Notes taken at THATCamp uToronto session II on collaboration
Collaboration
This session on collaborative research took place at THATCamp uToronto on 28 May 2010 from 11:45 to 1:00 in the JHB 10th floor meeting room.
Present: Christine Berkowitz, Matt Price, Siobhan O’Flynn, Jason Boyd, Michael Gervers, Daniel Gruner, Steven Hermans, Ravit David, Kim Yates.
The session quickly focused in on the shifts in the Canadian funding environment toward models that favour collaborations between scholars in multiple disciplines, and even between academic and non-academic organizations. The new SSHRC Architecture was discussed in some detail.
Matt: Forming links outside the university, community organizations. National identity not as tied in to our history as a place.
Siobhan: other DH programs; just at MIT Visualizations conference. Joanna Drucker: difference between “data” and “capta” – data in context, understood through mediations that bring interpretation to data. Discussion of what we mean by data and how we are interfacing and engaging with data.
Jason: 2 levels of collaboration: what are the tools? And larger research issues, which are a point at which scholars and outside researchers can come together, such as INKE, addressing e-readers and the practice of reading. How do we as teachers and scholars find what we need, and what are the implications of using them? Channels of scholarly communication exist, but how do we speak to the public sector when our research question intersects. What kind of platforms are there? No DH version of Twitter. HUMANIST is very good for European developments. HASTAC.org is an interesting platform; basically a US-based communication platform; flexible group. HASTAC scholars are grad students who are asked to blog about DH on their campus. Also have partners who are institutions (could JHI do this?); they are open to Canadian universities participating.
Michael: what is the point of the collaboration? Financing, or to manage a particular project. Good experience with Statistics in which my data and their algorithm came together. There may be different forms to this question. Difficult to locate someone in the commercial world who has an interest in what we are doing unless there is an obvious product, a payoff for them. Many EU projects out of Brussels. Working with France on property exchange documents; place is connected with historical research (this is less obvious in Canada, where the government does not have as much history to support). My own project last year brought researchers from Canada, US, UK together; I wanted to develop a much larger database of charters, had 40 people on board, did not get funded. Only 8% of applications were funded. So little actual money available after so much work. At least a group of colleagues emerged, but their interest declined when no money was available.
Daniel: Feds’ official line is that all we need is technology.
Steven: SSHRC is trying to work at the investigator level rather than the institutional level. It is much smaller than all other players (i.e., NEH) and often not even on the radar of the others. Its new architecture is trying to erase boundaries between different scales of funding. Partnership model is much more open; adjudication is to the project, not to a rigid definition of what constitutes a project. Still a Canadian funding body; the final iteration will not be out until next month, but they seem willing to fund international collaborators only in development phase. Push for collaboration: Talent, Insight, Connection themes – connection is really about creating ways to use digital technology for other researchers and even beyond research community. SSHRC’s assessment is all about articulating value to the Canadian public. Engage at a level of who wants this, why fund this. Definition of excellence in the academy: what looks most like me. Book by Michelle Dumont, sociologist, on peer review process. SSHRC doesn’t need explicit explanation of technical qualifications, but CFI does. CFI is usually about buying equipment, but not operations; humanities researchers have not been applying for CFI; didn’t indicate technical levels needed, also scaled too small. Need to say programmers are infrastructure. Knowledge brokering: at U of T we don’t see collegial projects, don’t have clearinghouses to streamline the process of connection. Do fruitful projects emerge organically, or can they be administered? Can we automate the human connection or is it simply more efficient to allow for the face to face?
Christine: We are reinventing the wheel; how do we connect, form a clearinghouse for digital initiatives: projects in development, up and running, opportunities for collaborations, across disciplines and even outside humanities and into the sciences. Its all data, how you interface is another question. Frustration with how: there is so much out there, how to connect. Drupal? I am wondering if grassroots community-building doesn’t ultimately lead to the larger collaboration and connection outside the academy. If we had an inventory at U of T… but not everyone using digital technology sees themselves as doing DH. This connects to the perception of public value. There is a broader constituency that has the potential to become more engaged. Collaboration at UTSC – began with the History Engine project, classes contributing with Virginia. David’s religion project needed mapping; IT folks introduced the Portals to the Past project based on Shakespeare in the English faculty; great name, what else can we add? Primary sources? Publication using History Engine model? Central gateway for students. Connection comes back to the classroom. Almost coincidental, offices located on same floor. Often serendipitous.
Ravit: SSHRC has different committees for standard research grants. Problem with DH is usually the interdisciplinarity, methodological. How does SSHRC fund DH proposals? (Steven: through Image, Sound, Text & Technology committee, but the new architecture will no longer have a separate committee for technology, now adjudicated at disciplinary level according to scale. Tools category coming, not for 2 years, will encourage outreach beyond the academy.) CWRK got CFI Leading Edge money for infrastructure but not for research support. Collaboration can be forced by funding structures. Academia is insular, everyone fending on his own.
