new modes and frameworks that are only possible/facilitated by a scholarly networking software. I don't rule that out, and we don't have to replicate it with a new network, but I'm arguing that w/o the purpose/goal/shared engagement in some objective, the communication network is just a network, no purpose as such. Learn how it can best perform if we have specific projects to work on. Start it with some particular project in mind, they have similar goals, you'd see connections - ultimately you want to facilitate people finding people, related activities/papers/projects/etc via this collaborative tool." (Scholarly Networking working group, 12/9 meeting notes)

"Arguing for a Humanities Scholar Facebook? That's what I heard being talked about at the first two workshops - re-presenting this information; I can see how Humanities could take advantage of that; I haven't been on Facebook long, but it's interesting to find the people that want to connect back up with you. Different ways Facebook has enabled people to find you; different ways to let people find each other - common data, from the same university, using the same technique on different data sets; some means of allowing people to get connected via different metrics. If you add grouping potential of applications for social networking, could follow up on a conference group. Some way to facilitate self-organization; Facebook does that, ManyEyes allows grouping- can be formed in any way, self-defined. Start this scholarly group on Facebook? It has many qualities we like, it's already established - now we just need to seed it, be the nucleus for something self-forming. There was some negativity about Facebook, rather, looking at the features of Facebook, LinkedIn, a number of other ones; Brainify - more scholarly. What is the "project"? Needs to be some kind of purpose to it, common project." (Scholarly Networking working group, 12/9 meeting notes)

"Working on a project/platform that has evolved to look at how scholars communicate, how they network - Thought Ark (, repository of personal information, can be shared with colleagues; the most important feature is the processes of adding metadata to citations that scholars use as they use them - can be any sort of scholarly resource; citation increases the value; about halfway done. Can we use it in some sort of way? Could this be a demonstrator? This is not a gadget; there's research on scholarly practice that goes with it; it's not a publication platform, it tries to track uses (resources, scholarly practices); this is how I'm proposing it for our discussion. Want to determine metrics that people are going to want to use to find other resources, information about things, people/projects/etc. Metrics are built into the system; the most valuable aspect of the platform is that it monitors research/social networking activities. As research engages in activities, these are used for generating value data for the social connection and resources that researcher uses, so you can tell which resources are more/less utilized -> value." (Scholarly Networking working group, 12/9 meeting notes, Sorin Matei)

Q: "When you join the system, do you assign attributes based on area of research?" Sorin: "Yes, categorized in multiple ways - integrate teaching and research; how you've gotten information as an instructor. Can categorize by field and discipline, can have original criteria, group/class-based, project, etc." Q: "You're going to want users to fill out a profile - do you have that?" Sorin: "Yes; architecture includes that." Q: "Can people control access to their info? - that came out a lot in the workshops." Sorin: "There are privacy controls built into the system, especially with intellectual products. If you decide not to share the paper you write in the system, you can do that; you can also have it not harvest your activities - but the system will die if too many people do that." Q: "Is part of the system connecting with other people so you're not necessarily ready to engage with them, but are looking and lurking and trying to find connections?" Sorin: "This is an open question; I have my own answer I can't share yet, this is a critical issue to discuss. Way of thinking of things proposed by Thought Ark can be used as a template or starting point; are there ways to do a Thought Ark-like platform. I'm committed to the platform, but I'm talking here as someone interested in architecture rather than a tool" (Scholarly Networking working group, 12/9 meeting notes, Sorin Matei)

"Pushback from Facebook. Oriented less towards Facebook itself, have same functionality. I've used LinkedIn, but I don't like the feel as much. There's also open source stuff, not that we don't want to use Thought Ark but there's other tools that are open source that we could install. What are the capabilities we want to have? vs. trying to get something up. Can use four different tools - each has a different capability. Danger of spreading effort too thin to test out too many systems at once; concentrate on two, sharpening up a sense of the functionalities you do/don't want > identify where Bamboo would eventually go in terms of what it needs to do to build on existing resources. I imagine Bamboo wants to build something at some point that will be quite new and custom-made; I'm for exploring anything/everything in Facebook/LinkedIn, but my hunch is that Bamboo wants to build something almost from scratch, get all these opinions and visions together through workshops, then sit down and launch 1/2/3 projects that would be quite ambitious and autonomous. I don't see Bamboo just doing a small application that would sit on top of Facebook" (Scholarly Networking working group, 12/9 meeting notes)

"Not opposed to using existing tools, but none can do the job that what Bamboo wants to accomplish. It's a place for people to meet and have a laugh and share some information, but it's difficult to share information that we as researchers care about, especially intellectual property related information. Just like you would share a picture - look, enjoy, move on, but none of the processes we engage in. Need list of functions/features represented in those tools, it's these criteria that lead us to the recommendations. Need to keep an eye on this. Bamboo doesn't necessarily want to build from scratch if we can avoid it. "We're not closed, we're open, etc.:, we have to look really hard at what's available out there - when I look at Facebook, LinkedIn, etc, I see that there's certain things they do well, but the gist of what scholarly communication is about, identifying who knows what, trying to figure out if what they know is valid to me or not, has not been put together as a coherent and useful environment - I'm not talking just "tools", we don't have an environment for scholarly information processing. Discovery, publication, and social networking. Also, Connotea, other little projects that publishers have been dabbling with - this and that and everything but there's no one environment, but Bamboo needs to focus on this. However the environment will be brought to life by creating an integrated tool, or proposing standards - focus should be on The Environment, rather than tools in isolation." (Scholarly Networking working group, 12/9 meeting notes)

"How are we taking things forward? How about drafting a "roadmap" - areas of investigation? Suggestion of thinking of user requirements? What would they be when we talk about a social networking environment? Look at types of architecture(s) that would help users network and do research? Another area that looks at evaluating whatever's going to be created Let's focus on the higher level question for requirements - notion of being able to build and ask things so you can pull info from these other places; in a Fedora instance, or talk via Semantic Web via other entities that could exist from tools/repositories. We should think about doing things in a way that gives us the ability to extend things. To help this conversation, we should start with this initial document that has three headings. requirements, architecture principles. Interested in trying it out and seeing what sort of lessons we learn from that as a group as we're looking at demonstrators." (Scholarly Networking working group, 12/9 meeting notes)

"Goal analysis: Support for isolated scholars. Meeting needs of early-years researchers (the flip side of 'this may not be so valuable for established researchers/scholars. Pursuing and developing collaborations. Leveraging scarce resources, including "the tool exchange idea"." (W3, Scholarly Networking, Progress and Demonstrators)

"Tony Cascardi: impediment inherent in requiring scholars to type in lots of stuff about themselves to build up a profile. Has SN WG discussed. John Norman: It has come up. E.g., citation index might prepopulate a list for approval of a scholar's publications as a significant aspect of profile buildout." (W3, Scholarly Networking, Q&A)

"John Coleman: "How to create a safe place that's open?" is a question that was asked. JC thinks this is a central question, and a real opportunity, a point of purchase for Bamboo – steering a way between copyright locked-down to wide open, Creative Commons style middle-way." (W3, Scholarly Networking, Q&A)

"Collecting institutional application profile data, some means of getting that up into a cloud to be reused for collection making. Providing online collaboration spaces (ad hoc groups)- value for societies too. Profile creation tools and possibility of Vivo or some other solutions that are out there as potential partners depending on their interest. Data services that go with that. Faculty profile reporting- some applications have been driven by annual reporting." (W3, Scholarly Networking, Report: Proposal and Moving Forward)

"Tried to understand what sorts of things we might measure success against. Discarded some activity-based monitoring because of point about cultural change, how difficult it would be to predict use of the system. Did note that the system will naturally provide a lot of tracking data, good awareness of what use is being made. At the end of 3 years - small institution solution-- software or hosted service. Adoption as a measure of success-- at least 1 society engaging fully w/ network. Adoption in all project partners is a good goal. Up to 10 other institutions seems reasonable. Data interchange, should negotiate some adopted data interchange standard (small 's' standard)." (W3, Scholarly Networking, Report: Proposal and Moving Forward)

"Priorities: Enabling discovery of scholars and their work: scholar to scholar to start with. Enable formation of profiles from existing data sources at institutions. Enable organizations and groups to form: in the cloud: or outside individual institutions. Enable small institutions to engage in the network, though they may have not organized their data. Provide templates. Enable participation that creates a broader marketplace of interaction and exchange of ideas (longer range priority)." (W3, Scholarly Networking, Group Notes)

"Success: Adoption by critical mass of institutions. Did scholars find each other? Did scholars discover tools? Did the network facilitate collaboration? Did the network aggregate data so that it was useful for a variety of purposes: references, reporting, etc.? Did the network facilitate ongoing communication following professional meetings? Did institutions that used the network save resources? time? in having access to aggregated data on scholarly activities?" (W3, Scholarly Networking, Group Notes)

"Bamboo Facebook - could PB make some sort of service that acts as scholarly orientation/organization for dig hum? Twitter people, poke your faculty friends, do digital scholarship, all Web 2.0 - don't have to have hard buildings for hum scholarship, could do it virtually. My faculty might be interested - we're in a small area in Virginia." (W3, Perspectives: Information Technology, Rick Peterson, Chief Technology Officer, Washington and Lee University)

"In last 6-9 months, in a lot of ways, social networking that underlies scholarly networking has jumped off the page in different communities (learned societies - we have representation here), Sakai, Facebook; all ages. Something very important about that technology. We don't propose that PB builds its own social network environment (unless we hear otherwise). Middle ground between Facebook and Virtual Research Environment. Interconnecting social networking services w/ right kind of approach for schol networking environments. Allows people to find other people to work with. Respects differences" (W4, Overview of Program Document, Section 3: The Forum)

"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." (W4, Program Document Section 3, Discussion of Poll #1, Faculty table discussion)

"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." (W4, Program Document Section 3, Discussion of Poll #1, Faculty table discussion)

"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?" (W4, Program Document Section 3, Discussion of Poll #1, Librarian table discussion)

"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." (W4, Program Document Section 3, Discussion of Poll #1, Librarian table discussion)

"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." (W4, Program Document Section 3, Discussion of Poll #1, IT table discussion)

Q: "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 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." (W4, Scholarly Networking, John Norman)

"Looking at social networking work, how is PB specific? Worth doing, but is it worth doing through alignment w/ 1+ scholarly societies on footprint that's different than PB participants" (W4, Reflection, 4/18/09, Cliff Lynch)

"Qualities of a Scholarly Network project: Use existing network platform or create something specific? The project should produce a clear decision. Should include a learned society and an academic institution (preferably multiple societies and institutions) - not exclusive criterion. Strong academic individual input (Scholarly Narratives). Demonstrate global potential (multiple continents/cultures). Demonstrate persuasive illlustrations of value add. (e.g. recommender system). OpenSource. Readiness for wider adoption if more popular than expected. Achievable within limited resources." (W4 Action Plan - 3.1 Scholarly Network)

"(1 Year) Sign up 3 societies (2 Years) Prototype deployment and use of network (3 years) substantial use across societies in project." (W4 Action Plan - 3.1 Scholarly Network)

"Dependency: Content partnerships for research "social graph" or recommender system." (W4 Action Plan - 3.1 Scholarly Network)

"Draw upon Cornell Vivo software, Harvard Catalyst Profiles, EthicShare (Minnesota), BibApp (Wisconsin)." (W4 Action Plan - 3.1 Scholarly Network)

"Seemed the deliverables and problems were generic (will build a "gadget", but what problem is it solving?) Hard to pitch and support that, how do you measure success? Talked about a few possible problems that could be solved, a lot to do still on that. Changing focus from "build gadget" to "solve these problems"." (W5, Report out: Major Areas of Work, Scholarly Networks)

"Talked about data points that scholarly networking would want to share/expose. Include CVs, research interests, tools (connection w/ other parts of Bamboo)" (W5, Report out: Major Areas of Work, Scholarly Networks)

"Open question: in each of those, how to decide/figure out a way re: what critical mass we need. Is it useful to find other scholars? If only other PB institutions' scholars? Need the ability for non-PB scholars to post tools, etc? CVs as possibly a core content based item. Also looked at Facebook, Ning, Sakai - need to do similar things, but also need something original. Possibly building a gadget that could link to institutional repositories." (W5, Report out: Major Areas of Work, Scholarly Networks)

"Need to know what the problem is, we might be losing sight of that. Need to ask scholars what they need. Needs of early career researchers; ethnographies of how scholars work and use scholarly networks." (W5, Report out: Major Areas of Work, Scholarly Networks)

"Metaphor of tree: roots below where services platform lives, everything relies on it; then trunk, and major bows, and that's the Atlas (middleware), and scholarly networking is leaves and branches - focused on individual scholar/technologist and their connection into broader organism. Delivering content out to where people live, but also bringing in network of scholars. Interface by which people interact with Atlas, way information/data/recipes come in. Frontend also belongs in the place where the "gadgets", traditional scholarly network is - link. Human-facing elements in one umbrella." (W5, Open Discussion: Major Areas of Work, Scholarly Networks)

"Identified three problems that could be addressed. First: scholar is seeking a process or expertise to digitize a bibliography and maintain it. Go to scholarly network to get help. Second: Seeking partner to collaborate on a bid in a scholarly area. Third: Scholar seeking to find a tool for a specific pedagogical purpose." (W5, Open Discussion: Major Areas of Work, Scholarly Networks)

"Going back to CVs, talking about informal chat facility. How might that work technically? Issues about how it integrates people chatting who are on the same platform. Can you talk cross-platform, under the Bamboo umbrella?" (W5, Open Discussion: Major Areas of Work, Scholarly Networks)

"One of questions struggling with - extent to which exposure of data w/in atlas, people, content, CVs, etc, is limited to the PB community or scholars within that, or exposed more broadly. Tools that are discovered - is that just w/in PB community? Or generic tools being found using medium of recipes?" (W5, Open Discussion: Major Areas of Work, Scholarly Networks)

"Basically all end-user touch-points would be through scholarly networking, regardless of what they'd support. VRE, Bamboo Community Environment, wiki replacement, all these pieces with end-user touchpoints should now be in space of [BIP Discussion Draft v0.5, section] 4.1." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work, Jim Muehlenberg)

Q: "If we take it as a given that a front end embedded w/in a social environment like Facebook will not deliver full functionality as the actual Atlas site... true? If that's a given, why do it at all? Why not just use the actual site? A lot of effort will be put into Facebook apps, Sakai modules, Blackboard modules, etc. Some degree of convenience, but it will be a short Google search away to go to the actual Atlas site. Maybe there won't be an actual Atlas site, but a high-level repository, and these will be your points of entry, but I don't think we've conceived of the atlas that way. Also, would it be possible, or did the group think about extending the kinds of virtual environments listed here into things like portals, Vivo at Cornell (directory of faculty and related research interest labs, resources, etc). Or is emphasis squarely on more socially oriented networking sites?" Chad Kainz: "Have to keep in mind, Bamboo intends to fit in to where people are working, not stand out. Examples here, Sakai/Facebook/Ning, could be anything else. Different encivornments where people are already conducting work, how can people come to them? We can build all this capability to have a super-use of the atlas-- need for engineering purposes if nothing else. But content inside of atlas, services/capabilities developed over time, need to be able to be represented in ways that make sense for context of use and communities they're being used by. Don't always need all the info of the atlas, may only want small piece that connects relationships together. Maintaining that principle from the original scholarly networking group." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work, Q&A)

Q: "Concern is still that, from own experience, a very tiny fraction are on social networking sites. Of the ones who are there, a small fraction have research in mind. That will change, but that's the situation today. Expect the same for the next 2-3 years." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work, Q&A)

"[Results of vote] Revised scholarly network: 44 yes, 1 no, 6 abstain" (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work)

Bamboo tags: 

Add new comment