1,221 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2016
    1. Page 15

      Rockwell and Sinclair call for

      a new kind of literacy that allows us to continue our pursuits as humanities scholars in the changing world we find ourselves in.

    2. Page 14

      Rockwell and Sinclair note that corporations are mining text including our email; as they say here:

      more and more of our private textual correspondence is available for large-scale analysis and interpretation. We need to learn more about these methods to be able to think through the ethical, social, and political consequences. The humanities have traditions of engaging with issues of literacy, and big data should be not an exception. How to analyze interpret, and exploit big data are big problems for the humanities.

    3. Page 14

      Rockwell and Sinclair note that HTML and PDF documents account for 17.8% and 9.2% of (I think) all data on the web while images and movies account for 23.2% and 4.3%.

    4. Pages 7-8

      Rockwell and Sinclair talk here about developing an “agile hermeneutics” by which they mean an approach to fast/extreme writing. An example of this is that they tried to write a short essay in one day from the initial research but they also do things such as working in pairs with one person typing and the others talking things through.

    5. Page 6

      Computer-assisted research in the humanities, by contrast to the Cartesian story and traditional humanities practices, has almost always been collaborative. This is due to the variety of skills needed to implement digital humanities projects. It is also linked to the relationship between the practices of interpretation in the development of the tools of interpretation, be the tools for analyzing text or digital editions. Anyone who has used tools forged by another person is in collaboration, even if one isn't personally influencing the provider of the tools. The need to collaborate, though acknowledged in various ways, has been a professional hindrance, as anyone who submits a curriculum vitae for promotion listing nothing but co-authored papers knows.

    6. Pages 6-7

      Collaboration is not always good. It separates the interpreter/scholar from the designer/programmer who implements the scholarly methods. Willard McCarthy notes that the introduction of software "separated the conception of the problems (domain of the scholar) from the computational means of working them out (baliwick of the programmer) and so came at a significant cost.” As computing is introduced into research, it separates consumption, implementation, and interpretation in ways that can be overcome only through dialogue and collaboration across very different fields. Typically, humanities scholars know little about programming and software engineering, and programmers know little about humanities scholarship. Going it alone is an option only for the few who have time to master both. The rest of us and up depending on others.

    7. Pages 1-2

      … Practices are changing. Older forms of communal inquiry are being remixed into modern research. We have come to recognize how intellectual work is participatory even when it includes moments of solitary meditation. Internet conferencing tools allow us to remediate dialogical practices, collaborative communities such as Wikipedia and Twitter depend on contributions by a large group of users, and the communal research cultures of the arts collective or engineering lab are influencing the humanities. Accessible computing, data availability, and new media opportunities have provoked textual disciplines to think again about our practices and methods as we build digital libraries, process millions of books, and imagine research cyber-infrastructure that can support the next generation of scholars. We have recently begun imagining large-scale humanities-based projects that require a variety of skills for implementation – skills rarely found in a solitary scholar/programmer, let alone in a Cartesian humanist. We find ourselves working in teams, reflecting on how to best organize them and then reflecting on what it means to think through with others. This inevitably turns to methodological reflection that takes new media into account as we try to balance our traditional Cartesian values with the opportunities of open and communal work.

    1. 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.

    2. Page 225

      Here is a great statement as to the need for a self-conscious commons :

      The content layer of the scholarly information infrastructure will not be built by voluntary contributions of information artifacts from individuals. The incentives are too low and barriers too high. Contributing publications through self archiving has the greatest incentives and the fewest barriers, but voluntary contributions remain low. Contributing data has even fewer incentives and even greater barriers. Scholars continue to rely on the publishing system to guarantee that the products of their work are legitimized, disseminated, reserved, curated, and made accessible. Despite its unstable state, the system does exist, resting on relationships among libraries, publishers, universities, scholars, students, and other stakeholders. No comparable system exists for data. Only a few fields have succeeded in establishing infrastructures for their data, and most of these are still fledgling efforts. Little evidence exists that a common infrastructure for data will arise from the scholarly community. The requirements are diverse, the common ground is minimal, and individuals are not rewarded for tackling large institutional problems. Building the content layer is the responsibility of the institutions and policymakers rather than individuals. Individual behavior will change when the policies change to offer more rewards, and when tools and services and prove to decrease the effort required….

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. Pages 220-221

      Digital Humanities projects result in two general types of products. Digital libraries arise from scholarly collaborations and the initiatives of cultural heritage institutions to digitize their sources. These collections are popular for research and education. … The other general category of digital humanities products consist of assemblages of digitized cultural objects with associated analyses and interpretations. These are the equivalent of digital books in that they present an integrated research story, but they are much more, as they often include interactive components and direct links to the original sources on which the scholarship is based. … Projects that integrate digital records for widely scattered objects are a mix of a digital library and an assemblage.

    6. Page 219

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

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. Page 203

      Citation age of an average article is longest in the social sciences.

    15. 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.

    16. Page 187 On hyper authorship

      "hyper authorship” is an indicator of "collective cognition" in which the specific contributions of individuals no longer can be identified. Physics has among the highest rates of coauthorship in the sciences and the highest rates of self archiving documents via a repository. Whether the relationship between research collaborators (as indicated by the rates of coauthorship) and sharing publications (as reflected in self archiving) holds in other fields is a question worth exploring empirically.

    17. 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.

    18. Page 184

      scientific data will not be "all digital "anytime soon, however. Substantial amounts of important "legacy data "remain in paper form, both public and private hands. Estimated 750 million specimens in the US natural storymaker history museums, for example, black digital descriptions. And effort is underway to digitize the descriptions of large-scale, using barcoding technics. Digitizing historical documents such as newspapers, handbooks, directories, and land-use records will benefit the sciences in addition to the humanities and social sciences. These records are used to establish historical patterns of weather, crop yields, animal husbandry, and so forth. And untold wealth of scientific data lies in private hands. Individual scientists often keep the records of the research career in their offices of oratories, only by storage limited only by storage space on the shelves and refrigerators, freezers, and digital devices.

    19. Borgman, Christine L. 2007. Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

      My notes

    20. Page 48

      Scholarly communication is a rich and complex socio-technical system formed over a period of centuries. Despite new technologies and economic models, the purposes of scholarly communication have remained remarkably stable.

    21. page 182

      the sciences create a variety of objects the salt in the gray area between documents and data. Examples include Laboratorio field notebooks, slicer talks, composition objects such as graphic visualization of data. Laboratorio notebooks are often classified as data because their records research. Slides from talks, which were once ephemeral forms of communication, now our compost and competent person websites are distributed to accomplish proceedings. Graphic visualization data can be linked to scarlet documents to report research or to the underlying data.

    22. Chapter 8 is an excellent overview of the nature of the commons its differences and similarities

    23. Page 182 Borgman on the disciplinary differences in scholarly practice

      Despite many common activities, both the artifacts and practices of scholarship very by discipline. The artifacts very as scholars make choices about the sources of data, along with what, when, where, and what form to disseminate the products of their work. Scholarly practices vary in the way that scholars create, use, and share documents, data, and other forms of information.

    24. Page 158

      George Barnett, Edward think, and Mary Beth debus constructed a mathematical model of citation age to test this ordering using large data sets from each of the science citation index, social sciences citation index, and arts and humanities citation index published by the isi. In each of these three sets, the citation age of an average article reaches its peak in less than two years, with the Arts and Humanities peeking soonest parentheses 1.164 years close parentheses comma and the social sciences speaking latest parentheses 1.752 years close parentheses, contrary to expectations. The maximum proportion of citations did have the predicted ordering, with science the highest, and the Arts and Humanities the lowest. While the models presume that citation rates were stable over time a close examination of the data revealed that citation for article increase substantially over the time period of the study parentheses in science, from 12.14 per article in 1961 to 16 in 1986 God semi colon in the social sciences, from 7.07 in 1970 to 15.6 in 1986 semi colon no Citation for article data were given for the Arts and Humanities close parentheses.

    25. Page 158

      Half-Life studies are used to identify temporal variations in the use of literature by discipline most such studies indicate that the humanities have the longest citation half life and the Sciences the shortest with the social sciences in between. In other words, scientific articles reference the most recent Publications and Humanities articles the least recent ones.

    26. Pages 153 and 154

      Borgman on how data Deluge affects the balance between traditional and new forms of scholarship

      Changes in scholarly practices such as mining data sets can have significant influences on scholar is professional identity. Shifts in technology and funding that favor computational methods May disadvantage those whose research is based on fieldwork for instance. These transitions can create a double bind for those research areas more funding for computational modeling made me less funding for field research to collect new data. Not only does less data collected but fewer students are trained in field methods. Substantial expertise and data collection and the ability to interpret older data may be lost. Conversely those who rely on computational methods must have sufficient knowledge of how the data were collected to be able to interpret them. They do require adequate training and data collection methods.... Research Specialties that use more computational methods are seeking a balance between a steady supply of new data, avoiding duplicate or redundant data collection where possible, and training students in field research and computational methods. Thus, new technologies for producing and analyzing data may have subtle but important influences on Scholars career path.

    27. Page 147

      Borgman on the challenges facing the humanities in the age of Big Data:

      Text and data mining offer similar Grand challenges in the humanities and social sciences. Gregory crane provide some answers to the question what do you do with a million books? Two obvious answers include the extraction of information about people, places, and events, and machine translation between languages. As digital libraries of books grow through scanning avert such as Google print, the open content Alliance, million books project, and comparable projects in Europe and China, and as more books are published in digital form technical advances in data description, and now it says, and verification are essential. These large collections differ from earlier, smaller after it's on several Dimensions. They are much larger in scale, the content is more heterogenous in topic and language, the granularity creases when individual words can be tagged and they were noisy then there well curated predecessors, and their audiences more diverse, reaching the general public in addition to the scholarly community. Computer scientists are working jointly with humanist, language, and other demands specialist to pars tax, extract named entities in places, I meant optical character recognition techniques counter and Advance the state of art of information retrieval.

    28. Page 155

      Boardman on The Change-Up brought on by the web as to the most important consideration in Source selection sharing information retrieval by scientist

      One of the findings worth revisiting is the prior to the 1990s, accessibility was the most important consideration and Source selection. Has information access improved, relevance and quality became the most important selection factors, which has implications for the design of searching tools.

    29. Page 137

      Borgman discusses hear the case of NASA which lost the original video recording of the first moon landing in 1969. Backups exist, apparently, but they are lower quality than the originals.

    30. Page 122

      Here Borgman suggest that there is some confusion or lack of overlap between the words that humanist and social scientists use in distinguishing types of information from the language used to describe data.

      Humanist and social scientists frequently distinguish between primary and secondary information based on the degree of analysis. Yet this ordering sometimes conflates data sources, and resorces, as exemplified by a report that distinguishes quote primary resources, ed books quote from quote secondary resources, Ed catalogs quote. Resorts is also categorized as primary wear sensor data AMA numerical data and filled notebooks, all of which would be considered data in The Sciences. But rarely would book cover conference proceedings, and he sees that the report categorizes as primary resources be considered data, except when used for text or data mining purposes. Catalogs, subject indices, citation index is, search engines, and web portals were classified as secondary resources.

    31. Pages 119 and 120

      Here Borgman discusses the various definitions of data showing them working across the fields

      the following definition of data is widely accepted in this context: AT&T portable representation of information in a formalized manner suitable for communication, interpretation, or processing. Examples of data include a sequence of bits, a table of numbers, the characters on a page, recording of sounds made by a person speaking Ori moon rocks specimen. Definitions of data often arise from Individual disciplines, but can apply to data used in science, technology, the social sciences, and the humanities: data are facts, numbers, letters, and symbols that describe an object, idea, condition, situation, or other factors.... Terms data and facts are treated interchangeably, as is the case in legal context. Sources of data includes observations, complications, experiment, and record-keeping. Observational data include weather measurements... And attitude surveys... Or involve multiple places and times. Computational data result from executing a computer model or simulation.... experimental data include results from laboratory studies such as measurements of chemical reactions or from field experiments such as controlled Behavioral Studies.... records of government, business, and public and private life also yield useful data for scientific, social scientific, and humanistic research.

    32. Pages 117 to 1:19

      Here Borgman discusses the ability to go back and forth between data and reports on data she cites Phil born 2005 on this for a while medicine. She also discusses how in the pre-digital error data was understood as a support mechanism for final publication and as a result was allowed to deteriorate or be destroyed after the Publications upon which they were based appeared.

    33. Page 115

      Borgman makes the point here that while there is a Commons in the infrastructure of scholarly publishing there is less of a Commons in the infrastructure 4 data across disciplines.

      The infrastructure of scholarly publishing Bridges disciplines: every field produces Journal articles, conference papers, and books albeit in differing ratios. Libraries select, collect organize and make accessible publications of all types, from all fields. No comparable infrastructure exists for data. A few Fields have major mechanisms for publishing data in repositories. Some fields are in the stage of developing standards and practices to activate their data resorces and Nathan were widely accessible. In most Fields, especially Outside The Sciences, data practices remain local idiosyncratic, and oriented to current usage rather than preservation operation, and access. Most data collections Dash where they exist Dash are managed by individual agencies within disciplines, rather than by libraries are archives. Data managers usually are trained within the disciplines they serve. Only a few degree programs and information studies include courses on data management. The lack of infrastructure for data amplifies the discontinuities in scholarly publishing despite common concerns, independent debates continue about access to Publications and data.

    34. Chapters 4 and 5 the continuity of scholarly publishing and the discontinuity of scholarly publishing

      These are both useful and important chapters for the scholarly Commons working group. They discuss the things that are common across scholarly communication as well as the different functions comma and they also discuss a new technology is disrupting this common area.

    35. Page 63

      Publication indicators as proxies for quality. Despite the many problems with peer review, publication indicators are used to evaluate Scholars for hiring promotion, finding, and other Rewards. Weather appropriate or not, outputs of the system in the form of data, documents, and Publications are easier to measure than are the inputs such as Scholars time, education, reading of scholarly literature, and research activities in their Laboratories and libraries. More time in the laboratory or in the library does not necessarily translate into more or better research, for example. While it is understandable that the recognition of Scholars should be based heavily on quality assessments of their scholarly contributions to their fields, it is essential to distinguish clearly between quality of scholarship and the use of indicators such as the publication form and citation counts as proxies for quality.

    36. Page 63

      A discussion of fraud in the humanities involving a book on gun ownership

      In one case, allegations of inadequate, and accurate, and unverifiable data to support much-publicized conclusions about the historical rates of gun ownership led to the revocation of a major book prize and the loss of the author's University position.

      The book is called arming America. The Astorian is Michael Bellesaies

    37. Page 62

      Borgman discussing the purpose of peer review

      Pre-publication mechanisms serve as expert filters on what becomes part of the scholarly record, when doing out there researchers reading list.

    38. Page 60

      The use of a publication form as a proxy measure for the quality of research productivity has distorted the peer-review system so severely that some consider it broken. Peer reviewing is an expensive process, requiring considerable time and attention of editors comma editorial board members, and other reviewers. Top journals in the sciences and medicine they put fewer than half of the submitted papers through a full P review process, rejecting the remainder on an initial editorial review, and ultimately publish 6 to 10% of the total submissions. Particularly in The Sciences, researchers are under so much pressure to place papers and talk to your journals that they submit them to the same journals, whether or not the content is appropriate.

    39. Page 51

      Calls preprints a guild publishing model

    40. Page 47

      Between the most public and private forms communication lies a wide range of channels and activities. Scholars communicate with each other not only through books and journals but also through manuscript, preprints, articles, abstract, reprints, seminars, and Conference presentations. Over the course of the 20th century, they interacted intensively in person, by telephone, and through the postal mail. Scholars in the 21st century continue to use those channels, while also communicating via email, dogs, and Chad. Need to send an Asian channels for written work include personal websites, preprint archives, and institutional repositories. An information infrastructure to support scholarship must facilitate these Myron means of communication. Scholars use the internet to communicate with more people, and more frequently, then was feasible in the days of paper and post. They can share much larger volumes of data and documents. The internet has led to more, faster, and cheaper communication among Scholars. Because anyone can publish online, the balance between authors, Publishers, and Librarians has shifted radically.... preserving the scholarly record is more difficult in a digital world than a print one, due to the rapid evolution of Technology, changes and intellectual property regulations, and new business models for publishing.

    41. Page 47

      Communication is the essence of scholarship comment as many observers have said in many ways. Scholarship is an inherently social activity, involving a wide range of private and public interactions within the research Community. Publication comment as the public report of research, is part of a continuous cycle of Reading, Writing, disgusting, searching, investigating, presenting, submitting, and reviewing. No scholarly publication stands alone. Each new work in a field his position relative to others through the process of citing relevant literature.

    42. Page 47

      Communication is the essence of scholarship comment as many observers have said in many ways.

      Borgman gives bibliography of claims that scholarship is communication

    43. Page 41

      discussions of digital scholarship tend to distinguish implicitly or explicitly between data and documents. Some of you data and documents as a Continuum rather than a dichotomy in this sense data such as numbers images and observations are the initial products of research, and Publications are the final products that set research findings in context.

    44. Pages 36 and 37

      Boardman discusses Merton. Lots of references here to series of citation and networks of relationships among Scholars the other references they make to each other's work

    45. Page 35

      open science has been subjected to rigorous economic analysis and found to meet the needs of modern, market-based societies. As an economic framework open Science is based on the premise that scholarly information is a "public good." Public goods have two defining elements. One is that they can be shared without lessening their value; the economic term is non rival. Call David quotes Thomas Jefferson's eloquent statement in 1813 on this point: he who receives an idea from me comma receives instruction himself without lessening mine: as he who lights his paper at mine receives light without dark getting me. The second characteristic of public goods is that they are difficult and costly to hold exclusively while putting them to use semicolon the economic term is non-excludable.

    46. Page 29

      it is essential however to recognize that these new opportunities do not benefit all Scholars equally. Investments That Advantage some Scholars will disadvantage others. Technological Investments made her funds from field research, travel to libraries and archives where unique materials are held, and other forms of scholarship that are less dependent on a data-intensive infrastructure.

    47. Page 29

      benefits of digital scholarship are expected to approve not only to The Sciences and Technology but also to the social sciences and Humanities. They will accrue in different ways, due to the different types of data, research methods, and practices in these fields. The social sciences are becoming more data of intensive as they assemble records of computer-based communication and mine databases of demographic and economic data produced by government agencies. The humanities are building large computational models of cultural sites, digitizing archival and Museum records, and Mining cultural records that are being generated or converted to digital form around the world.

    48. Page 28

      Borgman discusses the invisible College of scientists

    49. Page 22

      Boardman argues that the term cyberspace was popularized by William Gibson in Neuromancer his 1984 novel

    50. Page 17

      Borgman argues that the term Digital Library causes trouble because it quote obscures the complex relationship between electronic information Collections and libraries as institutions.

    51. Page 16

      guessing domain names declined in Effectiveness as the ww.w grew in size, which is another example of the scaling problems of information retrieval.

      I wonder if this is true. Did people really get domain names?

    52. Page 13

      Paul Otlet's bibliographic networks of the 1930s were a precursor to hypertext.

      See Rayward 1991 1994 Wayward & Buckland 1992

    53. A great paragraph here on the value of interconnection

      scholarly data and documents are of most value when they are interconnected rather than independent. The outcomes of a research project could be understood most fully if it were possible to trace an important finding from a grant proposal, to data collection, to a data set, to its publication, to its subsequent review and comment period journal articles are more valuable if one can jump directly from the article to those insights into later articles that cite the source article. Articles are even more valuable if they provide links to data on which they are based. Some of these capabilities already are available, but their expansion depends more on the consistency of the data description, access arrangements, and intellectual property agreement then on technological advances.

      I think here of the line from Jim Gill may all your problems be technical

    54. Great quote here on how scholarship and knowledge mobilisation have difficulties interacting.

      never the less, making content that was created for one audience useful to another is a complex problem. Each field has its own vocabulary, data structures, and research practices. People ask questions and different ways, starting with the mill your terminology. The repurposing of research data for teaching can be especially challenging. Scholars goals are to produce knowledge for their Community, while students goals are to learn from the concepts and tools of a given field. These two groups have different levels of expertise in both disciplinary knowledge and the use of data and information resources. Different descriptions tools and services may be required to share content between audiences.

    55. Page 10

      descriptions of Museum objects created for curatorial and research purposes are interesting to museum visitors.

      Borgman on the intersection of popular Outreach / knowledge mobilisation and scholarship.

    56. Page 10

      little research has explored the Continuum from primary to secondary sources, much less the entire life cycle from data generation through the preservation of the scholarly products that set those data in context.

      More from Borgman on the gradual collapsing of primary and secondary sources

    57. p. 8-actually this is link to p. 7, since 8 is excluded

      Another trend is the blurring of the distinction between primary sources, generally viewed as unprocessed or unanalysed data, and secondary sources that set data in context.

      Good point about how this is a new thing. On the next page she discusses how we are now collpasing the traditional distinction between primary and secondary sources.

    58. p. 6

      Retrieval methods designed for small databases decline rapidly in effectiveness as collections grow...

      This is an interesting point that is missed in the Distant reading controversies: its all very well to say that you prefer close reading, but close reading doesn't scale--or rather the methodologies used to decide what to close read were developed when big data didn't exist. How to you combine that when you can read everything. I.e. You close read Dickins because he's what survived the 19th C as being worth reading. But now, if we could recover everything from the 19th C how do you justify methodologically not looking more widely?

    1. p. 141

      Initially, the digital humanities consisted of the curation and analysis of data that were born digital, and the digitisation and archiving projects that sought to render analogue texts and material objects into digital forms that could be organised and searched and be subjects to basic forms of overarching, automated or guided analysis, such as summary visualisations of content or connections between documents, people or places. Subsequently, its advocates have argued that the field has evolved to provide more sophisticated tools for handling, searching, linking, sharing and analysing data that seek to complement and augment existing humanities methods, and facilitate traditional forms of interpretation and theory building, rather than replacing traditional methods or providing an empiricist or positivistic approach to humanities scholarship.

      summary of history of digital humanities

    2. p. 100

      Data are not useful in and of themselves. They only have utility if meaning and value can be extracted from them. In other words, it is what is done with data that is important, not simply that they are generated. The whole of science is based on realising meaning and value from data. Making sense of scaled small data and big data poses new challenges. In the case of scaled small data, the challenge is linking together varied datasets to gain new insights and opening up the data to new analytical approaches being used in big data. With respect to big data, the challenge is coping with its abundance and exhaustivity (including sizeable amounts of data with low utility and value), timeliness and dynamism, messiness and uncertainty, high relationality, semi-structured or unstructured nature, and the fact that much of big data is generated with no specific question in mind or is a by-product of another activity. Indeed, until recently, data analysis techniques have primarily been designed to extract insights from scarce, static, clean and poorly relational datasets, scientifically sampled and adhering to strict assumptions (such as independence, stationarity, and normality), and generated and alanysed with a specific question in mind.

      Good discussion of the different approaches allowed/required by small v. big data.

    3. p. 86

      25% of data stored in digital form in 2000 (the rest analogue; 94% by 2007

    4. Kitchin, Rob. 2014. The Data Revolution. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.

  2. current.ischool.utoronto.ca current.ischool.utoronto.ca
    1. A gentle introduction to studying digital humanities, and into the digital humanities community in general, was the beginner workshop group entitled “Digitization Fundamentals and Their Application.” The focus of this workshop was to develop a functional knowledge of different methods of acquiring, refining, processing, and utilizing information pertaining to artefacts, aural or visual, static or animated. The course outlined how to plan successful digitization projects, develop an organizational structure to manage large caches of data, select appropriate devices and formats for input, and create platforms for display and dissemination of output. Each day was dedicated to a specific element of digitization - usually a medium, such as audio or video, but occasionally on a form of output, such as how to host digitization projects on the web. The mornings were generally spent acquiring the foundational knowledge needed to plan and implement a digitization project in that day’s medium, and in the afternoons participants were given free access to a wide range of equipment to help put the morning’s fundamentals into practice. This workshop allowed participants to practice digitization both in the lab and in the wild, as they were able to choose to work within one of the University of Victoria’s well-appointed computer labs or take equipment to a nearby site of their choice, such as the University of Victoria’s McPherson Library and its rare book room.

      Structure of the fundamentals class

    2. ese courses are the core of the DHSI curriculum, offering students the opportunity to learn in small, collegial groups at the beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels - and indeed offering faculty the opportunity to be students again for a week. That levelling spirit is reinforced by other aspects of the Institute which bring the various courses together. At the beginning and end of each day, all DHSI participants attend plenary lectures by leading practitioners in the field, which brings all participants together in the same room to consider questions that all digital humanists face (such as the nature of the academic job market, or lessons to be learned from particular projects). In recent years the morning lectures have showcased short presentations by graduate students in the field, a symptom of how student-driven the field has become even during the seven years since the DHSI began.

      The structure of the camp

    3. eek-long event that has run every spring since 2004, the DHSI combines the best aspects of a skills workshop, international conference, and summer camp. Participants spend five days attending plenary lectures and pursuing their own projects in courses on topics such

      description of DHSI

    4. The Digital Humanities Summer Institute and Extra- Institutional Modes of Engagement

      Bialkowski, Voytek, Rebecca Niles, and Alan Galey. 2011. “The Digital Humanities Summer Institute and Extra-Institutional Modes of Engagement.” Faculty of Information Quarterly 3 (3): 19–29. http://current.ischool.utoronto.ca/system/files/pages/publications/fiq_3-3.pdf#page=19.

    1. Figure 3 illustrates at what age ceased ‘indie’ journals stopped publishing. Most journals survived the first 2–5 years period, whereas the mortality rate rose in the critical 6–9 years period. After that, the number of journals ceasing dropped sharply, indicating that the surviving journals had found stability.

      Most critical period for journals is 6-9 years. After year ten, the number of journals that stop drops quickly

    2. The development over time of active ‘indie’ OA journals before and after 2002 is shown in Figs. 1A and 1B. A journal was counted as ‘active’ in a particular year if it was still publishing articles in that year. Before 2002 the number of active journals grew very rapidly from a total of 76 journals in 1995 to 207 journals in 2002. The year 2002 was the cut-off year to be included in the studied cohort, meaning that no new journals were added to the data set after this point in time. After 2002, the number of journals in the cohort decreased steadily to the 127 that stayed active in 2014.

      Interesting charts showing the rise and then decline of independent, scholar-published OA journals

    3. The average number of articles published was 31 per year with 74% publishing 0–30 articles, and 9% 60 or more. The study also contains interesting data about the workload done, revenues etc.

      Average numbers of articles in OJS journals: 31

      • 74% publish 0-30
      • 9% 60 or more
    4. “The key question for OA publishing is whether it can be scaled up from a single journal publishing model with relatively few articles published per year to a comprehensive major journal with of the order of 50–100 articles annually.” They further note: “The continuation of the journal relies very heavily on the personal involvement of the editor and is as such a risk to the model. Employing staff to handle, for example, management, layout and copyediting tasks, is a cost-increasing factor that also is a threat to the model.” Both questions are still highly relevant today.

      Key issues facing scholar-published journals: can they ramp up; can they survive succession.

    5. Earlier studies A number of previous studies, both snapshots and some with longitudinal elements, have shed light on different aspects of such type of journals, which for short we will call “indie” journals.

      Bibliography of "independent journals"

    6. Often the enthusiasm of the founders and their personal network can carry a volunteer-based journal for a few years. But at that same time this type of journal, which lack the support of employed staff and a professional publishing organization, are threatened by many dangers. The editor may change affiliation or retire, or the support of the university hosting the journal might be withdrawn. Authors may stop sending in good manuscripts and it may become more and more difficult to find motivated reviewers. Not being included in the Web of Science, and the impact factor that follows, may in the long run limit the number of submissions severely. On the positive side of the balance the emergence of open source software for publishing (i.e., Open Journals System) and cheap or free hosting services like Latin American Scielo have facilitated the technical parts of publishing.

      Problems with Scholar-published journals

    7. Most of the OA journals founded in the 1990s were of this variety, later many established subscription journals (particularly society ones) have made their digital versions freely available immediately or with a delay. This has been particularly noticeable in countries where cheap or free national or regional electronic portals have become available, like Scielo, Redalyc, and J-stage. Since around 2003 the OA market has become increasingly dominated by professionally published journals, which finance themselves by charging authors so-called article processing charges, APCs. At first such journals were being launched by open access publishers like BioMedCentral and PLOS, but in the last couple of years the major commercial and society publishers have increasingly started new OA journals and have also converted some subscription journals to APC-financed models.

      History of OA journals. Initially scholar-published, non-APC, post 2003 mostly APC-publisher-led journals

    8. Open Access (OA) is nowadays increasingly being used as a business model for the publishing of scholarly peer reviewed journals, both by specialized OA publishing companies and major, predominantly subscription-based publishers. However, in the early days of the web OA journals were mainly founded by independent academics, who were dissatisfied with the predominant print and subscription paradigm and wanted to test the opportunities offered by the new medium. There is still an on-going debate about how OA journals should be operated, and the volunteer model used by many such ‘indie’ journals has been proposed as a viable alternative to the model adopted by big professional publishers where publishing activities are funded by authors paying expensive article processing charges (APCs). Our longitudinal quantitative study of 250 ‘indie’ OA journals founded prior to 2002, showed that 51% of these journals were still in operation in 2014 and that the median number of articles published per year had risen from 11 to 18 among the survivors. Of these surviving journals, only 8% had started collecting APCs. A more detailed qualitative case study of five such journals provided insights into how such journals have tried to ensure the continuity and longevity of operations.


    9. A longitudinal study of independent scholar-published open access journals

      Björk, Bo-Christer, Cenyu Shen, and Mikael Laakso. 2016. “A Longitudinal Study of Independent Scholar-Published Open Access Journals.” PeerJ 4 (May). peerj.com: e1990. doi:10.7717/peerj.1990.

  3. download.springer.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca download.springer.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca
    1. Assessing obliteration by incorporation in a full-textdatabase: JSTOR, Economics, and the conceptof ‘‘bounded rationality’

      McCain, Katherine W. 2014. “Assessing Obliteration by Incorporation in a Full-Text Database: JSTOR, Economics, and the Concept of ‘bounded Rationality.’” Scientometrics 101 (2). Springer Netherlands: 1445–59. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1237-3.

  4. www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de
    1. On Close and Distant Reading in Digital Humanities:A Survey and Future Challenges

      Jänicke, S., G. Franzini, M. F. Cheema, and G. Scheuermann. n.d. “On Close and Distant Reading in Digital Humanities: A Survey and Future Challenges.”

    1. RateMyProfessors.com offers biased evaluations

      Legg, Angela M., and Janie H. Wilson. 2012. “RateMyProfessors.com Offers Biased Evaluations.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37 (1): 89–97. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.507299.

      Article used RMP questions in in-class surveys and then collected RMP results posted after the surveys were done. Found that the measures were different for the same questions in the two media,

    2. In support of RMP, Otto, Sanford, and Ross (2008) recently argued that RMP eval-uations are likely a valid method of assessing professor performance. They suggestedthat RMP ratings may contain little or no bias based on student self-selection. On theother side of this debate, Felton et al. (2008) argued that students who post on RMPare self-selected and even irresponsible. The authors reported that professor quality(average of helpfulness and clarity ratings) correlates both with hotness (attractive-ness) and easiness, making the website useless. Further, since the same students whopost on RMP are completing in-class evaluations, both sets of evaluations are suspect.We suggest that self-selection of raters on RMP creates quite a different studentprofile than what would be found in the classroom, allowing in-class evaluations toremain the gold standard.In order to examine possible bias, we might compare in-class evaluations withRMP evaluations. Timmerman (2008) compared RMP ratings for professors with apublic post of traditional faculty evaluations and found the two surveys to be corre-lated. Similarly, Brown, Baillie, and Fraser (2009) reported moderate-to-strongcorrelations between in-class and RMP evaluations; however, approximately 60% ofthe variability of in-class evaluations was not explained by RMP reports. In bothstudies, the authors attempted to match the constructs of helpfulness, clarity andeasiness on the two types of surveys even though university instruments did notspecifically offer items like those found on RMP. Regardless of the correlationsbetween in-class and RMP surveys, students tended to rate professors higher on bothhelpfulness and clarity when completing in-class evaluations as compared to whe

      Good rate my professors bibliography



  5. Jun 2016
    1. Electronic Beowulf 4.0

      This is the entrance to the edition

    2. The third edition of Electronic Beowulf was an html application on DVD that used a Java applet and JavaScript. When first published, major internet browsers could run the html application on PCs and Macs. However, security problems with Java in Summer 2013 forced all major browsers to disable unsigned Java applets compiled with earlier versions of Java. As it was compiled in 2011, Electronic Beowulf 3.0 was then disabled.

      Security-forced obsolescence

    1. Madden also made many careful facsimiles of damaged sections of the manuscript, revealing what appeared to him the exact state of the manuscript in 1824, long before the leaves were inlaid in their protective frames.

      This is the conclusion of the chapter

    2. When an interleaf contains a note, the O-button on the top menu will be green , and the drop-down menu is live. Click the arrows to open a drop-down menu and gain access to the interleaf or interleaves.

      Another interface code

    3. An 'Edition Search' under 'Apparatus' > 'Early Restorations' > 'Transcripts' includes in its results complete lists of later restorations.

      More instructions on how to do things.

    4. Humphrey Wanley, who transcribed a few lines of the Beowulf manuscript at the end of the seventeenth century and published them in 1705, is the only source for a few lost letters. At the end of the eighteenth century, Grimur Jonsson Thorkelin and his hired scribe, probably James Matthews, a British Museum staff member, together saved about 2000 letters that were subsequently lost by fire damage as a consequence of the Cottonian Library fire in 1731. John J. Conybeare and Frederic Madden, in the early nineteenth century, produced two collations, which together help test the accuracy of the Thorkelin transcripts and of their own collations.

      No background.

    1. Note on the Text

      This table of contents doesn't reflect the actual document hierarchy: it looks like it is a new document, but it is part of the previous one. Higher up on the TOC, an indent at this level indicates a new document as well.

    2. Digital technology makes it possible to test the paleographical validity of conjectural restorations, to see if a proposed restoration actually fits in the manuscript space. Underlying the folio image is a completely restored text of the palimpsest, with the gaps filled in using the scribe's own letterforms from elsewhere on the folio. To access the digital restorations go to the top menu, click the drop-down folio menu, and choose 'Conjectural Restorations'. A window with an overlay image of the folio opens.

      Doesn't discuss the reconstructions here, just tells you how to access them.

    3. Here it must suffice to say that Julius Zupitza's "freshening-up" hypothesis to explain the highly complex condition of this folio has nothing in its favor. Editors and scholars must abandon it to understand important facts about the history of the text of Beowulf

      Lack of argumentation in the text by itself. I.e. he uses the repository to do the arguing.

    4. The presence of the manuscript facsimile obviates the need for a strictly diplomatic transcription.

      Not really. Diplomatic transcription is also interpretative.

      This is in fact shown by Kiernan's own use of symbols to describe the (also present) images: i.e. ...) lost at margin.

      | to mark a line boundary

    1. This is an electronic version of a chapter in Poetry, Place, and Gender: Studies in Medieval Culture in Honor of Helen Damico, edited by Catherine E. Karkov. Medieval Institute Publications (Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, 2009), pp. 98-131. The black-and-white figures are replaced with color screenshots from the third edition of Electronic Beowulf.

      Another interesting bibliographic issue: this is a continuous, running, text of a chapter from a print book.

    1. In addition to tooltips like these in the textual notes there are also “transparencies” over some key folios, in particular the palimpsest, fol. 179 recto and verso, which allow the reader to study a conjectural restoration in the full context of its folio. The reader is alerted to the existence of one of these otherwise hidden overlays in two ways: (1) the textual note, where applicable, will include the statement, “See 'Conjectural Restoration';” and (2) the O-button on the top menu will be green:

      The addition of another UI convention

    2. A case in point is the obliterated text between syððan and þ on fol. 179r10. Any attempt at restoration is complicated by the fact that some of the ink traces, as conclusively shown by an overlay in Electronic Beowulf 4.0, come from an offset from the facing fol. 178v. Digital technology allows us to subtract these false leads and arrive at a more plausible restoration

      Great use of image processing to estimate what could be the conjectural readings.

    3. [italics]

      Do tool tips identify this or do we need to remember this section?

    4. To see the locations of these readings, click the red rectangle on the menu:

      A major option not on the option bar

    5. Differences in line numbering should present no problems to readers who wish to use Electronic Beowulf 4.0 with another edition, because we have provided searchable cross-references in the Options menu. Simply choose “Traditional” in Options to search by traditional line numbers and to show them as tooltips in the margins.
    1. Broken sentence here. Not quite sure what the 1300 is.

    2. For detailed instructions to all aspects of Electronic Beowulf 3.0, click on the online Index & Guide icon on the right side of the top menu. Once online, consult the comprehensive Index & Guide to the left for details of all features of the third edition of Electronic Beowulf.

      Beowulf 3.0 text snuck through here.

      This page is essentially identical to http://ebeowulf.uky.edu/studyingbeowulfs/overview except there this mistake was found.

    1. T he Future of Publications in the Humanities

      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.

  6. content.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca content.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca
    1. DARIAH the challenge involved conducting, analysing and understandingresearch practices of arts and humanities researchers, a largely ill-definedcommunity encompassing a wide spectrum of disciplines. Each of them dealswith a variety of objects employing an extensive number of methods. In thecontext of EHRI, the challenge is slightly different, due to the involvementof a better-defined research community. Holocaust researchers share well-identified objects, common ground on methods, and handle similar setbacks. In

      Really interesting idea: do an analysis of humanities researchers in general (DARIAH) and Holocaust researchers in specific (EHRI). One is very heterogeneous, the other very homogeneous (at least in terms of working conditions and, broadly speaking, data sources).

    2. argely ill-definedcommunity encompassing a wide spectrum of disciplines.

      description of "arts and humanities researchers"


      Benardou, Agiatis, Panos Constantopoulos, and Costis Dallas. 2013. “An Approach to Analyzing Working Practices of Research Communities in the Humanities.” International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 7 (1–2): 105–27. doi:10.3366/ijhac.2013.0084.

    1. (i) those who make only an occasional or rela- tively minor contribution to a piece of research; (ii) those not seen as, or treated as, 'proper' researchers (e.g., technicians, research assistants).

      Exclusion criteria from "collaborator":

      • those who make only minor or occasional contributions
      • "those not seen as, or treated as, 'proper' researchers (e.g. technicians, research assistants)" [!]
    2. (d) those responsible for a key step (e.g., the original idea or hypothesis, the theoretical interpreta- tion);

      Additional criteria for inclusion "sometimes":

      • Those responsible for a key step
      • original funder/proposer
    3. (a) those who work together on the research project throughout its duration or for a large part of it, or who make frequent or substantial contribution; (b) those whose names or posts appear in the original research proposal ~9; (c) those responsible for one or more of the main elements of the research (e.g. the experimental de- sign, construction of research equipment, execution of the experiment, analysis and interpretation of the data 20 writing up the results in a paper).

      Some core definitions:

      • Those who work together through the duration of a project
      • Those whose names appear on the original proposals
      • Those responsible for one or more of the "main elements of the research (e.g. the experimental design, construction of research equipment, execution of the experiment, analysis and interpretation of the data, writing up of the results in a paper)."
    4. putative criteria for distin- guishing 'collaborators' from other researchers.

      ways of distinguishing collaborators from "other researchers."

    5. one possibility would be to include as a 'collaborator' anyone providing an input to a particu- lar piece of research. However, this weak definition of collaboration would bring in such large numbers of collaborators that it would be too unwieldy for all practical purposes.

      "Unwieldy" being used as a criterion for deciding on what collaborators are.

    6. A.E. Nudelman and C.E. Landers, 1972, The failure of 100 divided by 3 to equal 333, American Sociologist 7, 9.

      Important bibliography on division of authorship credit

    7. Using a combination of questionnaires and interviews, Nudel- man and Landers [48] found that for the case of a three-author article the first author received 75% of the intellectual credit of a single-author paper, the second author 62% and the third author 58%. Thus, a three-author paper would be given a total of nearly twice the credit of a single-author paper.

      How credit for multi-authored papers is not fractional.

    8. They found that scientific output as mea- sured by publications is closely dependent on the frequency of collaboration among authors.

      Productivity is dependent on the frequency of collaboration.

    9. high productivity (in terms of published output) is indeed correlated with high levels of collaboration [1-4,24,30,51,52,58,60].

      Hi productivity is correlated with high collaboration

    10. A.J. Lotka. 1926, The frequency distribution of scientific productivity, Journal of the Washington Academy of Science 16, 317-323.

      Important bibliography

    11. A pioneering insight into the productivity of sci- entists was provided by Lotka in 1926--an insight since confirmed by numerous others. He showed that the number of authors producing n papers is propor- tional to 1/n 2 [32]. Thus, the number of researchers producing just one paper in a given period of time is two orders of magnitude greater than the number of researchers producing 10 papers in the same time and four orders of magnitude greater that the number producing 100 papers. Lotka's findings have led some investigators to ask if prolific authors tend to collaborate more than less prolific authors.

      Lotka's rule of productivity: 1/n2

    12. We also show that co-authorship is no more than a partial indicator of collaboration

      Coauthorship not 1:1 proxy for co-authorship

  7. jis.sagepub.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca jis.sagepub.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca
    1. ependingon the participants, the following kinds of col-laboration can be identified:

      Types of collaboration

      Actually, these are pretty weakly divided: I think there are really basically 4:

      • Teacher-pupil,
      • Colleague-colleague
      • Researcher-technician
      • Project-to-project
    2. (6) International col/ahoralÍon. International col-laborative behaviour among scientists has beenstudied by Frame and Carpenter [6]. The degree ofcollaboration was found to be higher in basicfields of science (such as physics, mathematics,and chemistry) than in applied fields (such asengineering and technology, clinical medicine andbiomedical research). Frame and Carpenter fur-ther found that(a) the extent of international collaboration wasinversely proportional to the size of a country’sscientific enterprise, and(b) extra-scientific factors such as geography,politics, and language, played a strong role indetermining who collaborates with whom in theinternational scientific community.

      International collaboration

    3. 5) Collaboration between organizations. Scien-tists and engineers employed in different organiza-tions often collaborate on research projects ofmutual interest. Such collaboration may be spurredby informal contacts or prior acquaintance of theresearchers. It is also possible that when a scientistleaves an organization and joins another, he or shemay carry on an unfinished research project in thenew organization with the continued collaborationof former colleagues. Inter-organizational col-laboration may also be necessitated by a commun-ity of concerns (as between two government agen-cies) or by the complexity of a research project, orwhen researchers in one organization may need touse expensive equipment or specialized serviceavailable at another organization. According torecent data published by the U.S. National ScienceFoundation, research collaboration between in-dustries and academic institutions has been gradu-ally increasing [ 1 1 J.

      Inter-organisation collaboration

    4. upert1isor- assistant collaboration. Earlierstudies on the sociology of science, for example, byCole and Cole [5], have shown the existence of astratified structure within the scientific commun-ity. In research projects requiring extensive use oflaboratory facilities or very specialized equipment,the principal investigator is often assisted by anarray of laboratory assistants and technicians.

      Really this could be better called "supervisor-technician" collaboration.

    5. (2) Collaboration among colleagues. It is a verycommon practice in corporate research centers fora number of colleagues to be working on one ormore projects, each contributing expertise in adifferent aspect of the project. In interdisciplinaryfields such as environment, energy, or space re-search, scientists and engineers from a wide varietyof specialities often collaborate. It is not uncom-mon for chemists, chemical engineers, materialsengineers, biophysicists, and other specialists to beworking together in an interdisciplinary project.Husband-and-wife teams can also be included inthis category.

      Collegial collaboration

    6. ( 1 ) Teacher-pupil collaboration. This is a verycommon mode of collaboration in an academicsetting. The professor in a university departmentprovides the ideas and guidance, and sometimesalso the funds from a research grant, and theresearch assistant or student does most of thebench work. The resulting project report, con-ference paper, or journal article usually carries thenames of both the professor and the student. It isnot uncommon for a professor to be guiding severalstudents in different research projects at the sametime

      Teacher-pupil collaboration

    7. Bibliometric studies of research collaboration:A review

      Subramanyam, K. 1983. “Bibliometric Studies of Research Collaboration: A Review.” J. Inf. Sci. Eng. 6 (1): 33–38.

    1. Friedlander argues that for digital humanities to thrive, "one component must be a set of organizational topics and questions that do not bind research into legacy categories and do invite interesting collaborations that will allow for creative cross-fertilization of ideas and techniques and then spur new questions to be pursued by colleagues and students"  [Friedlander 2009, 6]. As she suggests, the digital humanities need to move beyond large numbers of small, uncoordinated projects. Collaborative projects attract more resources and more attention. If properly designed, they also may be more sustainable, creating platforms on which new projects can be constructed. The plethora of boutique digital humanities projects risks the same fate as most digital learning objects. While intended for general use, they lack a common technical platform, common data structures, and common means to aggregate or decompose modules to a useful level of granularity [Borgman et al. 2008].

      Call not to be bound by legacy issues.

    2. Data in Digital Scholarship 23

      Data in digital scholarship

    1. Negotiate and Document Your Role. Faculty members and job candidates should negotiate their responsibilities and departmental roles in the creation of digital objects and the use, development, and support of information technologies in their teaching, service, and research. Faculty members and candidates for positions that combine administrative and faculty responsibilities, including the development and support of technological infrastructures, must negotiate terms for the evaluation of their work.

      Obligation to explain your work.

    1. p. 53

      Discussion of collaboration in DH:

      Collaboration is not, however, without its own problems and challenges, as scientific research practices have demonstrated. Aside from questions about how collaborative work will be reviewed for tenure and promotion, internal procedures for distributing authority, making editorial decisions, and apportioning credit (an especially crucial issue for graduate students and junior faculty) are typically worked out on a case-by-case basis with digital humanities projects.... Precedents worked out for scientific laboratories may not be appropriate for the digital humanities. While the lead scientist customarily receives authorship credit for all publications emerging from his laboratory, the digital humanities, with a stronger tradition of single authorship, may choose to craft very different kinds of protocols for deciding authorship credit, including giving <pb n="54"/>authorship credit (as opposed to acknowledgement) for the creative work of paid technical staff.

    1. Such anecdotes add to the body of evidence that the medical literature continues to be systematically manipulated to promote specific products.

      Evidence that medical writing is very different from other kinds of academic writing.

    1. With respect to the ICMJE guidelines, the “triple-lock” formula for distinguishing authors from contributors should be discarded. A model in which a variety of contributions require an individual or entity to be listed as an author should replace it.

      Argument for movie credit model

    2. How Industry Uses the ICMJE Guidelines to Manipulate Authorship—And How They Should Be Revised

      Really interesting discussion of how authorship requirements can be manipulated to hide influence.

    3. The “triple-lock” formula also helps downplay the importance of planning and writing texts. Only in clause 2 is “drafting” acknowledged as a component of authorship, but since this clause can be satisfied by revision, it enables the planner and writer to be excluded. In reality, drafting constitutes a substantial intellectual contribution to the form and content of manuscripts. It is for this reason that industry seeks to control it, while evading the visibility of byline authorship. The “triple lock” provides ideal support for these linked objectives.

      Importance of drafting.

    4. From industry's perspective, the most useful feature of the current ICMJE guidelines is the formula used to distinguish between authors and contributors (Figure 1). To qualify as an author, an individual must (1) contribute substantially to either conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; and (2) draft the article or revise it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) be responsible for final approval of the manuscript [2]. This “triple-lock” formula has become a de facto license for misrepresentation. Provided academics make some contribution to design or data analysis, some revisions to a manuscript, and approve it, they are required to be named as authors. By contrast, industry may conduct most of the design, data collection and analysis, and all the writing, but if sign-off is ceded to the academic, it is disqualified from authorship. Unsurprisingly, the practice of ceding final sign-off to academic “authors” is widespread in commercially driven publications.

      How industry uses the "sign off" requirement to avoid being named an author.

    5. Scientists and clinicians need to know the authorship, author interests, and origination of the articles they read to judge them appropriately.

      Why knowing authorship is important.

    6. Companies and writers who work on industry publications should be listed as byline authors.

      The medical writers also want credit.

    1. hy, then, do we persist with a practice of attributing scientific con-tribution that fails to capture the true nature of the underlying collaboration – or, more precisely, to cap-ture who did what? I

      Great question!

    1. Judith Singer, Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity at Harvard University, made the important point that in interdisciplinary collaborations a person’s name could end up in different positions in different publications despite what they did. As interdisciplinary collaborations grow, the problem will get worse. There was general agreement during the workshop that the ‘secret code’ used in author lists to signal level and type of contribution is ‘broken’ and new approaches are needed

      Different fields read authorship lists differently, meaning that the same placement can have different impacts on a career.

    1. Scientists could draw attention to their specific contributions to published work to distinguish their skills from those of collaborators or competitors, for example during a grant-application process or when seeking an academic appointment.

      Focus on distinguishing

    1. The Hardy-Littlewood Rule

      "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.

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

    1. Hyperauthorship:APostmodernPerversionorEvidenceofaStructuralShiftinScholarlyCommunicationPractices?

      Cronin, Blaise. 2001. “Hyperauthorship: A Postmodern Perversion or Evidence of a Structural Shift in Scholarly Communication Practices?” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52 (7): 558–69. doi:10.1002/asi.1097.

      This is a really important paper that anticipates a lot of the arguments I made in my 2013 Force11 talk.

      It discusses a history of what authorship means, glances at the idea that the use of "authorship fetishes writing, discusses how other schemes have made contribution much more important, and concludes with a discussion of differences between High Energy Physics and Biomedicine.

      Argues in the end weakly for a contributor model for those fields in which authorship can no longer capture the value of the cognitive labour involved in science.

    2. Historically, authorship implied writing and this associ-ation with the act of writing remains the core of the standardmodel of authorship acknowledgment. H

      authorship is associated with writing and remains the core of the standard model

    3. Whilecriticaltheoristsmayquestionthe“prestigeofauthorship”and“allmanifes-tationsofauthor-ity”(Birkerts,1994,pp.158–159)—whichhelpsexplainthepredilectionforpostmodernistandeschatologicaltitlessuchasTheDeathoftheAuthor(Bar-thes,1977),WhatisanAuthor?(Foucault,1977),andTheDeathofLiterature(Kernan,1990)—thereislittledoubtthatboththesymbolicandmaterialconsequencesofauthor

      Critical theorists may question the "prestige of authorship," but there is little doubt that the material consequences are more far reaching than they were in ancient times.

      Actually, this is a misreading of Foucault, who discusses the economic implications of authorship.

    1. Winston, Roger B. 1985. “A Suggested Procedure for Determining Order of Authorship In Research Publications.” Journal of Counseling & Development 63 (8): 515–18. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1985.tb02749.x.

      Interesting discussion of typology of credit and a point system attached to it. A nice alternative to the Fermilab approach perhaps!

      Also has some Social Science bibliography from the 1980s on how to determine authorship credit.



  8. screen.oxfordjournals.org screen.oxfordjournals.org
    1. What is an Author? fMichel Foucault

      Foucault, Michel. 1979. “Authorship: What Is an Author?” Screen 20 (1): 13–34. doi:10.1093/screen/20.1.13.

      Really interesting and far ranging essay about authorship. Shows how literary authorship is really a function: i.e. a thing we use to capture assumptions about ethical background to an oeuvre. Makes a number of useful distinctions among genres and the like in this regard,

      A very interesting discussion has to do with "initiators of discursive practices," which are in a certain sense the Humanities equivalent of Kuhn's paradigm shifters. He argues though, that people like Freud and Marx establish practices to which we "return," rather than disciplines that we refine (as he argues they do in science). This is not 100% true, in the sense that evolution is a theory in the Freudian sense, especially when it manifests itself as evolutionary psychology. But it is largely true, in the sense that there is less to be gained in rereading Galileo than in rereading Freud. (Although these line up roughly on a humanities/science division, it isn't 100%: I'd argue that oral formulaicism is more like Galileo than Freud, for example, while Darwin is more like Freud).

      An interesting companion to this is Fish 1988, where he argues against blind peer review in the humanities. He uses examples of other discourse initiators, like Frye, for example, to argue that their opinions are more important than others because of who they are.

      In my own notes, thinking about the article on scientific authorship, I developed the idea of Oeuvre as a key distinction between this kind of authorship and scientific authorship.

    2. verningthis function is the belief that there must be - at a particular levelof an author's thought, of his conscious or unconscious desire — apoint where contradictions are resolved, where the incompatibleelements can be shown to relate to one another or to cohere arounda fundamental and originating contradiction. Fin

      This is not true (in theory) of scientific authorship. We don't judge the coherence of the oeuvre.

      Again it conflict with Fish's view of literary criticism

    3. Assuming that we are dealing with an author, is everything hewrote and said, everything he left behind, to be included in hiswork

      This is very interesting, because it brings in Booth's Implied Author (i.e., basically, the "Author brand"). For literature, this is a real thing. We are interested in specific canons and ouevres because we like them and are attracted to the implied author they represent. But in Science writing, there should not be a similar implied author--in the sense that we shouldn't find science better because one person and wrote it and not another; we don't see science in terms of the ouevre of the author, but rather the instance of the work.

      This then finally, ties to Fish's point about how anonymity is not appropriate to literary criticism: he sees the existence of an ouevre being relevant there in a way it shouldn't be in science.

    4. shall try to answer. The first thing I shall sayis that I, personally, have never used the word 'structure'. Look forit in The Order of Things and you will not find it. Therefore, I wishI could be spared all the facile criticisms on structuralism, or elsethat these could be substantiated. Moreover, I did not say that theauthor did not exist; I did not say it and I am surprised that mylecture should have led to such a misunderstanding. Let us go ove

      Great answer!

    5. Michel Foucault raised another problem in his lecture: that ofecriture. I think it is better to give this discussion a name, since Iexpect that we have all been thinking of Derrida and his system.We know that Derrida is attempting (a gamble which I find para-doxical) to elaborate a philosophy of writing, while at the sametime denying the existence of the subject. This is all the morecurious since this concept of writing is otherwise very close to thedialectical concept of practice. To quote but one example amongothers: I can only agree with him when he tells us that writingleaves traces which eventually efface themselves; it is the propertyof every practice, be it the construction of a temple, which dis-appears after several centuries or millenia, the opening of a road,the altering of its course or, more prosaically, the manufacture of acouple of sausages which are then eaten

      Ties the discussion of ecriture to derrida.

    6. can easily imagine a culture wherediscourse would circulate without any need for an author. Dis-courses, whatever their status, form, or value, and regardless of ourmanner of handling them, would unfold in a pervasive anonymity.No longer the tiresome repetitions: 'Who is the real author?' 'H

      Great epigraph for article on scientific authorship

      We can easily imagine a culture where discourse would circulate without any need for an author. Discourses, whatever their status, form, or value, and regardless of our manner of handling them, would unfold in a pervasive anonymity. No longer the tiresome repetitions: 'Who is the real author?' 'Have we proof of his authenticity and originality?' 'What has he revealed of his most profound self in his language?' New questions will be heard: 'What are the modes of existence of this discourse?' 'Where does it come from; how is it circulated; who controls it,' 'What placements are determined for possible subjects?' 'Who can fulfill these diverse functions of the subject?' Behind all these questions we would hear little more than the murmur of indifference: 'What matter who's speaking?'

    7. A study of Galileo's works could alter our knowledge ofthe history, but not the science, of mechanics; whereas, a re-examination of the books of Freud or Marx can transform ourunderstanding of psychoanalysis or Marxism

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

    8. In keeping with this distinction, we can understand why it isinevitable that practitioners of such discourses must 'return to theorigin*.

      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.

    9. The initiation of a discursive practice,unlike the founding of a science, overshadows and is necessarilydetached from its later developments and transformations. As aconsequence, we define the theoretical validity of a statement withrespect to the work of the initiator, whereas in the case of Galileoor Newton, it is based on the structural and intrinsic norms estab-lished in cosmology or physics. Stated schematically, the work ofthese initiators is not situated in relation to a science or in thespace it defines; rather, it is science or discursive practice thatrelate to their works as the primary points of reference.

      On the difference between scientific and discursive schools. I don't find it convincing.

    10. On the other hand, the initiation of a discursive practice isheterogeneous to its ulterior transformations. To extend psycho-analytic practice, as initiated by Freud, is not to presume a formalgenerality that was not claimed at the outset; it is to explore anumber of possible applications. To limit it is to isolate in theoriginal texts a small set of propositions or statements that areirecognized as having an inaugurarive value and that mark otherFreudian concepts or theories as derivative. Fi

      Don't find this a convincing distinction, I must say.

    11. a scientific programme, the founding act is on an equal footingI with its future transformations: it is merely one among the manymodifications that it makes possible. This interdependence cantake several forms. In the future development of a science, thefounding act may appear as little more than a single instance of amore general phenomenon that has been discovered. It might bequestioned, in retrospect, for being too intuitive or empirical andsubmitted to the rigours of new theoretical operations in order tosituate it in a formal domain. Finally, it might be thought a hastygeneralization whose validity should be restricted. In other words,the founding act of a science can always be rechannelled through' the machinery of transformations it has instituted.

      Paradigm shifts are part of the science that follows (i.e. are filled in by normal science, in Kuhn's terms).

    12. ficially,then, the initiation of discursive practices appears similar to thefounding of any scientific endeavour, but I believe there is a funda-/ mental difference

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

    13. other hand, Marx and Freud, as'initiators of discursive practices', not only made possible a certainnumber of analogies that could be adopted by future texts, but,as importantly, they also made possible a certain number of dif-ferences. They cleared a space for the introduction of elementsother than their own, which, nevertheless, remain within the fieldof discourse they initiated. In saying that Freud founded psycho-analysis, we do not simply mean that the concept of libido or thetechniques of dream analysis reappear in the writings of KarlAbraham or Melanie Klein, but that he made possible a certainnumber of differences with respect to his books, concepts, andhypotheses, which all arise out of psychoanalytic discourse.

      How Freud and Marx shift the paradigm: "not only made possible a certain number of analogies that could be adopted by future texts, but, as importantly, they also made possible a certain number of differences."

      I don't find the "differences" part convincingly expressed, but I think he means that they created domain-boundaries: not just, "here's the id, you can use it" but also "hey, we can analyse dreams."

    14. The distinctive contribution of these authors is that they pro-duced not only their own work, but the possibility and the rulesof formation of other texts. In this sense, their role differs entirelyfrom that of a novelist, for example, who is basically never morethan the author of his own text. Freud is not simply the author ofThe Interpretation of Dreams or of Wit and its Relation to theUnconscious and Marx is not simply the author of the CommunistManifesto or Capital: they both established the endless possibilityof discourse. Obviously, an easy objection can be made. The authorof a novel may be responsible for more than his own text; if heacquires some 'importance' in the literary world, his influence canhave significant ramifications. To take a very simple example, onecould say that Ann Radcliffe did not simply write The Mysteriesof Udolpho and a few other novels, but also made possible theappearance of Gothic Romances at the beginning of the nine-teenth century. To this extent, her function as an author exceedsthe limits of her work. However, this objection can be answeredby the fact that the possibilities disclosed by the initiators of dis-cursive practices (using the examples of Marx and Freud, whomI believe to be the first and the most important) are significantlydifferent from those suggested by novelists. The novels of AnnRadcliffe put into circulation a certain number of resemblances andanalogies patterned on her work - various characteristic signs,figures, relationships, and structures that could be integrated intoother books. In short, to say that Ann Radcliffe created the GothicRomance means that there are certain elements common to herworks and to the nineteenth-century Gothic romance: the heroineruined by her own innocence, the secret fortress that functions as

      Really useful passage to compare to Kuhn. This is basically an argument about paradigm shifters and normal science as applied to literature.

    15. I believe that the nineteenth century in Europe produced asingular type of author who should not be confused with 'great'literary authors, or the authors of canonical religious texts, andthe founders of sciences. Somewhat arbitrarily, we might call them'initiators of discursive practices'.

      Has another category: people like Marx and Freud (and I'd say Darwin) who constructed theories that are productive in other works as well. These are "initiators or discursive practices."

      This ties in well with Kuhn's paradigms.

    16. However, it is obvious that even within the realm ofdiscourse a person can be the author of much more than a book -of a theory, for instance, of a tradition or a discipline within whichnew books and authors can proliferate. For convenience, we couldsay that such authors occupy a 'transdiscursive' position.

      Nice move. Identifies authors of movements as well: could include Homer, Artistotle, church fathers

    17. author-function' is tiedto the legal and institutional systems that circumscribe, determine,and articulate the realm of discourses; it does not operate in auniform manner in all discourses, at all times, and in any givenculture; it is not defined by the spontaneous attribution of a textto its creator, but through a series of precise and complex pro-cedures; it does not refer, purely and simply, to an actual individualinsofar as it simultaneously gives rise to a variety of egos and to aseries of subjective positions that individuals of any class may

      Four characteristics of the "author-function":

      1. "the 'author-function' is tied to the legal and institutional systems that circumscribe, determine,and articulate the realm of discourses;"
      2. "it does not operate in a uniform manner in all discourses, at all times, and in any given culture";
      3. "it is not defined by the spontaneous attribution of a text to its creator, but through a series of precise and complex procedures";
      4. it does not refer, purely and simply, to an actual individual in so far as it simultaneously gives rise to a variety of egos and to aseries of subjective positions that individuals of any class may come to occupy"
    18. athe-matical treatise, the ego who indicates the circumstances of com-position in the preface is not identical, either in terms of his posi-tion or his function, to the T who concludes a demonstrationwithin the body of the text. The former implies a unique individualwho, at a given time and place, succeeded in completing a project,whereas the latter indicates an instance and plan of demonstrationthat anyone could perform provided the same set of axioms, pre-liminary operations, and an identical set of symbols were used. It isalso possible to locate a third ego: one who speaks of the goals of' his investigation, the obstacles encountered, its results, and theproblems yet to be solved and this T would function in a field ofexisting or future mathematical discourses. We are not dealing witha system of dependencies where a first and essential use of the Tis reduplicated, as a kind of fiction, by the other two. On thecontrary, the 'author-function' in such discourses operates so as toeffect the simultaneous dispersion of the three egos

      Hmmm. Argues for a "second self" in scientific writing.

      1. I'm not sure this kind of first person is that common (though it is common in literary criticism);
      2. If it is, I'm not sure there is a distinction between the author and some narrator-type figure or his third category (the person who speaks of the goals of the investigation (an implied author?)).
    19. ight object that thisphenomenon only applies to novels or poetry, to a context of 'quasi-discourse', but, in fact, all discourse that supports this 'author-function' is characterized by the plurality of egos. In a

      There you go: he means that grammar changes in all texts that support the "author-function". Somehow he distinguishes this from simply "poetic texts," but I'm not sure why or how.

    20. ave a different bearing on texts with an author and 23on those without one. In the latter, these 'shifters' refer to a realspeaker and to an actual deictic situation, with certain exceptionssuch as the case of indirect speech in the first person. When dis-course is linked to an author, however, the role of 'shifters' is morecomplex and variable. It is well known that in a novel narrated inthe first person, neither the first person pronoun, the presentindicative tense, nor, for that matter, its signs of localization referdirectly to the %vriter, either to the time when he wrote, or to thespecific act of writing; rather, they stand for a 'second self whosesimilarity to the author is never fixed and undergoes considerablealteration within the course of a single book. It

      Grammar has different meaning with fictional author and non-author texts: in the second case (not fiction), the grammar is deictic; in the former, it is literary.

      This is a really interesting point, by I think MF is confusing terms a little. the issue has to do with the deictic nature of the text rather than the availability of an author-attribution (unless he means "literary author of the kind I've been discussing as an author-function").

    21. ccording to Saint Jerome, there are four criteria:the texts that must be eliminated from the list of works attributedto a single author are those inferior to the others (thus, the authoris defined as a standard level of quality); those whose ideas conflictwith the doctrine expressed in the others( here the author is definedas a certain field of conceptual or theoretical coherence); thosewritten in a different style and containing words and phrases notordinarily found in the other works (the author is seen as a stylisticuniformity); and those referring to events of historical figures sub-sequent to the death of the author (the author is thus a definitehistorical figure in which a series of events converge). Alth

      Jerome's criteria that rule out an authorship attribution:

      1. Author as standard of quality (work is less good than you'd expect)
      2. Author is field of conceptual or theoretical coherence (i.e. this work disagrees with some other work by the person)
      3. Stylistic uniformity (written in different style)
      4. Temporal unit (i.e. written before or after the author's known life).
    22. alue of a text by ascertaining the holiness of its author. In

      prove the value of a text by asserting the holiness of its author.

      This is ironically what T&P committees do.

    23. In literary criticism, for example, the traditional methods fordefining an author - or, rather, for determining the configurationof the author from existing texts - derive in large part from thoseused in the Christian tradition to authenticate (or to reject) theparticular texts in its possession. Modern criticism, in its desireto 'recover' the author from a work, employs devices stronglyreminiscent of Christian exegesis w

      Relationship of literary criticism to exegesis

    24. There are, nevertheless, transhistorical constants in therules that govern the construction of an author.

      Argues that there are transhistorical contstraints on construction of author. Transgeneric as well?

    25. In addition, all these operations vary according to the periodand the form of discourse concerned. A 'philosopher' and a 'poet'are not constructed in the same manner; and the author of aneighteenth-century novel was formed differently from the modernnovelist.

      Argues that the construction and meaning of "the author" varies by time and genre.

    26. The third point concerning this 'author-function' is that it is notformed spontaneously through the simple attribution of a discourseto an individual. It results from a complex operation whose pur-pose is to construct the rational entity we call an author. Un-doubtedly, this construction is assigned a 'realistic' dimension aswe speak of an individual's 'profundity' or 'creative' power, hisintentions or the original inspiration manifested in writing. Never-theless, these aspects of an individual, which we designate as anauthor (or which comprise an individual as an author), are pro-jections, in terms always more or less psychological, of our way ofhandling texts: in the comparisons we make, the traits we extractas pertinent, the continuities we assign, or the exclusions we prac-tise.

      Version of the "Implied author"

    27. At the same time, however, 'literary' discourse was acceptableonly if it carried an author's name; every text of poetry or fictionwas obliged to state its author and the date, place and circumstanceof its writing. The meaning and value attributed to the text de-pended on this information. If by accident or design a text waspresented anonymously, every effort was made to locate its author.Literary anonymity was of interest only as a puzzle to be solved as,in our day, literary works are totally dominated by the sovereigntyof the author. (

      At the same time scientific authorship was becoming anonymous, literary authorship was no longer accepted as anonymous (this is something Chartier disagrees with emphatically)

    28. the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries, a totally new conception was developed whenscientific texts were accepted on their own merits and positionedwithin an anonymous and coherent conceptual system of estab-lished truths and methods of verification. Authentification no longerrequired reference to the individual who had produced them; therole of the author disappeared as an index of truthfulness and,where it remained as an inventor's name, it was merely to denot

      Argues that in the 17th and 18th centuries, science was supposed to stand on its own and the author vanished as the "index of truthfulness." Interesting that one of the main arguments in favour of maintaining scientific authorship now is this index of truthfulness

    29. exts, however, that we now call 'scien-tific' (dealing with cosmology and the heavens, medicine or illness,the natural sciences or geography) were only considered truthfulduring the Middle Ages if the name of the author was indicated.Statements on the order of 'Hippocrates said ..." or 'Pliny tellsus that . . .' were not merely formulas for an argument based onauthority, they marked a proven discourse. In the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries, a totally new conception was developed whenscientific texts were accepted on their own merits and positionedwithin an anonymous and coherent conceptual system of estab-lished truths and methods of verification. Authentification no longerrequired reference to the individual who had produced them; therole of the author disappeared as an index of truthfulness and,where it remained as an inventor's name, it was merely to denote

      Chartier argues that this is very wrong in his history.

      Foucault here argues that scientific authors did exist in the "Middle Ages" because they were an "index of truthfulness"--so not really authors but guarantors.

    30. Secondly, the 'author-function' is not universal or constant in alldiscourse. Even within our civilization, the same types of textshave not always required authors; there was a time when thosetexts which we now call 'literary' (stories, folk tales, epics, andtragedies) were accepted, circulated, and valorized without anyquestion about the identity of their author. Their anonymity wasignored because their real or supposed age was a sufficient guaran-tee of their authenticity. T

      on differentiating among texts.

    31. First, they are objects of appropriation; the form of propertythey have become is of a particular type whose legal codificationwas accomplished some years ago. It is important to notice, aswell, that its status as property is historically secondary to thepenal code controlling its appropriation. Speeches and books wereassigned real authors, other than mythical or important religiousfigures, only when the author became subject to punishment andto the extent that his discourse was considered transgressive. Inour culture - undoubtedly in others as well - discourse was notoriginally a thing, a product, or a possession, but an action situatedin a bipolar field of sacred and profane, lawful and unlawful, reli-gious and blasphemous. It was a gesture charged with risks longbefore it became a possession caught in a circuit of property values.But it was at the moment when a system of ownership and strictcopyright rules were established (toward the end of the eighteenthand beginning of the nineteenth century) that the transgressiveproperties always intrinsic to the act of writing became the force-ful imperative of literature. It is as if the author, at the momenthe was accepted into the social order of property which governsour culture, was compensating for this new status by revivingthe older bipolar field of discourse in a systematic practice of trans-gression and by restoring the danger of writing which, on anotherside, had been conferred the benefits of property

      Importance of "author" for commerce and control. This is true of scientific writing, but in a slightly different way. The type of thing he is talking about here has to do with Oeuvre.

    1. No Bias, No Merit: The Case against Blind Submission

      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.

    2. But perhaps the greatest change is the one that renders the key opposition of the essay-between the timeless realm of literature and the pressures and exigencies of politics-inaccurate as a description of the assumptions prevailing in the profession. There are of course those who still believe that literature is defined by its independence of social and political contexts (a "concrete universal" in Wimsatt's terms), but today the most influential and up-to-date voices are those that proclaim exactly the reverse and ar- gue that the thesis of literary autonomy is itself a political one, part and parcel of an effort by the con- servative forces in society to protect traditional values from oppositional discourse. Rather than reflecting, as Ransom would have it, an "order of existence" purer than that which one finds in "actual life," lit- erature in this new (historicist) vision directly and vigorously "participates in historical processes and in the political management of reality" (Howard 25). Moreover, as Louis Montrose observes, if litera- ture is reconceived as a social rather than a merely aesthetic practice, literary criticism, in order to be true to its object, must be rearticulated as a social practice too and no longer be regarded as a merely academic or professional exercise (11-12

      How much literary criticism changed between 1979, 1982, and 1988! From ontological wholes to politicised

    3. Reviewers who receive a paper from which the identifying marks have been removed will immediately put in place an (imagined) set of circumstances of exactly the kind they are supposedly ignoring. I

      creating an implied author in peer review

    4. Nevertheless, there were a few who questioned that definition of fairness and challenged the assumption that it was wrong for reviewers to take institutional affiliation and history into consider- ation. "We consider a result from a scientist who has never before been wrong much more seriously than a similar report from a scientist who has never before been right. . . . It is neither unnatural nor wrong that the work of scientists who have achieved eminence through a long record of important and suc- cessful research is accepted with fewer reservations than the work of less eminent scientists" (196). "A reviewer may be justified in assuming at the outset that [well-known] people know what they are do- ing" (211). "Those of us who publish establish some kind of track record. If our papers stand the test of time . . . it can be expected that we have acquired expertise in scientific methodology" (244). (This last respondent is a woman and a Nobel laureate.)

      Fish reporting on the minority in response to Peters and Ceci who argued that track records should count in peer review of science

    5. A similar point is made by some of the participants in a discussion of peer review published in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences: An International Journal of Current Research and Theory with Open Peer Commentary (5 [1982]: 187-255). The occasion was the report of research conducted by D. P. Peters and S. J. Ceci. Peters and Ceci had taken twelve articles published in twelve different journals, altered the titles, substituted for the names of the authors fictitious names identified as researchers at institu- tions no one had ever heard of (because they were, made up), and resubmitted the articles to the jour- nals that had originally accepted them. Three of the articles were recognized as resubmissions, and of the remaining nine eight were rejected. The response to these results ranged from horror ("It puts at risk the whole conceptual framework within which we are accustomed to make observations and con- struct theories" [245]) to "so what else is new."

      Peters & Ceci 1982 comes up!

    6. c. To the question "What is criti- cism?" Ransom answers with what it is n

      Again definition by exclusion

    7. Before that meeting was held, however, a second letter arrived, written this time by "my" president, informing me that the constitution was in fact already available in the form of the constitution, ready made as it were, of the Milton Society, which also, the letter went on to say, was to provide the model for a banquet, a reception, an after-dinner speaker, an honored scholar, and the publication of a membership booklet, the chief function of which was to be the listing of the publications, recent and forthcoming, of the members. The manner in which work on Spenser is to be recognized and honored will have its source not in a direct confrontation with the poet or his poem but in the apparatus of an organization devoted to another poet. Spenser studies will be imita- tive of Milton studies; the anxiety of influence, it would seem, can work backwards. Moreover, it con- tinues to work. The recent mail has brought me, and some of you, an announcement of a new publication, the Sidney Newsletter, to be organized, we are told, "along the lines of the well-established and highly successful Spenser Newsletter," which was organized along the lines of the well-established and highly successful Milton Newsletter

      Colonisation of Milton by the Spenser society. Anxiety of Influence among scholarly societies.

    8. Here is the real message of the letter and the real rationale of the Spenser Society of America: to multiply the institutional contexts in which writing on Spenser will at once be demanded and published. It so happens that the letter was written before the society's first meeting, but as this sentence shows, the society need never have met at all, since its most impor- tant goal-the creation of a Spenser industry with all its attendant machinery-had already been achieved

      The creation of the Spenser industry: how communities create fields

    9. . It follows then that the machinery of the institution does not grow up to accommodate needs that are independently perceived but that, rather, the institutional machinery comes first and the needs then follow, as do the ways of meeting them. In short, the work to be done is not what the institution responds to but what it create

      On the creative nature of literary criticism

    10. t "[ilf Northrop Frye should write an essay attacking archetypal criticism, the article would by definition be of much greater significance than an article by another scholar attack- ing the same approach" (Schaefer 5). The reason, of course, is that the approach is not something in- dependent of what Northrop Frye has previously said about it; indeed, in large part archetypal criticism is what Northrop Frye has said about it, and therefore anything he now says about it is not so much to be measured against an independent truth as it is to be regarded, at least potentially, as a new pronouncement of what the truth will hereafter be said to be

      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.

    11. what the Waddington-Lewis example shows (among other things) is that merit, rather than being a quality that can be identified independently of professional or institutional conditions, is a product of those conditions; and, moreover, since those conditions are not stable but change con- tinually, the shape of what will be recognized as meritorious is always in the process of changing too. So that while it is true that as critics we write with the goal of living up to a standard (of worth, illumi- nation, etc.) it is a standard that had been made not in eternity by God or by Aristotle but in the profes- sion by the men and women who have preceded us; and in the act of trying to live up to it, we are also, and necessarily, refashioning

      merit is fashioned by communal practice

    12. Everyone is aware of that risk, although it is usually not acknowledged with the explicitness that one finds in the opening sentence of Raymond Waddington's essay on books 11 and 12 of Paradise Lost. "Few of us today," Waddington writes, "could risk echoing C. S. Lewis's condemnation of the concluding books of Paradise Lost as an 'untransmuted lump of futurity"' (9). The nature of the risk that Wad- dington is about not to take is made clear in the very next sentence, where we learn that a generation of critics has been busily demonstrating the subtlety and complexity of these books and establishing the fact that they are the product of a controlled poetic design. What this means is that the kind of thing that one can now say about them is constrained in advance, for, given the present state of the art, the critic who is concerned with maintaining his or her professional credentials is obliged to say something that makes them better. Indeed, the safest thing the critic can say (and Waddington proceeds in this es- say to say it) is that, while there is now a general recognition of the excellence of these books, it is still the case that they are faulted for some deficiency that is in fact, if properly understood, a virtue. Of course, this rule (actually a rule of thumb) does not hold across the board. When Waddington observes that "few of us today could risk," he is acknowledging, ever so obliquely, that there are some of us who could. Who are they, and how did they achieve their special status? Well, obviously C. S. Lewis was once one (although it may not have been a risk for him, and if it wasn't why wasn't it?), and if he had not already died in 1972, when Waddington was writing, presumably he could have been one again. That is, Lewis's status as an authority on Renaissance literature was such that he could offer readings with- out courting the risk facing others who might go against the professional grain, the risk of not being listened to, of remaining unpublished, of being unattended to, the risk of producing something that was by definition-a definition derived from prevailing institutional conditions-without me

      on the necessity of discovering virtue in literary work as a professional convention of our discipline.

      This is a really interesting and useful passage for my first year lectures

    13. Instead they would be dismissed as being a waste of a colleague's time, or as beside the point, or as uninformed, or simply as unprofessional. This last judgment would not be a casual one; to be unprofessional is not simply to have violated some external rule or piece of decorum. It is to have ig- nored (and by ignoring flouted) the process by which the institution determines the conditions under which its rewards will be given or withheld. These conditions are nowhere written down, but they are understood by everyone who works in the field and, indeed, any understanding one might have of the field is inseparable from (because it will have been produced by) an awareness, often tacit, of these con- ditions

      On the role of professionalism in enforcing community standards:

      [T]o be unprofessional is not simply to have violated some external rule or piece of decorum. It is to have ignored (and by ignoring flouted) the process by which the institution determines the conditions under which its rewards will be given or withheld. These conditions are nowhere written down, but they are understood by everyone who works in the field and, indeed, any understanding one might have of the field is inseparable from (because it will have been produced by) an awareness, often tacit, of these conditions

      This is very applicable to scientific authorship

    14. convention is a way of acknowledging that we are engaged in a com- munity activity in which the value of one's work is directly related to the work that has been done by others;

      Convention is a way of acknowledging we are engaged in a community activity in which the value of one's work is directly related to the work that has been done by others.

      Interesting riff on professionalism in this whole paragraph.

    15. one bothers to define it, except negatively as everything apart from the distractions of rank, affilia- tion, professional status, past achievements, ideological identification, sex, "or anything that might be known about the author"

      People are able to define merit by its absence... like excellence.

    16. Everyone agrees that intrinsic merit should be protected; it is just a ques- tion of whether or not the price of protection-the possible erosion of the humanistic community-is too high. In what follows I would like not so much to enter the debate as to challenge its terms by argu- ing that merit is not in fact identifiable apart from the "extraneous considerations" that blind submis- sion would supposedly eliminate. I want to argue, in short, that there is no such thing as intrinsic merit, and indeed, if I may paraphrase James i, "no bias, no merit

      Fish arguing that intrinsic merit doesn't exist

    17. . Predict- ably, Schaefer's statement provoked a lively exchange in which the lines of battle were firmly, and, as I will argue, narrowly, drawn. On the one hand those who agreed with Schaefer feared that a policy of anonymous review would involve a surrender "to the spurious notions about objectivity and absolute value that . . . scientists and social scientists banter about"; on the other hand those whose primary concern was with the fairness of the procedure believed that "[jiustice should be blind" ("Correspon- dence" 4). Each side concedes the force of the opposing argument-the proponents of anonymous re- view admit that impersonality brings its dangers, and the defenders of the status quo acknowledge that it is important to prevent "extraneous considerations" from interfering with the identification of true merit (5)

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