Credit

"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)

"Bamboo lends legitimacy to this sort of research. On task force for digital humanities at UW, one rec college councils, chairs, deans, need to pay attention to this sort of digital work." (Day 1, 1a)

"not very "responsible" to get people engaged in these activities, and then not reward them" (Ex 1, 1b-A)

"Some project like Bamboo for nanotech [Nanoweb]: it recognizes nontraditional contributions to scholarship; there is some system that keeps track of secondary contributions and lets you track the impact of your contributions (e.g. software, pedagogy, peer-reviewed journal article, etc.)" (Ex 1, 1b-B)

"Scholarship is about reputational gain" (Ex 1, 1b-C)

"Yochai Benkler, commons-based peer production. Peer review, motivation by reputation rather than gain. E.g., wikipedia and linux. Bamboo should draw on theories of community like this" (Ex 1, 1b-C)

"How can Bamboo influence the culture of scholarship to accept digital humanities work as applicable toward tenure? That is, how can Bamboo "raise this issue" to actionable attention within universities? Also, there's the disciplinary field and its conservativism ... change has to take place at both levels in order to effect acceptance of digital scholarship as tenure-worthy." (Ex 1, 1b-C)

"Tenure's connection with publishing. How will tenure be decided in the face of new technology." (Ex 1, 1b-E)

"Value for the tenure process of the interdisciplinary, collaborative process. Recognition of this." (Ex 1, 1b-F)

"P&T is an expression of values, or a valuing system -- do we wait for the big actors? can the project advocate for this?" (Ex 1, 1b-A)

"how can rigor be evaluated in a digital environment? how much is transformational, and how much is evolving one's methodology? what are the implications of these new models versus traditional ones?" (Ex 1, 1b-A)

"faculty tactical incompetency - don't want to do tech, or get asked to do it, won't get rewarded for it.." (Ex 1, 1d-A)

"Interested in what counts as true scholarly work towards your record; Limitations of paper; when will digital work begin to break in and be recognized; What does it take for that to happen?" (Ex 1, 1d-E)

"The work to affect a cultural change will happen elsewhere; it's a slow process. Recent project - scholarship was great, people read it on-line, but monographs were nor reviewed by enough (high quality) history journals to count. Had to push hard on tenure committees to convince them it's good stuff despite lack of paper version" (Ex 1, 1d-E)

"see that you've had an impact" (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)

"Get Institutional recognition - commitment. All these things require institutional buy in." (Ex 2, 1b-F)

"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)

"Build reputation line on a CV or esteem of colleagues" (Ex 2, 1d-H)

"Credit for depositing data when developing research" (Ex 3, 1b-C)

"Danger that [a background tracking mechanism] will turn humanities academics against the project because of the idea that they'll be monitored. Any given humanities scholar would hopefully come down on both sides of the question. Good [for a scholar] to know [her/his] impact, while at the same time not wanting to feel "watched" or "tracked"" (Ex 3, 1c-B)

"Sustainability leads into problem of credit. If I make a copy, original site can't track usage. Example of one copy going to blackboard, 500 untracked copies go out." (Ex 3, 1d-F)

"Bamboo could track public use of a scholar's work in order to attach value to her/him vis-à-vis tenure review" (Ex 4, 1b-C)

"there needs to be a social aspect. in order to justify building a project around data, need social mechanisms of assigning credit, need to ensure that data will be there, that interfaces will be stable. collectively that's the value bamboo can bring. sure but it's a social function not tech, but that's easy" (Ex 4, 1d-F)

"People using subversion to write their manuscripts. Compile the code at the end to get the manuscript. Those practices are widespread and highly developed. Absent tenure, it is peer review. Not linear, happening concurrently. Collective sense making. " (Ex 4, 1d-G)

"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)

"Worried that Bamboo may change the way we interact with a research process - erasing the individual scholar. In the sciences, for example, data provenance is tagged at source, so that when it gets re-used, credit for the original data is carried along." (Ex 5, 1b-E)

"If you made it accessible socially and could get citation credit for someone else using it, does it make the benefit higher? If they could use their annotation. Rarely does credit trickle down to individuals who do the work. Being 26th is great, but it's mostly pain for first 25. If Bamboo can change the cost side of that-- benefit side is real but weak, so uncertain. Sent me reviewer comments, "she hasn't done a lot of scholarship, her work has been archival". Say nice things about people who do archival work, but don't give them tenure and don't mind if they don't do it. If we could get rewarded for those kinds of things in a systematic way, more people might do it. " (Ex 5, 1c-D)

"Career incentives. Worried about what they're judged upon. Move the tenure culture towards incenting the development of tools (similar to Stuart's Computer Science tenure comments)" (Ex 6a, 1a-A)

"Part of the change is that the idea of IP is fundamentally changing. Staking and claiming. Now there is a push to open up the data much earlier because this is the fundamental way people are working. Not altruistic. Engineers make money by starting companies. Humanities are rewarded by publishing a book, glory of the book. We are at the cusp of a reward system changing for humanities. Want to understand how releasing data earlier is better. Political and economic motivations. Open access initiatives. Social justice. Idealogical ideals are pervasive. When you make it more widely available things can change. Not generational. Purely rational. In some fields in a competitive environment if you share it's stupid. This will persist. Zero sum gain in humanities funding. NEH panel grant and another incorporates your ideas, they will win. Normtive political philosophy. You can't pursuade an NPP to put up a blog. Social documentation and human rights archives tend to share, others don't. I have a friend transitioned out of teaching put everything up on line for commentary. After tenure there is still promotion. Insiders have access to personal contacts. Substantial correlation between willingness and marginality. Fringe ideologs and those who are concerned with promotion. What is the middle group." (Ex 6a, 1a-C)

"About new faculty: may have the tech capabilities, may not have opportunities to use the skill set in the day to day work. Issues of evaluation and tenure. What is valued and not valued. Get the standard thing done. - issues of tenure evaluation can discourage technology and innovation with digital humanities scholarship. no other person is doing it. The lone scholar. the most capable cannot afford to let their career path become effected by work that may inhibit their career advancement and/or tenure. Questions of leadership. senior faculty can better handle the risk. questions around assessment and digital humanities scholarship, what is valued. A narrowing of what is considered research. some things that were once valued are not valued to the same extent" (Ex 6a, 1d-B)

"targeting select senior faculty who are not dinosaurs and developing their projects can help. These are the people who can influence tenure decisions" (Ex 6a, 1d-C)

"Difference between hired and getting tenure. All want someone who knows technology, but won't necessarily give that person tenure. It's the personnel committee who I worry about, not my dept. Mentors will dissuade technology work and encourage to work toward tenure." (Ex 6a, 1d-F)

"How do we back out of these mashups to get back to the original data? And how do you give people relative credit (Big issue for tenure)" (Ex 6b, 1a-D)

"Is there a distinction between scholarship and digital scholarship? Library and Digital Library? When will the tag 'Digital' whither away. Talk the same language. Do away with the "Digital"." (Ex 6b, 1b-C)

"Bamboo should promote & advocate to universities new models of accessible, shared, credentialed knowledge creation. Universities, in turn, could be encouraged via "incentives" to commit to changing their policies vis a vis digital scholarship." (Ex 6b, 1b-D)

"Right now, the tenure system makes collaboration difficult in the humanities, so an attribution service makes work and contribution clear. Make the impossible possible. Most people in the humanities are not ready to collaborate" (Ex 6b, 1c-A)

"Ensure that people can still get tenure despite broader public exposition of error in digital realm. Maintain the freedom to make mistakes. "Freedom to fail."" (Ex 6b, 1c-B)

"Lighter weight peer-review system. Can I stake a claim to an idea publically? Or could we write shorter papers. Significant challenge given that ideas can be tweaked enough to appear different." (Ex 6b, 1d-A)

"If you could shift the center of gravity around recognition to infrastructure development, would that help? We need people to do the building that was done years ago with the bibliographic system. " (Ex 6b, 1d-A)

"But is there historical record of tenure and promotion for tool building? Leading examples of tenure granted is tied to co-publication of traditional articles and online tools and enhancements. Can we look to, support, and build on these." (Ex 6b, 1d-A)

"Could Bamboo play a role in supporting the idea that there's new valid ways of scholarship that should be included in a review of tenure track work? Would administration say "hey, you do this innovative work, we're trying to break through institutional barriers"; might not make sense filtering down to departmental level. Names of deans and organizations that will make a public statement of supporting these efforts" (Ex 6b, 1d-C)

"There are people out there who might hear your cry in the wilderness "I won't write two books, but I'll mash up five pieces of art and make something of lasting value."" (Ex 6b, 1d-C)

"open data movement analogous to open source movement. you want copyright for citation. in a truly digital world people would find that you had said it first" (Ex 6b, 1d-D)

"Ideas around gathering data so a scholar who helps foster a community can have that considered in tenure and review" (W2, Analyzing Directions, Group M)

"How do we distinguish ephemeral/permanent objects, questions of peer review in new ways, other mechanisms to protect/recognize people's contributions. Culture of humanities isn't a safe place to be conducting your thoughts/early ideas in a way like the lab journal/other tools protect the sciences. Developing tools for dating and tracking ideas?" (W2, Analyzing Directions, Group N)

"Since this assignment was designed to give students an initial opportunity to compose and edit a film, the assignment was not given a letter grade. In the course of the interview, the professor indicated that the completed assignments were critiqued in terms of the ways in which students needed to develop their facility with visual storytelling. The following criteria represented areas in which the professor wanted students to develop in subsequent coursework. (See Table 2.1 for a list of criteria and quotes from the professor's interview.) The first criterion related to the originality with which students selected the narrative represented in their completed project. The next two criteria related to the placement of the camera relative to the action and the composition of the images being filmed. Finally, the professor considered the manner in which students edited their video clips. These criteria were derived from course readings and discussions earlier in the term. 1) Creativity in narrative. 2) Placement of camera relative to action. 3) Depth of
composition. 4) Editing (e.g., continuity editing)." (SN-0036 Film Short Creation, Andrea Nixon)

"Provide a forum for faculty members to discuss the evaluation of student work." (SN-0036 Film Short Creation, Andrea Nixon)

"Back at the college, the assistant professor is preparing her promotion and tenure packet, and cites TASE as an important tool she created to both inspire students
and enhance her teaching. Having not asked for automated reporting from Bamboo, she uses the Bamboo Reporting Tool to look at the usage statistics to see
how much the tool was used by her students. Aside from the local statistics, she discovers that 15 institutions within the Bamboo Community have adopted TASE
as a teaching and learning widget and are using it quite heavily in upper-level and graduate-level courses. Furthermore, she learns that seven institutions have taken her tool and created derivative works in accordance with her usage criteria, and that one of those institutions has been using it quite heavily in a non-teaching context. In addition, she learns that TASE in that particular case has been extended with an annotation tool. Using data collected by Bamboo and available to her as an application publisher, she visits the history professor's medieval cartography virtual research environment and discovers the expanding discourse around her approach to Anglo-Saxon maps. Buoyed by this discovery, she engages with this particular research community and further pursues ways to create new tools with Bamboo that helps her share her research, illustrate concepts, and enhance the teaching and learning experience on her campus." (SN-0052 Timeline of Anglo-Saxon England Scenario, from the Bamboo Planning Project proposal)

"What makes sense in PB context? People committed to advancing Dig Hum. Need to keep testing this question. Tenure/promotion/ etc surfaced early, but PB is in a poor position to address directly. Disciplinary / institutional kinds of questions, not cross-institutional." (W4, Reflection, 4/18/09, Cliff Lynch)

"Going back to question of aligning incentives, and being mindful of what will motivate people and not, where they get credit: very taken by idea that someone at my table mentioned yesterday re: "could you turn something like the narratives/recipes into a journal?" If not, not much motivation to spend time doing it - lots of work, what do you get for it? If you can legitimize these into a publication stream, the whole time/investment/reward may change. I look around for other places where you can find those kinds of potential alignments." (W4, Reflection, 4/18/09, Cliff Lynch)

Bamboo tags: 

Add new comment