Every project is going to have certain barriers to implementation. Acknowledging these barriers allows you to be better prepared when an issue arises. I would like to have a discussion around some of these barriers and their potential implications.
As an example, some of the potential barriers that jump to my mind include:
- Community buy-in
- Long-term Retrieval and Accessibility
- Fair and balanced, authority/credibility, and “scholarliness”
Last year, my colleague Eric Morgan and I made a web-application called theCatholic Youth Literature Project. It was designed as a classroom tool to offer students opportunities for close- and distant-reading of 19th-century texts and possibilities for the class as a whole to contribute to notions of Catholic identity by sharing interpretations of these texts.
Now that I am teaching both literature and composition at SUNY Canton. I would like to adapt the project to expand to meet broader instructional needs for myself and others, forking the current code.
I propose to create an implementation toolkit for social reading. I’d personally like to create a toolkit for academic libraries, but that’s open to the participants – we can make the toolkit as general or as specific as we need to serve the entire group’s interests. There are many directions in which this could go, depending on interest.
What does the toolkit look like? Whatever we want. If we create one for an academic library, things we might want to include are: educational objectives and standards, outreach/marketing, resources for software, resources for content, identification of potential collaborators in the academic community, etc. Non-library students and faculty would be fantastic contributors and collaborators for this type of toolkit.
A projector/desktop set-up would be helpful for this make session, but not required.
I recently retired from George Eastman House where I served as Director of Interpretation (and for a time, by default, as make-shift CIO). Collecting institutions unaffiliated with muscular university information technology face special challenges in the management, cataloging, interpretation, and sharing of fine-art photographs and related artists’ media. For medium size or smaller museums and other independent organizations, the production of adequate collections information, mark-up, and data conformation for international aggregation has been difficult to staff and fund. Even with today’s tools and increasingly powerful open-source cataloging projects, directors and trustees of institutions with other pressing programming priorities view such work as labor-intensive irksome toil – budget lines with the lowest return on the dollar and decades in the wilderness.
My proposal is a thought experiment that would put aside the above conundrum, and imagine refinements to the somewhat industrial systems of Digital Asset Management (DAM) – allowing the museum asset (digital facsimile or born-digital object) to function as an armature for the accumulation of image/object metadata and all manner of links and affiliations.
We’ve gone from zero to sixty in terms of open access, social reading, massively-collaborative composition, and other features of the post-authoritative textual world. I fully expect that we’ll break Mach 1 in a few short years.
Where does this leave us with regard to acknowledging our sources? Will we continue to cite for the same reasons? Will we devise new ways of bringing previous writers into our own texts? What will documentation systems look like in a dozen years? And exactly how far behind will our pedagogy lag?
At University of Rochester we’re involved in a project that is visualizing the temporal narrative of television shows. We would like to have a discussion about data visualization to hear from other projects that are using data visualization in the humanities, especially ones that focus on time.
Over the past ten years, innovations in web technology have enabled a shift in scholarly publishing. New initiatives bring the editing and review process to the public. Publishers of humanities journals are following the lead of science publishers and make the peer review process more transparent, including innovations such as open peer review and post-publication review.
I would love to have a discussion about the implications of some these new trends in scholarly peer review, and how this relates to social reading of scholarly work.
In the spring of 2010, inspired by groups and communities who were social reading novels, member of the Twitter community decided to do a “One Book, One Twitter” reading online. “Let’s love one book together, our actual geographical location be damned.” Very loosely organized participants voted on their selection – Neil Gaiman’s “American Gods”. Considering the content and nature of the work it was a controversial choice. Confined to the 140 character limit of the Twitter platform and structured into a schedule of chapters, denizens of the domain began with high hopes and a lot of enthusiasm. I will consider the preparations, execution, and conclusion of this crowdsourced attempt to facilitate a global social reading, the pitfalls that the endeavor encountered, and the benefits of such a massive attempt to read together.
I will need a smart setup (computer, access to the ‘net, projection) to show a backdrop presentation.