"May be skeptic: traditional trained humanist, wrote article about a year ago about humanists and technology-they're doing stuff but still facing a lot of tech challenges. Elephant in room: use of tech is anathema to culture-not collaborative, not good for getting tenure if you spend time on technology." (Day 1, 1a)

"Pub/Accidental conversation to happen even when people are not in the same room - You may not be publishing your research as a book, one day. I want people to look forward - esp. Grad students who are often the hardest to convince." (Ex 1, 1b-E)

"Opportunity to work collaboratively with others on my own campus" (Ex 1, 1b-G)

"Facilitate collaboration" (Ex 1, 1b-G)

"Establishing a community to continue these types of conversations" (Ex 1, 1b-G)

"Focus on resource enhancement and the value of IT to humanities. There exists then things to learn from anthropology as a result in terms of exchanges of knowledge. How to bring projects together with high levels of specificity - lack of money and lack of entities in light of devolution of universities." (Ex 1, 1c-A)

"Common experience - Costs to collaboration: Invest in the ability to lead, while people to be led perceive opportunity-cost. " (Ex 1, 1c-A)

"Getting communities to speak to each other in effective ways - outside of academia, and internationally." (Ex 1, 1c-A)

"Researchers don't talk to each other in sustainable ways, give them money and they'll talk to each other." (Ex 1, 1c-A)

"Purchasing the energy that requires researchers to talk to one another" (Ex 1, 1c-A)

"The investment in something such as Bamboo ought to be in the communication amongst those who share common interests." (Ex 1, 1c-A)

"The dependence remains on human communities - tools can't be used unless there is communication. Researchers want to talk, but producing the means and drive are lacking." (Ex 1, 1c-A)

"Collaborative projects, but still need things connected on national level" (Ex 1, 1c-E)

"Collaboration in the form of talk with each other; would be interesting to extend to a global level" (Ex 1, 1c-E)

"Campus mandates vs. discipline mandates. And we need these latter, else we can't do collaboration properly." (Ex 1, 1d-A)"Humanities research at large research university - Responsibilities to be innovative, interdisciplinary and collaborative. Difficulty of forcing dialogue for collaboration." (Ex 1, 1c-A)

"Idea behind Bamboo: each humanist a collaborator king; But there's education here, too: how do you find the right collaborator, appropriate vocabulary, etc.; Credit is difficult w/ collaboration" (Ex 1, 1c-E)

"humanists aren't used to a collaborative model" (Ex 1, 1d-C)

"humanities scholarship - doesn't lend itself to collaboration" (Ex 1, 1d-D)

"If it's a collaborative project, what's the line between content-free reusable infrastructure and actual content of scholarly analysis?" (Ex 1, 1d-E)

"biggest question -- scope, NYPL doesn't have faculty ("library for the unaffiliated"); valued added by researchers, but which kind? GATEWAY for enthusiasts and amateurs and independent scholars, non-university universities" (Ex 1, 1d-F)

"NYPL doesn't have faculty ("library for the unaffiliated") [might Bamboo be a] gateway for enthusiasts and amateurs and independent scholars, non-university universities" (Ex 1, 1d-F)

"What about nontraditional schools, independent scholars? Ex: Pixar University" (Ex 1, 1d-G)

"Hyper-connectively and internationalization - how do we define community?" (Ex 1, 1d-H)

"A disintegrated community of scholars." (Ex 1, 1d-H)

"Interdisciplinary scholarship---important for people to be able to discover each other. How can we create tools to help people to do this? Social networking, etc." (Day 2, 1a)

"Identify a person who is working in my domain and get in touch" (Ex 2, 1a-B)

"Finding and engaging like-minded colleagues from within and across diciplines, institutions who are working in same area... Like minded could include shared practices but different interests; I mean community of practice, Could use a listserv, How do we bring people together face to face? A conference does this. This is what we are doing right now. Find like-minded scholars working on similar topics, tools/methodologies, questions" (Ex 2, 1a-B)

"Build relationship with a person who knows something, or has done something, relating to an area of interest" (Ex 2, 1a-C)

"Ask new questions inspired by others, by self, serendipity. Refine existing questions by sharing work with others, getting feedback, etc." (Ex 2, 1a-C)

"Communicating among collaborative team. Important aspect of this is ability to work with physically remote people without incurring cost - Skype, including video has been a huge tool for them" (Ex 2, 1a-C)

"Manage alliances with other scholars. Network with other team members. Collaborate with students/colleagues. Facilitate collaboration" (Ex 2, 1a-D)

"facilitate a conversation, find a solution, match up resources" (Ex 2, 1b-A)

"Build a community of readers, advisors, like-minded people to discuss a project with in order to help shape and more fully form it. Magical things happen [when one talks with colleagues, with a scholarly community] ... especially with respect to interdisciplinary work. Get members of multiple communities lined up in a productive way. Online communities are great resources for finding like-minded people when it's not possible to find such a community at one's own institution. How to apply collaborative work to the credit one needs for tenure?" (Ex 2, 1b-C)

"Humanities Scholarship is a solitary pursuit" (Ex 2, 1b-E)

"Humanistic Research takes competition to the max. In hard sciences, there are teams." (Ex 2, 1b-E)

"Make a friend - recognize something parallel - dissonance is exciting - provides someone to respond to your work. A breadth of expertise is needed for success of projects. Critical to archaeologists - working in other locations." (Ex 2, 1b-F)

"connect scholarly teams across boundaries of discipline, methodology" (Ex 2, 1c-C)

"Recognizing the knowledge of the people who came before you. It'd be nice if your next colleague could take advantage of what you discovered. Some people said this is terrible, I don't want people to know what I'm working on because this is research in progress. "I just found this by serendipity, I don't want you to find it too." Paranoia in my field is breaking down. Used to be, "can't put unpublished documents on the web, people will steal them!" But hasn't been one case where someone published something without asking permission first" (Ex 2, 1d-A)

"Helping colleague with money to do digital Islamic medieval manuscripts - needs people with language skills > used an old-fashioned listserv with other librarians and developed pockets of expertise" (Ex 2, 1d-A)

"UNCONSCIOUS COLLABORATION -- accidental collaboration (working through footnotes, finding annotations in texts, blogging feedback)" (Ex 2, 1d-F)

"In the sciences, haven't been able to do research by yourself. In the humanities, want to play it closer to the vest; I want a safe place to collaborate. I only want to share with the people I want until I'm ready to publish. I want to decide when I'm ready to move it to an archival space with metadata; decide what's worthy." (Ex 2, 1d-G)

"French Lit. historian. What we do is learn to be active listeners. Always looking for the conceptual underpinnings of the text. Need to setup effective communication channels and communities - often not technical. Have to set up meeting to come together, listen to each other; listen to the same text together. Values meetings that are based on exchange of ideas. Can be enhanced by digital communications ahead of time - set up wiki's, etc." (Ex 2, 1d-G)

"collaboration is now more important to researchers. Previously worked more individually. Need to unlearn those habits. new medium is somewhat threatening because research used to be a solo activity. Now have to work with technology people, etc. threatenting to the way we've been trained to work for 40 years." (Ex 2, 1d-G)

"Public scholarship and the long tail. Audience: broad, public scholarship is uncommon; narrow, internal-to-discipline work is the common." (Ex 2, 1d-H)

"intellectual networking: share & discuss pre-pub, converse with divergent communities, collaboration -- find collaborators, find & form invisible colleges, talking about/giving feedback about research, organize/share research, engage in thoughtful writing & converssation with colleagues, participate in several interest groups" (Ex 3, 1b-A)

""invisible colleges" of like-minded individuals who work at different institutions" (Ex 3, 1b-A)

"Competition-Collaboration: Faculty and IT and Library all have the same tension of wanting to work together even as individual gains propel one further in their careers." (Ex 3, 1b-E)

"Collaboration was also seen as one method of giving scholars at smaller institutions access to resources they would not otherwise have" (Ex 3, 1b-F)

"Get feedback. How are other people thinking about somewhat formulated concepts." (Ex 3, 1c-A)

"Some people are here because of engagement in research; others are more of audience for work." (Ex 3, 1c-A)

"Anthropology is very personal, direct: of course I do all the research myself. Never crossed my mind that someone else would be invested in keeping people communicating." (Ex 3, 1c-A)

"students provide a lot of the fresh ideas within the ecosystem. thinking freshly when working with graduate students" (Ex 3, 1d-A)

"There's no division between the collaboration and production. It's artificial to distinguish between them; it's a graduated process." (Ex 3, 1d-B)

"2 facets of collaboration: substantive and methodological. Methodological is a common goal (perhaps uncommon in practice). Substantive is uncommon, although researchers have been sharing with each other for centuries, it would be unusual to move it back further into the research process" (Ex 3, 1d-C)

"We should consider building social networking tools that enable people to articulate needs among others with an interest to be able to point or volunteer to build/create." (Ex 3, 1d-E)

"Bamboo needs to take into account interdisciplinary work and how this changes the process, the people one needs to engage with, the dissolution of institutional boundaries, etc. What does collaboration in research mean? What tools are needed? We have experimented with Sakai and others - could these be developed further to support "collaborative research." What I observed is a group of people, with common purpose or interest that pull together data, manuscripts, whatever (content) and then there is a conversation around the set of content they've pulled together which leads to new chunks of content to be added in. Then there are uncommon practices - those with big bodies of text might want to apply tools to linguistic analysis while others might want to do statistical work (e.g. need unit level census data to analyze the impact of fasting on health in Indonesia)." (Ex 3, 1d-E)

"Problem begins w video... Finalcut Pro allows all types of fields as you log in material. When I've handed on, they are aghast at what I've written. Full of notes to myself of what may be useful, becomes thin in terms of what might be useful to the botanist. Extra time to envisage what might be useful to someone else. Is the collaborative opportunity - Studio Code is collaborative - can mashup. Final cut doesn't do that." (Ex 3, 1d-G)

"Challenge - How to find experts outside of academia - "We need an extensible network that reaches inside and outside academia."" (Ex 4, 1d-A)

"Often the problem finds us. You have a problem and people are looking for expertise and collaboration. Climate change impact on fishing economies, for example." (Ex 4, 1d-A)

"from the scope of the work comes refined questions and an understanding of the kinds of resources (people, technology, etc) needed to take on the work. Complications that come out of working with other people who are either inside or outside of the same field" (Ex 4, 1d-C)

"in a recent review of the concerns and opportunities facing the interdisciplinary research among the education and neuroscience communities, for example, Varma, McCandliss, and Schwartz (2008) conclude that "even if the four scientific concerns-about the commensurability of the methods, data, theories, and philosophies of the two disciplines-can be surmounted in principle, the four pragmatic concerns (i.e., costs, timing, control/esteem, and payoffs) suggest that doing so will be difficult in practice."" (Ex 4, 1d-C)

"scholarly work done by nontraditional scholars or non-scholars" (Ex 5, 1b-B)

"early television (for which there's little text), he deploys traditional oral history, which produces a context in which you need to think about those methodologies in rigorous ways, as a dialogic exchange what-have-you with the rights of someone to represent themselves, etc. It can lead to some values of research that lie outside the box, or which aren't typically articulated. the oral history itself becomes a text that you work to produce but which someone else has a claim on as well. so what you do with it after that could be something traditional (e.g. paper or book) but you could also go back to the person you interviewed and have them comment on it. the tools we're talking about and the significance of user participation can lead to a more dialogic product, and those exchanges can lead somewhere interesting" (Ex 5, 1b-B)

"had one of those moments: he was working with urban Appalachians, had been documenting one guy's house, didn't have a wide-angle lens, tried to capture interiors... urban Appalachians live in bourgeois houses but in a nonbourgeois way. this guy offered to take pictures of his house for the scholar. the scholar wrote a piece about the structures of this guy's videotape and of the house, which informed each other. the idea of the subject of study speaking back goes back to a broader idea where the study itself is reflexive, there is a general ethos about the significance of being reflexive in your methodology" (Ex 5, 1b-B)

"one of his colleagues decided in the context of a field investigation (which is normally v. hierarchical both in organization and in interpretation) to implement a multivocal experience where they took video and interviewed the low-ranking students, the workmen, etc., to get multiple voices about what people thought they were digging for. he attempted to publish something about it in print form. and he wants to make this stuff available universally" (Ex 5, 1b-B)

"Concept that ideas are developed collaboratively might help to make inroads to the "prejudice" against collaborative work that is currently embedded in tenure processes." (Ex 5, 1b-C)

"Open academy to admission of "incomplete knowledge" -- invite help. Geneology is an area in which "amateurs" do a lot of work and have a lot of "self interest" in a form of scholarship" (Ex 5, 1b-C)

"Production (AV) networks (temporary organizations), contrast with academic network, where everyone's working for themselves. There's less of a path up, less of an incentive for people to network. Another traditional network are around humanities center. Also people who studied at a particular program. In mailing lists you can lurk, and still get something from that experience. Very different from older means of introduction into and engagement in a mailing list. You need to be able to demonstrate competency in some collections. New technologies allow you to participate in these communities without the traditional entree." (Ex 5, 1b-E)

"Hubble data - one person's waste data is another person's valuable data. Also people sharing a patient - you've already got em', so when you do your e.g. FMRI scan, please also do x, since we don't get enough of that kind of patient at our location to do x test." (Ex 5, 1b-E)

"2: Are people using wikis, google docs, collaborative software. Illuminate is software like skype that allows you to collaboratively share. The physical space also includes whiteboards. Students use whiteboards to present. we have three in a room and students can take control from their laptops." (Ex 6a, 1a-B)

"I would say that the blogs are individual, vs. wikis for collaborative. UG is group work in a way that is not done before." (Ex 6a, 1a-C)

"Cross organizational boundaries (little respect for organizational boundaries). Blur personal/work life - hours of work not fixed. Less dedication/loyalty to organization. Sense of freedom from having to work at a job they don't like: if there's a project / opportunity (maybe philanthropic) they want to do, they'll ditch a job to do it" (Ex 6a, 1a-E)

"social component is huge. social networking & social connections play a larger role. facebook popular with save minority languages movements, find events. merger of graduate work and social movements --> departments find themselves admiring and responding to these changes. not a wide-eyed trend, more of a cynical/suspicious. ability to communicate with one another. does take people away from the library.... some amount of solo work is required -- books to read, films to watch closely. tendency to work on multiple facets independently. humanists somewhat dispirited if they're working in areas that don't have this open, sociable, interaction" (Ex 6a, 1b-A)

"Technology allows the "subversives" among staff (often young) to subvert slow-moving, slow-changing organizations. At least some younger faculty and grad students are participating and paying attention to these changes." (Ex 6a, 1b-B)

"More of a "groupness" sense among younger students/scholars. Swarming behaviors. Comfort with group, not so frequent an occurrence of solo scholars. It seems technology has to do with that. Age development issue among undergraduates ... many incoming freshmen haven't yet learned to work in groups. A social, not a technology issue." (Ex 6a, 1b-B)

"New colleagues are networking heavily on many different listserves, far less archival, far more interdisciplinary, just scholars - lots of new combinations of things. Makes it hard to fit them into traditional departments. Familiarity with sub-fields, but lose depth of knowledge." (Ex 6a, 1b-C)

"assumption of online collaborative applications" (Ex 6a, 1b-D)

"Everyone feels as a collaborator." (Ex 6a, 1b-E)

"When we asked "how do you learn" you could see a clear change between ugrad and grad -- they learn from each other -- and advanced/faculty -- they are apprenticed into the discipline and learn from predecessors and masters." (Ex 6a, 1c-A)

"Also observed that among undergraduates [18-21] learning styles are different. Much more group/p2p learning, less master-student learning. Learning utility from one another regardless of whether it's correct." (Ex 6a, 1c-A)

"The way the see the world connected, they resist focus and boundaries. In particular, methodological boundaries." (Ex 6a, 1c-A)

"The interdisciplinarity of younger scholars and desire to crossover is striking. Range of things younger scholars are expecting to do is increasing. Changing what they'll do on the job market. Only experience is in interdisciplinary areas. Continually attempting to draw students into interdisciplinarity, though it's becoming increasingly easier as students want to do this on their own. Students looking to work interdisciplanarily without needing to be pushed." (Ex 6a, 1c-B)

"Social learning space links into collaboration space -People want to collaborate, but have to have a space and the library can provide that. Students don't only access library things. Also have a bunch of other windows open. Talking while in the library; "Look what I found". Difficult to use in traditional library space; sit in cubicle" (Ex 6a, 1c-C)

"Mixed environment - not a feeling among the students that electronic students are on leading edge, just techie-type people" (Ex 6a, 1c-C)

"New PhDs are very much in touch, and much shrewder negotiators than previous generations. Could erase some rigid boundaries between humanities and sciences, etc. The new generation of grad students and faculty are connected, and not only within disciplines. Hired from Chicago someone in French, and she was in contact with all other Chicago PhDs at our campus, outside of their disciplines. Might that be something we could manipulate?" (Ex 6a, 1d-E)

"lots of experiences where broad geographical anync. collaboration is central. we make dossiers out of what people have done (in blogs etc.) so user can include a precise of their participation in the process for reviewers. how that will pay with review committees, can't say, not tested, but groundwork is set." (Ex 6a, 1d-E)

"they're more attuned to social networking software than "we" are. they update their profiles better, share their activities with their community. "community"? internal/departmental community; often don't see each other often. friend networks, peers from college... 30-45 age range is now coming into the networks, people start to express their professional persona. I'm more aware of what people in my discipline are doing, ex. grad students in Europe. helps lower barriers to raising questions on e.g. e-mail lists. has been discussion of potential for SN sites to assist in unexpected discovery. large mass of stuff "filtered for you"" (Ex 6a, 1d-E)

"Grad student practices - we have 3 areas of expertise: visual culture, museum culture, and mapping. Produce creative theses, have to do a dissertation, but also produce a film (visual anthropologists) but we came up to limits of our digital facilities. Electric installation art - have to write about it but also produce one himself. Problems: creating his piece of art, depends on audience interaction. Found it difficult to accommodate every dimension of that w/ in a video context. Sought all kinds of expertise but existing resources didn't enable him to produce a thesis w/ all elements. Talked to supercomputing who helped him come up w/ modeling to simulate entire process. A lot of PhD scholarship is collaborative in our institution. Developing search engine to bring indigenous art from all over the world. Funded internationally. School not equipped to deal w/ these challenges." (Ex 6a, 1d-F)

"We did a study of collaboration in humanities. Found post-docs were open to the idea of collaboration despite dissertations, etc." (Ex 6b, 1a-G)

"When have to build your credentials, people think they better not share so much. If a requirement of a dissertation is to prove novelty, there's a disincentive to share." (Ex 6b, 1a-G)

"Something that will facilitate collaborative writing for the whole process. To compose something with a collaborator who is not on site. We need to look and work on things together. The google doc doesn't preserve the kind of additional formatting and annotations etc. Egalitatrian approach to this for other media and activities as well." (Ex 6b, 1b-D)

"Social networking/sharing of citations and annotations applied to research environments across institutions." (Ex 6b, 1d-A)

"We are talking about collaborative scholarship. You can't just collaborate with students to save time." (Ex 7, 1a-B)

"a craigslist for project development? "I've got data, I've got a supercomputer with spare cycles, I've got algorithms I need to test."" (Ex 7, 1a-F)

"all adding up to "support a network of choices & critique". a conversation you don't want to be left out of. find out about technical stuff. still need a cave -- avoid this stuff & still need critique" (Ex 7, 1a-H)

"Replicate face-to-face meetings, including meetings in non-traditional places, at smaller institutions, with invitations extended to non-university organizations" (Ex 7, 1b-B)

"Social dynamics - digital communities - systolic/diastolic defines Internet - allows communities to come together and fragment. This happens in disciplines and departments. Best we can do - piping - providing connections around and within these communities." (Ex 7, 1d-B)

"A way to help digital humanists find each other - how many people say to themselves "I'm a digital humanist". Is the fact that they use digital technology key to what they're doing, or are they humanists, and they're in a particular thing, and the digital is a modus operandi. Maybe it wouldn't be so much about introspection about identity, but "I'm a humanist, this has value to me, I'll jump into it." "Digital humanities" is going to be the future, it'll be assumed after a while. I often identify myself that way because it's still relatively new; that'll fall by the wayside in a few years" (Ex 7, 1d-D)

"My workshop 1 observation: we realized through workshop 1, we identified scholarly practices, tried to get a sense for how humanists do their research. Haven't yet figured out how/why they interact. Networks is about interaction and relationships. Our workgroup tasks: we need to talk more to scholars. Demonstrator: may be asking for catalysts for conversation. How/why do you get together to do work?" (W2, Scholarly Networks, plan, plenary notes)

"Notion of different communities. What it means to do social networking in a multivalent environment. Minimize the cost to you of participating in multiple communities." (W2, Scholarly Networks, group notes)

"How would you divide humanists ("a very squishy term") - simple matrix. "Is your work the object of your attention predominantly pre-digital, or predominantly born digital?" "Text based, visual, time-based?" Each of six cubby holes has connections with other things. High-res image of Beowulf manuscript - might talk to people using high-resolution mammograms." (W2, Tools and Content, plan, plenary notes)

"With the economic situation (and environmental concerns for our carbon footprints), people will have to travel less to professional conferences. What kinds of facilities can Bamboo create or offer to substitute for travel? We need to try to get ahead of the game on this, especially for international conferences. We need to find solutions and models that work. How can you get all the informal aspects of a conference, not only the formal presentations, papers, and Q&A sessions? This can also apply to research work groups - as in her field of 19th century poetry - getting scholars together for workshops, digital or virtual - we need to find out what works here. (Example of MLA discussion groups, but highly interactive.) The emphasis is on collaboration and collaborative research, need specific technologies for different collaborative styles and preferences (workshops, conferences, etc), not a universal, one-size-fits all. Accompanying this should be some way to access all the supporting and resulting content which is the subject and outcome of the collaboration." (SN-0003 Collaborative Conferences and Work at a Distance, Jim Muehelenberg, 12/23/08)

"Extending the influential work of British cultural studies scholar Raymond Williams and his Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (1976), Burgett and Hendler consider a keyword as much more than a term providing access to existing sources of information. Instead their volume focuses on the ways in which the historical and contemporary uses of specific words create nodal points in many of today's most critical debates about political and social life, revealing often overlooked connections among different kinds of cultural research, both inside and outside of the academy. Collaboration is the keyword of these efforts. The volume and the website that accompanies it engage readers and participants as makers of meaning, asking them to revise, reject, and respond to the entries that do and do not appear in the volume. The point is that the discussions presented in the volume need to remain open to further elaboration and amendment. That's essential to any problem-based understanding of how research is conducted and how knowledge is made, either inside or outside academic settings. The ultimate goal is for readers to move through critique by adding or making something new. That thing can be as minor as a new conversation or classroom assignment or as major as an edited volume, digital archive, or public initiative. Using embedded wiki technology, the keywords collaboratories are the centerpiece of the website. They allow groups of users to compose and revise their keywords entries as part of a class assignment or working group project. Sample assignments are available on the site and rhe resulting entries may be submitted to Burgett and Hendler for publication there. These types of assignments - ones with a meaningful publication that circulates beyond the walls of the classroom - ups the ante for students and participants, who tend to learn more and to produce much better work as a consequence." (SN-0040 Keywords for American Cultural Studies -- Website and Collaboratories, Bruce Burgett, 1/5/09)

"I work with 3 Tele-Immersion labs (UC Berkeley, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and UC Davis). We are a collection of computer engineers/scientists and dance artists working on the concept of distributed co-presence and immersion-based creativity. The resources that we are developing to share include: creating compatible Tele-Immersion labs at numerous cites and the sharing of Tele-immersion data collected during experiments and performances. The needs of this project are twofold and require technology. One: develop the actual physical TI laboratories are inherently about live communication between numerous users. Two: sharing of visual data and other information collected during experiments and performances that other artists and computer engineers can utilize to make new things, catalog, analyze, etc. This project has less to do with sharing of existing collections and tools and more to do with making new artistic and scientific artifacts (and discoveries around the creative process) using a new technology. What is missing from this project on a "shared" level are the following: more TI labs and connecting with other artists, humanists and social scientists, etc. who are also interested in digital performance, the digital body, TI, art making using distributed VR technology, etc. Basically letting other people know about the data that is being collected and the technology that is being developed and finding ways to collaborate with others interested in this new sphere of performance and virtual co-presence." (SN-0004 Supporting Distributed Co-Presence and Immersion-Based Creativity, Lisa Wymore, 1/7/09)

"I will often try to set up a a working group around an idea or project with a few grad students and colleagues. The colleagues might be at other institutions. These working groups are for new ideas for which we don't have grant funding to travel or pay for infrastructure to be set up. We need a mix of ways to communicate, share files, collaborate on writing grants. We need to be able to meet online regularly. We need to be able to set these up quickly and to be able to add communication tools as we need them. We need to be able to do this with a minimum of bureaucracy. We need to be able to close them down and archive stuff. Sometimes when we move we need to actually move the hair ball to another university.
How: Iterative scaling of a group research project
i. I meet Jean at a conference and we decide (over tea) that it would be neat to try a project together on X. She mentions she has a couple grad students who might be interested and I have a colleague.
ii. I get back and remembering the neat idea I e-mail her.
iii. We agree to look for funding and to do that we need to flesh out the idea. We bring on board the grad students. I ask for a discussion list to be set up. She creates a Google Document.
iv. We start iteratively writing the idea out.
v. We agree that we need to talk. Jean and I Skype, but then we can't include others. We can't afford to fly to meet so we decide to try some conferencing technology the campus is pushing. It is Elluminate this month. We book the room, get the account, figure it out. We use some online meeting organizer to find a common time. On the date I find that the local setup has been changed so Elluminate doesn't work because the Java libraries aren't right. My grad student e-mails the others while I try to find a technician. We find one and they fix the problem. The meeting is now late. But it sort of works.
vi. We agree that we need to give the project a name and a web presence especially since we got a little bit of money to run a half-day conference. I apply for an account on a research web server so my grad student can put up a simple web site.
Helps: Now I will do a number of things. I will apply for a discussion list (takes about 2 days to get permission and one set up.) I might apply to let people (at other universities) onto a wiki I have access to if we need shared writing space. Increasingly I have used Google Docs for shared documents. I have tried setting up a Ning group and that didn't work. I have also used Skype for one 2 one voice conferencing and Elluminate to try to do group to group conferencing. Skype works, but doesn't scale to groups. Elluminate with echo-canceling microphones sort of worked, but took a lot of support from staff. Access grid technology was beyond me.
Need: What I think I need is integration, better conferencing, and lower bureaucracy. I would like something a bit like Ning, but with Google Docs features and Skype-like conferencing. I would also like it to be simpler with the ability to turn things on as we go. (And to have no ads.)" (SN-0009 Quick and Flexible Research Networks, Stan Ruecker, 1/8/09)

"The Internet provides unprecedented new ways of compiling and publishing this information [Catalogue Raisonné is "a monograph giving a comprehensive catalogue of artworks by an artist"] as a dynamic, collaborative, ongoing process. A seed catalogue containing known information, perhaps from an already well-documented collection or exhibition catalogue can provide a model for the entries and can form the basis for gathering new works and information. One of the important characteristics of this method of research is to make the seed catalogue discoverable on the Internet. This can be a potent way of attracting potential collaborators and also of enabling non-researchers - dealers, buyers, sellers and private collectors - to discover the project and contribute information on works they own or that have passed through their hands. Some may become researchers in their own right and contribute directly to the growing catalogue. Others may provide information via more traditional methods - letters, email, telephone discussions, visits. Support for a creative commons approach might be the default for this tool. However, there would need to be a minimum level of access control for inviting contributors and approving contributions. At some stage in the process, a version of the Catalogue Raisonné might still be published in the form of a high quality printed monograph." (SN-0002 Technology Support for Collaborative Development of a Catalogue Raisonné, Judith Pearce, 1/5/09)

"As well as providing support for funded research, at grass-roots level, there is a need for a simple open source cataloguing tool that could be deployed as part of a social networking website for use as a way of gathering the collective intelligence of enthusiasts not necessarily having any formal qualification as researchers. Oddly enough, blogging tools have some of the capabilities needed. My third example is a demonstrator I mocked up recently for a tiny community of collectors interested in the work of Gundars Lusis (Gunda: Australian Studio Pottery by Gundars Lusis, retrieved January 5, 2009 from However, this example has had to work against the blogging meme to achieve the required navigation capabilities and has no underlying support for structured metadata, the generation of thumbnail pages or linking to related information." (SN-0002 Technology Support for Collaborative Development of a Catalogue Raisonné, Judith Pearce, 1/5/09)

"A researcher in an English department is studying metaphor in literary and non-literary texts. They approach the phenomenon from vaarious points of view and with various approaches. They are interested in describing the forms and functions of metaphors in texts, in identifying and classifying metaphors, and understanding what these findings can contribute to general theories of grammar, style and cognition. In order to conduct a more well-founded and intensive empirical study, the researcher sets up an international interest group, which selects a text, each individual identifies and categorises all metaphors in the text, and then they meet together (in one physical location) approximately once per year and compare and discuss their analyses, thus testing, refining and further developing the analytic scheme, and discussing the theoretical implications of their findings, as well as their problems and differneces. They publish regularly, individually, and (more rarely) in jointly authored papers. This has taken place over the past 10 years or so, and goes on. No external funding, or computational tools were necessary for this work, although the researchers realised that online collaborative analysis tools would make more of this work possible. In order to take things a step further, and to conduct a wider empirical study, allowing comparison of text genres, and some intimation of frequencies of metaphorical forms, the researcher decided to apply some corpus linguistic resources and methods. Significant external funding was acquired, a big team of graduate students hired, and corpus linguistics consultants co-opted. Together with the consultants, a small corpus (a subset of an existing standard reference corpus, using well-documented, standard formats) was adopted, and a formal system of tagging metaphors was devised, using well-documented standards (TEI). The consultants (including the current author) selected the corpus texts, devised the tagging formalism, adapted the corpus XML schema to incorporate the metaphor tags, indexed the corpus for an analysis tool (concordancer), and ran a training session for the project team (including IT support staff)." (SN-0028 Untitled, Martin Wynne, 1/12/09)

"SCI Forge Group has been planning proposal to involve 5+ inter-generational groups. Teams might come up w/ proposals for study fo middle ages through visualization, or hemisphere of Americas through geospatial methods. Teams would specify what specifically they'd do, but all teams would have common goal of joint research environment (texts, tools, data sets) - documenting/rationalizing methodological decisions. During pilot phase - teams would also be associated w/ hum centers of both kinds that would host 3 face-to-face training sessions. Would have to commit to public lectures/programs related to research project/methods pursued by the team. Engaging local humanities community. Crucial element: inter-generational; senior/junior/post-doc/graduate students. Engaging w/ different stages, including not digitally expert, hope to socialize entire group in new research culture by asking everyone to contribute (or methodologocial commons) - foster dialogue for best methods for doing research job. Understanding use of tools. Allows junior scholars for getting credit for expertise, training younger generation of scholars. Knowledge gained/documented could be of use to scholars w/ similar problems. Take advantage of established d research environment. Still discussing final shape, but currently soliciting feedback." (W3, Perspectives, Neil Fraistat, Director, Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities)

"The rationale of the AUSTLANG project is that it provides, through public online access, a searchable research resource for as wide as possible a group of Australian and international researchers in the fields of linguistics, Australian Indigenous languages, anthropology, history, museology, ethnobotany, environmental studies and other disciplines. As well as being users of the resource, Australian Indigenous communities, as the source for the linguistic data, are central to the process. The website also allows for interaction with and contributions from users, including Indigenous researchers. AUSTLANG is a team project which involves many academics, public researchers, programmers and other technicians, and Australian Indigenous people. As the rationale of AUSTLANG is the provision of public online access to research materials, and this process is augmented by sophisticated search facilities, the project is already oriented towards "shared services". The project could also potentially provide a web mapping service for other Australian Indigenous language projects, such as AUSTKIN, (See also It is also interactive, so users may themselves contribute to the resource. And the project is based on a collaboration between a research institute - the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) - and the Australian National University." (SN-0023 AUSTLANG Web-based Australian Indigenous Languages Database, Katie Hayne, 2/16/09)

"In English and the Comparative History of Ideas at the UW, students are trained to examine and critique the ways in which technology is culturally embedded, how it influences aesthetics, and how it shapes our understanding of the humane. However, these same students rarely have the opportunity to learn the technical skills required to produce the very objects they study. In Geography at the UW, there is a similar trajectory, yet in nearly the opposite direction: students often learn technical skills in geographic information systems (GIS) without becoming well-versed in qualitative or critical GIS, fields that consider technology to be value-laden. As such, we are designing a digital humanities curriculum that asks undergraduates to approach the concept of "mapping" in the digital humanites from two different perspectives." (SN-0042, Mapping the Digital Humanities, Jentery Sayers, Matthew W. Wilson)

""Mapping" ultimately became a hinge, if you will, between Sayers's and Wilson's approaches to technology. They found that they both used the term often, but almost always with different valences. Unpacking those valences and drawing affiliations across them thus functioned as means to better understand each other's disciplines, research, archives, and lexica. And from their ongoing conversations, Sayers and Wilson are also learning that it is not their shared technical skills or critical practices that are necessarily bridging their approaches and fields of study. Rather, that bridge is the continuing desire to seek novel forms of technoliteracy at the UW and elsewhere: to encourage creative thinking with and through technology, to animate existing histories and archives in new directions, to promote participatory learning climates, and (most importantly) to frame technology as neither determinant nor neutral." (SN-0042, Mapping the Digital Humanities, Jentery Sayers, Matthew W. Wilson)

"Email colleagues to discuss particular points or ask questions. (This should be easy online, but there are often compatibility problems with character sets and email software.)" (SN-0046, Research Methods of an Individual Scholar-2, Michael Satlow)

"Weeks later, a history professor at a research university who is an active scholar in the field of medieval cartography discovers TASE and is particularly interested
in the assistant professor's approach to Anglo-Saxon maps. Not knowing her scholarship, he studies her approach and feels it would be useful to include her perspective as a tool within his field's virtual research environment (VRE). So in accordance with the usage criteria she included with the TASE application when she published it into the Bamboo Community, he incorporates TASE (with citation) into his project's virtual research environment. His VRE allows faculty working on medieval cartography to share ideas, collaborate on projects, publish whitepapers, etc., but also allows researchers in the field to annotate and comment on materials. Because the virtual research environment is "Bamboo aware" and can incorporate Bamboo services, the history professor connects the TASE application service with the VRE's annotation service. Not long after creating "annotated TASE," scholars begin to add comments to the timeline, use it as a basis for a series of discussions, and explore a research direction based on the assistant professor's approach captured within her application." (SN-0052 Timeline of Anglo-Saxon England Scenario, from the Bamboo Planning Project proposal)

"Similarly a project about 'keywords' in American culture (0040), an imaginative and acknowledged riff on Raymond Williams' book, is just a matter of colleagues working together and using whatever tools of communication, digital or otherwise, are available." (Tools & Content Partners working group, Analyzing Scholarly Narratives, Martin Mueller, 3/27/09)

"As archaeologist, work in teams of people. Kinds of tech that I've used have urged me to move into paleobotany, other fields. Engage fully in the technology, like GIS; have had domain distribution map for a long time (on paper, with dots), but now can produce GIS layers showing nature elements, etc. Nagging me to think about links rather than sequential chapters; looking at thematic links." (W4 Welcome, Sheila Bonde)

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

"Mellon money may be the same in 8 years as we originally expected in three. Maybe the lowering of the up-front incentives to collaboration doesn't change the value of collaboration, so we ought to find a way to do so despite the lack of material, up-front, Mellon-seeded incentive. Short-term vs. long-term requirements are difficult to reconcile." (W4, Table Discussion of Section 5, Jim Muehlenberg)

Bamboo tags: 

Add new comment