Repeat with a difference

Cf. Biesecker's "Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation from within the Thematic of Difference"

In my tests using Standard Engine, in combo with G-Sync Compatible Driver, I get more screen flickering during menus.

Formulation of ontological difference.

embodiment as Identity formation:

This quote illustrates part of the logistics from the beginning stages of founding the University of Virginia. The group in charge of planning the layout of the University clearly wanted housing to accommodate all professors and students. Counting the number of pavilions and hotels, that means that they expected no more than 10 teachers (since each pavilion had “two to four apartments for the accommodation of a professor and his family) and no more than 108 students (assuming the current single rooms on the Lawn were ‘dormitories’ that could house “two students only,” which may be incorrect) (http://www.virginia.edu/webmap/academicalVillage.html). These low numbers raise curiosity as to what their plan was for future growth, since they thought that this plan was suitable for the “enlargement to any degree to which the institution may extend in future times”. If following this document’s plan exactly (and into the present day), this particular phrase presents limitations on the flexibility and accessibility of housing since the pavilions, dormitories, and hotels cannot hold all of the current professors and students. There are 2,830 full-time faculty members and not all of them live on the Lawn (http://www.virginia.edu/facts). However, the University does offer living options on-Grounds for faculty and staff, so the University still demonstrates its desire to provide for its faculty (https://housing.virginia.edu/faculty-staff). As for students, all first-years are required to live on-Grounds, but they do not live side-by-side with faculty, as laid out in the original plans within this document. There are 15,891 undergraduate students and 6,500 graduate students on-Grounds and housing is not guaranteed for all of them. Housing was definitely built with professors and students at the forefront of the planners’ minds, so at some point over time, the University either decided, or learned, that these ideas for housing cannot keep up with the increasing population of the school.

On the issue of cross-disciplinary comparisons even within the humanities.

differences w/ adaptive immune response

It is very interesting to see that many of valuable subjects to learn at the time are still very important today. In modern times the methods of how these subjects are taught are more complex in the sense that multiple professors contribute to the teaching of a particular subject. Also in today's times there may be different courses under a key subject that focus on different aspects. The learning system that was in place at the start of the university seems to be ore structured , while today it is more flexible.

Within a paragraph focused on language and orthography, I found it interesting that the spelling of certain words, in this case "ancient" were different than modern spellings. The differences are probably attributed to the country's transition from using middle English to modern English. This document's syntax is different than the common syntax used today, but does not create an impossible barrier to understanding the material. The various spellings of words does not affect the understanding either, but both differences highlight the historical nature of this document. Other examples of "mis-spellings" are "atchieve" later on in this paragraph and "atchievements" later on in this document. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ancient

I do not want to take focus away from the University of Virginia and its history, but I think it is important to make comparisons between UVA and nearby colleges, which highlight the varying processes (and rates of those processes) toward current societal ideals regarding higher education. Specifically, looking at established universities in the other two proposed cities, Lexington and Staunton, for the University of Virginia provides contrast to the chosen location and its university. 
 Washington and Lee University was moved to Lexington, VA in 1782, under the name "Liberty Hall Academy". This university has a racially complex past, similar to ours, since General Robert E. Lee of the Confederate Army was president in 1865. Women were not admitted into the law school until 1972 (similar to the College at UVA) and the undergraduate school until 1985. On the other hand, Mary Baldwin was founded as "Augusta Female Seminary" in Staunton, VA in 1842 (130 years before UVA would allow women to attend). Although it is a predominantly all-girls college, they have allowed men into graduate and adult programs. I find it intriguing how the potential locations of the University of Virginia were developed to house such different college atmospheres, which have, like UVA, become more inclusive and diverse over time. 

https://www.wlu.edu/about-wandl/history-and-traditions/a-brief-history http://www.marybaldwin.edu/about-us/history/

Almost too easy and it does not push us towards difference.

This passage foreshadows that eventually the University will further progress their medicine program but at this time and place do not have the resources to do so because they don't have a hospital in which students can study and gain clinical experience. I think it is very interesting in just 200 years since the beginning of the University how much the medicine program has flourished with the building of the UVA hospital, which is the number one hospital in the state of Virginia. Starting out, the medicine program only taught so many classes and now the medical program is thriving and attracts many different, diverse people from every walk of life. Now, I would like to focus on the second sentence specifically because I find it quite engaging and interesting that the authors of the Rockfish Gap Report thought that a hospital would attract numbers of poor because they would leave their own houses to accept the charities of a hospital. I feel many people, especially older generations, still have this belief that people in poverty take advantage of the charities of a hospital. I for one know that it happens at times because I've seen it happen before firsthand working and shadowing in an emergency room, but honestly it's not that people are taking advantage of the charities of a hospital as they state here, but instead a lot of people in poverty don't have good health, and don't have good healthcare insurance, so their only way to get good health care is by going to an emergency room at a hospital. I for one am a huge advocate for providing good health care for people in poverty because I believe a lot stems from having good healthcare. If you're healthy, you have chance to make your life better by looking for a job and making a living, but if your'e sick, like a lot of people in poverty are it's hard to do that, which is why so many people in poverty flock to places like emergency rooms when they are sick and not healthy. I think that the same thing would have happened had there been a hospital open in the community at the time the University opened. Poor people would have gone to the hospital and accepted the charities of it, but not because they were taking advantage, they would have gone because it's their only means of getting good healthcare. -Emily McClung

This quote highlights similarities as well as differences between education and schooling back then vs. now. Back then students had to have extensive schooling prior to coming to university, and they had certain requirements that they had to complete such as proficiency in Latin and Greek, and understanding of Geometry and navigation. Now, there are less physical requirements needed to attend college, but there still is an unspoken expectation that students come to college fully prepared. Colleges still expect students to take challenging courses and master challenging concepts, but the actual requirements are gone. Back then there were many limitations for who could attend college. The section emphasizes that boys were the ones who needed these requirements to attend college. Now, colleges accept a much more diverse group of students, and people are given more opportunities than before

I found this particular quotation particularly interesting because of the amount of irony and hypocrisy that it is riddled with. It speaks of the importance of education to create "a new man", however we know that this new man is of only a light skin color and most likely a slave-owner, not to mention the exclusion of women. Moreover, in my engagement Making the Invisible Visible, a key focal point is that what is unwritten is often just as important as what's written. Here, in the mentioning of the fact that education is better for the "well-being of mankind", it is implied that solely educating the white male slave owners will be progressive to civilization because of newfound knowledge that will be entrusted with them. As such, in mentioning that education is meant to be passed down to successive generations, the unwritten irony is in the fact that increasingly only a smaller amount of the entire population will be educated because of the ratio to the enslaved people population to the non-enslaved people population. This quotation shows the naive yet justified mindset of the elite class in education administration and society as a whole in the early 19th century America.

• Muhammad Amjad

I think it is interesting how this sentence describes that the Rockfish Gap Report is "is the genuine fruit in the alliance between church and State" because explicitly in the report the writers state that they won't offer any divinity classes at the University as it is starting out, and I think that this sentence is a contradiction of that statement. The University was built with a library ( the Rotunda) at the heart of it because they wanted to dissociate away from religion, and put knowledge first. So why then, can the Rockfish Gap Report be the genuine fruit in the alliance between church and State, when the vision when opening this University was to put knowledge at the center, and not church and religion? Therefore, in theory if knowledge was supposed to be at the center, I'm interested as to why there is such a glaring contradictory sentence. I think this contradictory shows that the writers of the Rockfish Gap Report had varying beliefs and that came across in the report. To relate, this back to my course that I'm taking called making the Invisible Visible, I think this sentence makes "visible" the invisible varying beliefs of the writers of the Rockfish Gap Report. -Emily McClung

I think it is interesting that the author describes the type of education the University of Virginia strives to teach. Primary education is the foundation of knowledge that one needs to be able to grow intellectually and learn about the real-world. In society, the level and quality of education one receives is of utmost importance, especially in the United States, as it guides people's actions and shapes their outlook on life.

very interesting. I don't find her account of the counter-intuitive part of the arts students interviews and surveys convincing though as there's no evidence (it sounds like an attempt to make the data fit hypothesis, frankly). But I do wonder if it isn't the fact that it is a History of Science course that we're talking about here. Maybe that makes them more focussed on facts?

Kuhn on lack of training science students receive on how knowledge is constructed.

science vs arts revision cycles: science students one draft; arts multiple moving things around.

how science students see "waffling"

science students don't see structure as an issue; arts students do.

North, Sarah. 2005. “Different Values, Different Skills? A Comparison of Essay Writing by Students from Arts and Science Backgrounds.” Studies in Higher Education 30 (5): 517–33. doi:10.1080/03075070500249153.

research and bibliography on the mismatch between gen ed or breadth students and the rhetoric of instructors who are intending to socialise people in their field.

disciplinary differences in the construction of knowledge

Very interesting. This agrees with my experience that Science students have a lot of trouble with signposting!

How disciplinary differences affect approach to knowledge and grader expectations.

This whole section so agrees with my read on this! What an amazing bit of research to show specifically what the hunch was.

This what?

pp. 70-71

Interestingly, although most lists were from the sciences, the general science list was completely inactive: her guess is that the more specialised ones had taken over

pp. 65-66 disciplinary differences between HSS and STEM in terms of breadth of focus:

In the categories of the social sciences and the humanities the electronic mailing list topics tended to have a broad focus, such as history of literature. The interdisciplinary category category also had this broad thematic quality. The sciences and communications were the only two categories where the electronic mailing lists had more specific content, such as "Bees in Biology" or "Computer Mediated Communication."

p. 12 at the time she was writing, many respondents said they were the only members of their HSS departments with a computer and an internet connection.

p. 2

Originally wanted to study HSS and STEM but scientists didn't qulify. See chapter III

Almost all of the tools that I think most folks put in the digital writing camp are binary doppelgangers of their analogues. For example, Power point as used is mostly a flip chart with more bells and whistles. Note taking apps are 3X5 cards with a digital twist. Even hypothes.is is just marginalia with a social bent. So what I propose is that what we teach is how to apply ANY tool to the task at hand. What that means is that we need worthwhile work for our students and we need to do that work using the tools at hand. And by 'tools' I mean digital, analog, and any other that can be pressed into the larger service of gather, making sense of and sharing the problems and questions and solutions and stories of the world.

Page 220

Humanistic research takes place in a rich milieu that incorporates the cultural context of artifacts. Electronic text and models change the nature of scholarship in subtle and important ways, which have been discussed at great length since the humanities first began to contemplate the scholarly application of computing.

Page 226

Borgman on why we need a common effort in building a scholarly Commons

Striking contrast exists between disciplines and artifacts, practices, and incentives to build the content layer. Common approaches are none the less required to support interdisciplinary research, which is a central goal of the research. Scholarly products are useful to scholars and related fields and sometimes to scholars in distant fields as the boundaries between disciplines becomes more porous, the interoperability of information systems and services becomes indispensable.

Page 223

This is Borgman discussing the role of priority in the humanities

cultural and historical events can be reinterpreted repeatedly. Prizes are based on the best interpretation rather than on the first claim to a finding.

Page 223

Borgman is discussing here the difference in the way humanists handle data in comparison to the way that scientists and social scientist:

When generating their own data such as interviews or observations, human efforts to describe and represent data are comparable to that of scholars and other disciplines. Often humanists are working with materials already described by the originator or holder of the records, such as libraries, archives, government agencies, or other entities. Whether or not the desired content already is described as data, scholars need to explain its evidentiary value in your own words. That report often becomes part of the final product. While scholarly publications in all fields set data within a context, the context and interpretation are scholarship in the humanities.

Page 219

In the humanities, it is difficult to separate artifacts from practices or publications from data.

Page 219

Humanities scholars integrate and aggregate data from many sources. They need tools and services to analyze digital data, as others do the sciences and social sciences, but also tools that assist them interpretation and contemplation.

Page 215

What seems a clear line between publications and data in the sciences and social sciences is a decidedly fuzzy one in the humanities. Publications and other documents are central sources of data to humanists. … Data sources for the humanities are innumerable. Almost any document, physical artifact, or record of human activity can be used to study culture. Humanities scholars value new approaches, and recognizing something as a source of data (e.g., high school yearbooks, cookbooks, or wear patterns in the floor of public places) can be an act of scholarship. Discovering heretofore unknown treasures buried in the world's archives is particularly newsworthy. … It is impossible to inventory, much less digitize, all the data that might be useful scholarship communities. Also distinctive about humanities data is their dispersion and separation from context. Cultural artifacts are bought and sold, looted in wars, and relocated to museums and private collections. International agreements on the repatriation of cultural objects now prevent many items from being exported, but items that were exported decades or centuries ago are unlikely to return to their original site. … Digitizing cultural records and artifacts make them more malleable and mutable, which creates interesting possibilities for analyzing, contextualizing, and recombining objects. Yet digitizing objects separates them from the origins, exacerbating humanists’ problems in maintaining the context. Removing text from its physical embodiment in a fixed object may delete features that are important to researchers, such as line and page breaks, fonts, illustrations, choices of paper, bindings, and marginalia. Scholars frequently would like to compare such features in multiple additions or copies.

Page 215

Borgman discussing the half-life of citations and humanities :

while the half-life of literature is considered to be the longest in humanities, the large comparative study discussed earlier found the shortest citation age of an average article in humanities…. [another study] also found that the usage of history articles was much more concentrated in recent publications and was the usage of articles in economics or mathematics (the three fields studied). A close inspection revealed that the use of history articles was widely scattered across countries, without the clustering around classic articles from the other two fields. Although history can be considered within the humanities or the social sciences, comparisons between these findings do reinforce others conclusions that humanists’ may read current journal articles to keep up with their fields, but rely more heavily for their research on sources not covered by journal indexes. The findings also amplify concerns about the validity of citation studies of journal literature in humanities, given the reliance on monographic and archival sources. In sum, the humanities draw on the longest literature time span of any of the disciplines, and yet have the least amount of their scholarly literature online. So far, they are the discipline most poorly served by the publications component of the content later.

Page 214

Literature in the Humanities goes out-of-print long before it goes out of date, so efforts to make older, out-of-copyright books available greatly benefit these fields.

Page 214

Borgman notes that the bibliographic coverage of journal literature is shallow in the humanities. The ISI Arts and humanity citation Index only goes back to 1975. In Sciences it goes back to 1900. In the social sciences it goes back to 1956. Also SCOPUS does not include the humanities.

What is interesting about this is that the humanities are the least cumulative of all the disciplines in the sense that they do not build on previous knowledge so much as we examine previous thought.

Page 214

Borgman on information artifacts and communities:

Artifacts in the humanities differ from those of the sciences and social sciences in several respects. Humanist use the largest array of information sources, and as a consequence, the station between documents and data is the least clear. They also have a greater number of audiences for the data and the products of the research. Whereas scientific findings usually must be translated for a general audience, humanities findings often are directly accessible and of immediate interest to the general public.

Page 204

Borgman on the different types of data in the social sciences:

Data in the social sciences fall into two general categories. The first is data collected by researchers through experiments, interviews, surveys, observations, or similar names, analogous to scientific methods. … the second category is data collected by other people or institutions, usually for purposes other than research.

Page 202

Borgman on information artifacts in the social sciences

like the sciences, the social sciences create and use minimal information. Yet they differ in the sources of the data. While almost all scientific data are created by for scientific purposes, a significant portion of social scientific data consists of records credit for other purposes, by other parties.

Page 184

In the section “Description and Organization in the Sciences” Borgman discusses some of the ways in which scientific literature is better organized: for example these include uniform language, taxonomies, thesauri, and ontologies.

Fuchs, Milena Žic. 2014. “The Future of Publications in the Humanities: Possible Impacts of Research Assessment.” In New Publication Cultures in the Humanities: Exploring the Paradigm Shift, edited by Péter Dávidházi, 147–71. Amsterdam University Press. http://books.google.ca/books/about/New_Publication_Cultures_in_the_Humaniti.html?hl=&id=4ffcoAEACAAJ.

"The rule states that anyone that joins collaboration in good faith will be listed equally as an author, regardless of the relative contributions they end up making.

This has a list of guidelines about authorship in different disciplines, particularly the natural sciences.

Fish, Stanley. 1988. “Guest Column: No Bias, No Merit: The Case against Blind Submission.” PMLA 103 (5): 739–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/462513.

An interesting essay in the context I'm reading it (alongside Foucault's What is an author in preparation for a discussion of scientific authorship.

Among the interesting things about it are the way it encapsulates a distinction between the humanities and sciences in method (though Fish doesn't see it and it comes back to bite him in the Sokol affair). What Frye thinks is important because he is an author-function in Foucault's terms, I.e. a discourse initiator to whom we return for new insight.

Fish cites Peters and Ceci 1982 on peer review, and sides with those who argue that ethos should count in review of science as well.

Also interesting for an illustration of how much the field changed, from new criticism in the 1970s (when the first draft was written) until "now" i.e. 1989 when political criticism is the norm.

On the creative nature of literary criticism

author-function at work: Frye is an author-concept and his work is a coherent whole--an Oeuvre.

This is absolutely fine for literary criticism and the humanities. The same is in practice true of the sciences--what Steven Hawking says about physics is more interesting than other people, especially if he reverses his previous claims. But in contrast to Frye, where a reversal is a change in the discursive practice (cf. Foucault), in the case of science, it should not be the case that hearing a "great man" reverse himself is more significant than hearing an unknown post-doc. The reversal should be evidence-based.

Discussion of debate at MLA about plan to introduce blind submission to PMLA and comparison with sciences and social sciences.

A nice summary of the difference between "return" in a new discourse, and "revision" in a new science.

This is a more convincing difference: practitioners of new discourses return to their founding documents in a way that practitioners of new disciplines do not.

This is a basic methodological difference between science and the humanities, however, and it helps explain why Darwinism is in some ways really a branch of the humanities: it is a theory you come back to rather than an observation.

Oral formulaic theory, on the other hand, is more like the scientific discipline: no need to go back to Parry and Lord.

How initiators of discursive practices are different from founders of scientific schools or disciplines.

Again, an "Implied Author" type idea that is completely not relevant to science--although ironically, the H-index tries to make it relevant. In science, the author name is not the function that defines the text; it is the person to whom the credit it to be given rather than a definition of Oeuvre. This is really useful distinction for discussing what is different between the two discourses.

Bout how actual contributions to authorship of humanities work goes uncredited, except in acknowledgements

Mumford, Stephen. 2012. “Combination Acts.” Times Higher Education (THE). February 16. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/combination-acts/419019.article.

great bibliography on ethnographies of different disciplines

"it is wise to avoid generalizations and to concentrate instead on showing how interactions between coworkers, specifically the orchestration of information exchange and coauthorship, are grounded in local culture."

biomedicine is a less homogeneous group and so less internal trust

physicists live in a very trustful, observant, world; also they do a lot of internal, pre-referee, review

Why is there less soul-searching about hyper-authorship in HEP? disciplinary differences

bibliography on authorship practices

Is not long dominant model in some specialisations (though it is in humanities)

bibliography on authorship ranking and practices