Feedback

For those who have participated in one of our Publishing Makerspace workshops, what are some of your next steps?  What type of Publishing Makerspace do you envision creating, and who would you recruit as collaborators?  What feedback do you have for us to help us refine our concept?

RFP for Scholarly Communication Institute 2014 Workshop: Scholarship and the Crowd

The Scholarly Communication Institute, funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, invites proposals from groups interested in participating in a series of seminars, discussions, presentations, and workshops, to be held over four days in Chapel Hill, NC, in November 2014.

The SCI aims to bring together groups of scholars, information scientists, librarians, publishers, technologists, and others from both inside and outside academia (i.e., journalists, industry, non-profit organizations, museums, independent researchers) to articulate and begin to address needs and opportunities in the domain of scholarly communications.

The SCI is not a traditional conference, but rather a forum for teams of individuals from diverse backgrounds to devote concentrated time to defining shared challenges, exploring creative strategies, and forging new collaborations, in a spirit of bold and open experimentation, and focused on one or more of a set of annually changing themes.

 

2014 Theme: Scholarship and the Crowd

New technologies have opened opportunities to more easily engage broad audiences in contributing to and benefiting from scholarship. While it has always been possible to engage amateurs and the general public in scholarly work, now it’s easier to do it at scale. The internet, open access licenses, new tools, new ideas and new processes enable scholarly endeavors both to reach larger and more diverse audiences outside the academy, but also to invite them to collect data, provide their own interpretation, perform tasks contribute to scholarly analysis, and more.

Whether intentionally (through volunteering to work with a scholarly project, such as the Zooniverse or Transcribe Bentham projects) or indirectly (through projects like Duolingo, reCAPTCHA, or projects that analyze photos contributed to the commons by thousands of photographers) there are now opportunities for much broader publics to be engaged in scholarship and building of archives that can be used for scholarly analysis.

Many people now carry sensors in their pockets (the GPS, camera, and other capabilities of smartphones or tablets) – how might these be used to contribute to and participate in scholarly work?

What are the social, legal, and technical issues that enable these to work, or cause them to fail?

How can and should such “crowdsourced” work be credited, or compensated for?

How best can works created in this way be collected, disseminated, preserved?

2014 SCI Workshop Goals and Outcomes

For the 2014 SCI, we invite teams who would like to get started on such projects, or extend their existing projects to include more meaningful interaction with new and larger audiences, to convene to plan, discuss, and begin to build and assess how scholarship can best engage with the “crowd”.

Applicants will propose a Working Group of 3 to 8 individuals who together bring a diverse range of perspectives to a particular theme. Each year the SCI will accept 3 to 5 Working Groups which, over the course of four days, will help shape the agenda, creating space for both discussing and doing, in large groups and small, and for fruitful dialogue both within and across Working Groups, in a mix of structured and informal settings. The SCI will in effect host a set of concurrent and cross-pollinating seminars or development sprints on related themes.

The SCI is neither a venue for showcasing past successes, or implementing projects that are already on the drawing board; nor is it an occasion for invitees to speak to an agenda predetermined by a conference organizer. Rather, the SCI will offer the time, freedom, and diversity of participants to foster intellectual risk taking, collaborative and creative speculation, bridging of institutional divides, germination of actionable ideas, cultivation of new networks, discovery of common ground, all without fear of failure or the burden of having to produce immediate, concrete, sustainable deliverables.

Participants are expected to attend and engage in all four days of the workshop. There is no formal “reporting,” but Working Groups are expected to share publicly, during the course of the workshop and/or afterwards, notes, observations, and analysis from the workshop. These communications could be through a blog, academic paper, conference presentation, social media, video, or otherwise. Working Groups are encouraged to be creative.

 

Shared Goals and Objectives of Makerspace (refinement of post-charrette outcomes)

SHARED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MAKERSPACE

The problem: Increasingly scholars are working on multimedia and multimodal forms of research and publication. However, there are few places to coordinate these forms of research and publication and also to allow for more interaction between non-traditional and traditional publishing. Scholars need a space to plan this kind of work, to draw from existing tools, and to get guidance on shaping and sharing materials.

Provisional definition: Makerspace is a space (both physical and metaphorical) that is established for the scholar to explore and engage in a collaborative process with other stakeholders and specialists, including librarians, editors, content managers and tool developers, and community partners. Within this space the Makerspace ‘team’ envisions and begins to build a multi-modal research framework.

Objectives:  The Makerspace community building begins with a makerspace workshop that brings all parties together and explores the soup to nuts publishing of a scholarly work that is necessarily multi-modal. In the workshop, the collaborative group comes together to share ideas and questions from each disciplinary realm. Peer reviewers, developers, editors, and librarians work collectively to provide feedback, suggest tools and platforms for the research, opening up the research to multi-modal possibilities and making it easier to produce multimodal outputs by prioritizing interoperable tools. (Example: What might start as a manuscript ends up as a manuscript and an exhibit and a multi-media presentation and an annotated bibliographical resource and a mapping tool to pool the work of researchers engaged in related projects. Or what might start as a curated digital collection ends up as a collection and an exhibit and an ebook with links that interface with the collection and a website with maps and other visualizations and alternate paths through the information.)

 

Value Proposition

  • Publishers — Presses would gain earlier involvement in shaping the relationship between digital publishing endeavors and more traditional publishing. They would learn more about how scholars organize and shape digital projects and how these projects might be used by readers. I doing so, publishers may be able to craft and hone publishing tools and to enhance the interaction between scholarly publishing projects. More interaction between publishers and libraries would broaden understanding about best practices for storing and sharing such projects.
  • Libraries, Archives, & Museums — Libraries also want to be involved earlier in the scholarship lifecycle, rather than being brought in at the very end to “store” knowledge. That said, we also want to bring our expertise on preservation of complex digital objects to scholarly digital projects!
  • Authors — Having a bigger, more collaborative process in which other groups’ expertise is put to use open up a lot of new possibilities for authors.
  • Scholarly societies
  • University affiliated organizations (e.g., humanities centers)

 

General Principles

The Makerspace is a collaborative research model that

  • is inclusive, bringing together the scholarship community (flexible model in which the scholarly project community varies based on the subject matter)
  • broadens the scope of research in its early/proposal stages through feedback, insights, and suggestions for the use of particular tools and processes
  • broadens the scope of research in its early/proposal stages through feedback, insights, and suggestions for the framing of particular questions
  • Broadens the scope of the publishing proposal to include prototyping of visualizations, wireframes for websites, and other prototyping creates a shared learning environment that provides opportunities for all stakeholders in the authorship process to share ownership of the process
  • establishes a creative realm or sphere within which critical engagement and idea sharing takes place
  • models an iterative process in which feedback and critique is built into knowledge building, construction of the project’s framework, and intellectual outcomes
  • encourages open dialogue, collective contribution, and more collective attribution
  • enables exploration of multiple tools and multi-modal products encourages tool developers to focus on interoperability in a larger publishing context that
  • is not focused just on the scholar, but re-envisions the scholar as part of a larger community or team that strategizes opportunities for integrating DH tools and other strategies into the research process
  • redefines publishing as an ecosystem of interrelated processes and outputs, both digital and physical (e.g., print book, museum exhibit)
  • organically expands peer review to engage with the whole ecosystem of content creation and publishing, including multiple audiences
  • has generative potential for the creation of other types of Makerspaces with other constituents and audiences (can be replicated with Makerspace workshops at various institutions)

 

Key Objectives

Makerspace…

Engages in scholarship as a multimodal, collaborative process: Re-shapes traditional paths of scholarship, moving beyond the manuscript as the main artefact of scholarship, recognizing and connecting the multiple outputs of the research process, from item description in an archive to multimodal publication or virtual world.

Provides a framework for creating makerspaces (What should they include? What do they look like? How do we facilitate their implementation? How useful is the notion of a flexible structure? What can we draw from models of collaboration and scholarship? How is the library becoming a leader in building creative communities with scholars and specialists? How is the publisher’s space one of creative engagement and articulation of scholarship goals, definition of audiences, and planning scholarly projects?)

Outlines a process for mapping the scholarship lifecycle: What models can scholars be provided that might expand their vision of what their research projects might become, and help them to consider workflows to enable creation of a constellation of interconnected work in multiple forms? Especially in the early stages of formulating a project, which workflows are optimal, and why? What tools should be employed early in the process and at an intermediate stage? For example, when should tagging be introduced as a practice?

Enables project customization, including evaluation of DH tools. Which are most appropriate for enabling the development of a Makerspace? Why? What criteria do we need to put in place to select appropriate DH tools and platforms?

Develops creative and collaborative authorial processes

Facilitates a flexible pathway to engagement encourages contributions of ideas and exploration of intersections between collaborators in publishing, in library science, in digital humanities

Focuses on developing relationships with publics in two key ways (1) engaging the public with the results of multi-modal investigations as a starting point to creating a broader discourse; (2) inviting publics into the Makerspace to contribute to the dialogue and inform it, and help shape it.  Consequently it re-thinks the scholarly project as something that is not just for publics, but is created in part through collaboration and partnership with these publics.

Recording, analyzing, and reflecting on the Makerspace process– notes taken during the process are shared and used as a project-specific repository of influential ideas and insights about methodologies and frameworks

 

Makerspace Frameworks

Makerspace as a place

  • physical and metaphorical
  • a creative realm or sphere within which critical engagement and idea sharing takes place
  • engages various publics and creates spaces for dialogue
  • inclusive, bringing together the work of librarians, editors, peer reviewers and DH tool builders
  • builds creative communities: a shared learning environment that provides opportunities for all stakeholders in the authorship process to share ownership of the process
  • created in collaboration and partnership with the public
  • explores intersections between collaborators in publishing, in library science, in digital humanities
  • might be enacted/piloted in a workshop format, possibly two workshops: (1) at the proposal/prototyping stage and (2) later, when the work is more developed but not yet “finished” or launched
  • the space is made actual by the meeting of the team; it exists wherever they meet (a moveable feast)
  • replicable
  • model could be distributed to public libraries and communities

 

Makerspace as a set of tools

  • re-envisions the scholar as part of a larger community or team that strategizes opportunities for integrating a variety of tools into research and writing/creation
  • incorporates project/workflow design and management tools
    • strategies for managing tools using multiple tools and toolsets – conceptualizing a “toolchain”
    • tools for end-to-end management of workflow
    • compilers and reference management tools
    • templates for refining and improving the research and writing/creating process
    • conceptualizes techniques as parts of the “maker” process
    • proposal and prospectus as prototype
    • lo-fi storyboarding for visualizations
    • TOC/outline as wireframe
    • proposal/prospectus a prototype
    • allows for the workshop/space/ecosystem to be replicated and developed in new environments
    • forkable workshop materials/framework
    • mothership site for group or space with room for growth and contribution

Makerspace as a process

maps the scholarship lifecycle

flexible pathway to engagement

enables innovative and multi-modal workflows

constructs creative and collaborative authorial processes

engages various publics and creates spaces for dialogue

shared ownership of the authorship process (co-authorship)

 

Makerspace as a collaborative platform

  • collaborations between editors, peer reviewers, and scholars
  • collaborations between scholars, librarians, and tool makers
  • collaborations between institutions (library and Museum or press and library, for example)
  • collaborations with publics (for projects in engaged scholarshipi)

 

Questions and Future Goals:

Replicability (Creating Makerspace instance–modeled after ThatCamp Instances with mothership website that is articulated, forked, revised, and customized for each hosted workshop)

Scalability

THAT Camp Call for Proposals (Publishing Makerspace Workshop)

HASTAC 2016 / MLA

Infrastructure Creation

 

Makerspace Stages:

  1. Early phase workshop (including peer review, prototyping and input regarding audiences)

Scholarship workflow (entry routes for conceptualizing multi-modal project components, for incorporating visualizations, multi-media, big data)

  1. Late phase workshop (including peer review and refinement of concepts)

End products

Collaborative discussions and seminal formation of scholarly project in Makerspace

Collaborative discussions (reshaping project) and engagement within Makerspace

 

Scholarship production

Makerspace Project Presentation at SCI, Nov. 13, 2014

Publishing Makerspace presentation,  11/13/14

A “Publishing Makerspace” is a physical and virtual place where scholars can come together with other professionals who operate in different parts of the publication process to collaboratively work through problems encountered in multi-modal publishing.

Accompanying slide show (pdf format)   Publishing Makerspace SCI slide show

The problem

As Don Waters noted in his remarks on Tuesday evening, digital scholarly communication is still in a formative stage. The ways in which audiences encounter published works, the processes of production, and the modes of collaboration among the people who contribute to published works are still very much in flux.

More and more, scholars are producing multimodal and multimedia projects that include archives, online and digital projects, as well as traditional journal and book publications. But they are operating without the infrastructure and specialized knowledge that will help them to fully realize their goals.

There’s a host of scholarly communication experts—librarians, publishers, designers, programmers, and technologists, all of whom have expertise and experience that could be of use to scholars, but which doesn’t reside in one place.

We realized that there needed to be a space, both physical and virtual, where all of these groups could come together to share knowledge and to forge new ways of producing and sharing with the public the fruits of their intellectual work.

 

What is it?

The Publishing Makerspace offers an opportunity for this kind of collaborative work, where scholars can benefit from the guidance of a range of experts and where publishers, librarians, and others could work with scholars to imagine new forms, tools, and methods for creating scholarly work.

Such workshops would be buttressed in virtual space by guidelines and best practices that are developed and shared by Publishing Makerspace groups over time. Following the succesful THATCamp model, other Publishing Makerspaces can create their own websites which fork easily from the central Publishing Makerspace workshop. We hope that Publishing Makerspace will be a mode of working that encourages collaborative authoring and attribution and spreads across the US and around the world.

It’s a big vision. Ultimately we’re imagining a new scholarly ecosystem. So we had to think about small ways that we might push us towards this new future, where we could open up new possibilities.

 

What does it do?

We started with the kinds of traditional manuscript workshops that happen across universities that help scholars refine their book publications. Those workshops are aimed toward a single end, a finished book by (usually) a single author. The Publishing Maker workshop would be a different space, a more collaborative endeavor where scholars and others could gather to design a project.  Because of that, we would start the workshop without predetermined results or output. Scholars would have initial ideas of what they would like to produce. But it is through conversation with others that they would shape the project, to decide what tools, platforms, and outputs would best suit their project and would allow them to reach their likely multiple audiences.

The group assembled, which might include a book editor, a librarian, a designer, a programmer, and scholars in related fields, would work collaboratively to imagine new solutions. This collaborative model would mean that the work was not uni-directional. While the group would be helping the scholar to realize his/her goals, it would also feed back into the work of these various groups, possibly reshaping the workflows and forms of communication that they create.

 

What are the outcomes of a Publishing Makerspace workshop?

Out of the workshop, we would expect the scholar to develop a detailed proposal for their project that would outline technical requirements, intended audiences, desired outputs. From that proposal the scholar would be prepared to move forward. It may help them to seek funding, to approach a library or publisher, to form a collaborative team, to gain support from scholarly societies, etc.

 

What are our next steps?

Our first “next step” is to return to UNC Press, DUP, SILS, FHI, CHCI and Wake Forest Humanities Institute and Library to talk to our colleagues about opportunities to create pilots for fine-tuning the concept.

We will continue contributing to Publishing Makerspace WordPress site and begin work on a replicable prototype workshop site that can be shared in preparation for seeking funding for a fully-fledged project. This effort will help us to articulate the two major principles underlying our efforts:

  • that multi-modal research and publication are necessarily collaborative, in which all collaborator should be acknowledged as such, per the “Collaborator’s Bill of Rights,” and
  • that Publishing Makerspace workshops should be replicable: articulated, forked, revised and customized for each workshop.

Our next major intellectual step is to each contribute information briefs about possible roles for workshop participation.

In addition to pilot workshops we plan to propose a working report presentation for the Charleston Conference next year to get feedback for continued development.

We are considering pitching a post-meeting workshop for the 2016 HASTAC meeting as a roll-out of a first-version prototype.

Plenary Session: What is Publishing Makerspace, What Was Our Process, and What Are Our Questions?

M-Space (Publishing Makerspace)

The problem: Increasingly scholars are working on multimedia and multimodal forms of research and publication. However, there are few places to coordinate these forms of research and publication and also to allow for more interaction between non-traditional and traditional publishing. Scholars need a space to plan this kind of work, to draw from existing tools, and to get guidance on shaping and sharing materials.

Provisional definition: Makerspace is a space (both physical and metaphorical) that is established for the scholar to explore and engage in a collaborative process with other stakeholders and specialists, including librarians, editors, content managers and tool developers, and community partners. Within this space the Makerspace ‘team’ envisions and begins to build a multi-modal  framework for research,   publishing, curation and digital preservation.

Objectives:  The Makerspace community building begins with a makerspace workshop that brings all parties together and explores the soup to nuts publishing of a scholarly work that is necessarily multi-modal. In the workshop, the collaborative group comes together to share ideas and questions from each disciplinary realm. Peer reviewers, developers, editors, and librarians work collectively to provide feedback, suggest tools and platforms for the research, opening up the research to multi-modal possibilities and making it easier to produce multimodal outputs by prioritizing interoperable tools.

Modeling Collaboration:  

Our design charrette process started with brainstorming and three questions:

Q 1. What do you think scholarly publishing should look like in 2030? What will it be able to do that we can’t do know? How will it change? What do you envision it becoming?

Q 2. How might a collaborative digital publishing makerspace, as described in our proposal, be part of our vision for this future?  As part of this makerspace, how will scholarly publishing be more “open” to public input, and how might the definition of a makerspace be expanded?

Q3. What are the limitations and potentials of existing publishing tools and platforms in light of the vision that we have drawn for the future?  What ideas do you have for overcoming these limitations?

Process: We framed our process of envisioning Publishing Makerspace as a model for Publishing Makerspace–our process brought forward different interests working towards a collaborative mode.  We identified where our interests and skills were laid and what is new.  Initial stage was frustrating but it cracked open ideas and imagination.  We experienced a generative frustration.  We went home, slept, and came back with ideas.  

END RESULT OF BRAINSTORMING:  The big picture–what are all the things we imagine we could be doing that we’re not doing now.  Starting point for focusing on how we would like to re-envision the interrelationship of scholarship, curation, multi-modal presentation and publishing.

Next, we went on to backcasting and visioning:

Backcasting 

backcasting

Visioning: A funneling exercise, focusing us on what we can explore. Collective intelligence. Creation of shared knowledge that is unattributable.

 Makerspace Stages:

  1. Early phase workshop (including peer review, prototyping and input regarding audiences)

Scholarship workflow (entry routes for conceptualizing multi-modal project components, for incorporating visualizations, multi-media, big data)

  1. Late phase workshop (including peer review and refinement of concepts)

End products

Collaborative discussions and seminal formation of scholarly project in Makerspace

Collaborative discussions (reshaping project) and engagement within Makerspace

Scholarship production

Questions and Future Goals:

Replicability (Creating Makerspace instance–modeled after ThatCamp Instances with mothership website that is articulated, forked, revised, and customized for each hosted workshop)

Scalability

THAT Camp Call for Proposals (Publishing Makerspace Workshop)

HASTAC 2016 / MLA

Digital preservation and access (Huge issue we haven’t addressed, but scholarly publishers have committed to it. Publishers and libraries both appreciate what it takes. )

Questions for the floor:  What are your questions about our process and outcomes?

 

(These notes are the outcome of our design charrette and our team discussion following the charrette.)

DEFINING MAKERSPACE, ITS OBJECTIVES AND GOALS

The problem: Increasingly scholars are working on multimedia and multimodal forms of research and publication. However, there are few places to coordinate these forms of research and publication and also to allow for more interaction between non-traditional and traditional publishing. Scholars need a space to plan this kind of work, to draw from existing tools, and to get guidance on shaping and sharing materials.

Provisional definition: Makerspace is a space (both physical and metaphorical) that is established for the scholar to explore and engage in a collaborative process with other stakeholders and specialists, including librarians, editors, content managers and tool developers, and community partners. Within this space the Makerspace ‘team’ envisions and begins to build a multi-modal research framework.

Objectives: The Makerspace community building begins with a makerspace workshop that brings all parties together and explores the soup to nuts publishing of a scholarly work that is necessarily multi-modal. In the workshop, the collaborative group comes together to share ideas and questions from each disciplinary realm. Peer reviewers, developers, editors, and librarians work collectively to provide feedback, suggest tools and platforms for the research, opening up the research to multi-modal possibilities and making it easier to produce multimodal outputs by prioritizing interoperable tools. (Example: What might start as a manuscript ends up as a manuscript and an exhibit and a multi-media presentation and an annotated bibliographical resource and a mapping tool to pool the work of researchers engaged in related projects. Or what might start as a curated digital collection ends up as a collection and an exhibit and an ebook with links that interface with the collection and a website with maps and other visualizations and alternate paths through the information.)

Value Proposition

  • Publishers — Presses would gain earlier involvement in shaping the relationship between digital publishing endeavors and more traditional publishing. They would learn more about how scholars organize and shape digital projects and how these projects might be used by readers. I doing so, publishers may be able to craft and hone publishing tools and to enhance the interaction between scholarly publishing projects. More interaction between publishers and libraries would broaden understanding about best practices for storing and sharing such projects.
  • Libraries, Archives, & Museums — Libraries also want to be involved earlier in the scholarship lifecycle, rather than being brought in at the very end to “store” knowledge.
  • Authors — Having a bigger, more collaborative process in which other groups’ expertise is put to use open up a lot of new possibilities for authors.
  • Scholarly societies
  • University affiliated organizations (e.g., humanities centers)

General Principles

The Makerspace is a collaborative research model that

  • is inclusive, bringing together the scholarship community (flexible model in which the scholarly project community varies based on the subject matter)
  • broadens the scope of research in its early/proposal stages through feedback, insights, and suggestions for the use of particular tools and processes, as well as for framing particular questions
  • expands scholarship projects with multi-modal components that include prototyping of visualizations, wireframes for websites, and other prototyping creates a shared learning environment that provides opportunities for all stakeholders in the authorship process to share ownership of the process
  • establishes a creative realm or sphere within which critical engagement and idea sharing takes place
  • models an iterative process in which feedback and critique is built into knowledge building, construction of the project’s framework, and intellectual outcomes
  • encourages open dialogue, collective contribution, and more collective attribution
  • enables exploration of multiple tools and multi-modal products encourages tool developers to focus on interoperability in a larger publishing context that
  • is not focused just on the scholar, but re-envisions the scholar as part of a larger community or team that strategizes opportunities for integrating DH tools and other strategies into the research process
  • redefines publishing as an ecosystem of interrelated processes and outputs, both digital and physical (e.g., print book, museum exhibit)
  • organically expands peer review to engage with the whole ecosystem of content creation and publishing, including multiple audiences
  • has generative potential for the creation of other types of Makerspaces with other constituents and audiences (can be replicated with Makerspace workshops at various institutions)

Key Objectives

Makerspace…

Engages in scholarship as a multimodal, collaborative process: Re-shapes traditional paths of scholarship, moving beyond the manuscript as the main artefact of scholarship, recognizing and connecting the multiple outputs of the research process, from item description in an archive to multimodal publication or virtual world.

Provides a framework for creating makerspaces (What should they include? What do they look like? How do we facilitate their implementation? How useful is the notion of a flexible structure? What can we draw from models of collaboration and scholarship? How is the library becoming a leader in building creative communities with scholars and specialists? How is the publisher’s space one of creative engagement and articulation of scholarship goals, definition of audiences, and planning scholarly projects?)

Outlines a process for mapping the scholarship lifecycle: What models can scholars be provided that might expand their vision of what their research projects might become, and help them to consider workflows to enable creation of a constellation of interconnected work in multiple forms? Especially in the early stages of formulating a project, which workflows are optimal, and why? What tools should be employed early in the process and at an intermediate stage? For example, when should tagging be introduced as a practice?

Enables project customization, including evaluation of DH tools. Which are most appropriate for enabling the development of a Makerspace? Why? What criteria do we need to put in place to select appropriate DH tools and platforms?

Develops creative and collaborative authorial processes

Facilitates a flexible pathway to engagement encourages contributions of ideas and exploration of intersections between collaborators in publishing, in library science, in digital humanities

Focuses on developing relationships with publics in two key ways (1) engaging the public with the results of multi-modal investigations as a starting point to creating a broader discourse; (2) inviting publics into the Makerspace to contribute to the dialogue and inform it, and help shape it. Consequently it re-thinks the scholarly project as something that is not just for publics, but is created in part through collaboration and partnership with these publics.

Recording, analyzing, and reflecting on the Makerspace process– notes taken during the process are shared and used as a project-specific repository of influential ideas and insights about methodologies and frameworks

Makerspace Frameworks

Makerspace as a place

  • physical and metaphorical
  • a creative realm or sphere within which critical engagement and idea sharing takes place
  • engages various publics and creates spaces for dialogue
  • inclusive, bringing together the work of librarians, editors, peer reviewers and DH tool builders
  • builds creative communities: a shared learning environment that provides opportunities for all stakeholders in the authorship process to share ownership of the process
  • created in collaboration and partnership with the public
  • explores intersections between collaborators in publishing, in library science, in digital humanities
  • might be enacted/piloted in a workshop format, possibly two workshops: (1) at the proposal/prototyping stage and (2) later, when the work is more developed but not yet “finished” or launched
  • the space is made actual by the meeting of the team; it exists wherever they meet (a moveable feast)
  • replicable
  • model could be distributed to public libraries and communities

Makerspace as a set of tools

  • re-envisions the scholar as part of a larger community or team that strategizes opportunities for integrating a variety of tools into research and writing/creation
  • incorporates project/workflow design and management tools
    • strategies for managing tools using multiple tools and toolsets – conceptualizing a “toolchain”
    • tools for end-to-end management of workflow
    • compilers and reference management tools
    • templates for refining and improving the research and writing/creating process
  • conceptualizes techniques as parts of the “maker” process
    • proposal and prospectus as prototype
    • lo-fi storyboarding for visualizations
    • TOC/outline as wireframe
    • proposal/prospectus a prototype
  • allows for the workshop/space/ecosystem to be replicated and developed in new environments
    • forkable workshop materials/framework
    • mothership site for group or space with room for growth and contribution

Makerspace as a process

maps the scholarship lifecycle

flexible pathway to engagement

enables innovative and multi-modal workflows

constructs creative and collaborative authorial processes

engages various publics and creates spaces for dialogue

shared ownership of the authorship process (co-authorship)

Makerspace as a collaborative platform (interactions of actors–Venn diagram visualization)

  • collaborations between editors, peer reviewers, and scholars
  • collaborations between scholars, librarians, and tool makers
  • collaborations between institutions (library and Museum or press and library, for example)
  • collaborations with publics (for projects in engaged scholarship)

Makerspace Venn diagram

Makerspace Stages:

  1. Early phase workshop (including peer review, prototyping and input regarding audiences)

Scholarship workflow (entry routes for conceptualizing multi-modal project components, for incorporating visualizations, multi-media, big data)

  1. Late phase workshop (including peer review and refinement of concepts)

End products

Collaborative discussions and seminal formation of scholarly project in Makerspace

Collaborative discussions (reshaping project) and engagement within Makerspace

Scholarship production

Questions and Future Goals:

Replicability (Creating Makerspace instance–modeled after ThatCamp Instances with mothership website that is articulated, forked, revised, and customized for each hosted workshop)

Scalability

THAT Camp Call for Proposals (Publishing Makerspace Workshop)

HASTAC 2016 / MLA

Infrastructure Creation

Applying Makerspace rubric in other instances (creating template, forked website like THATCamp; could start .io in GitHub, eaesier to fork off )

GitHub

Audiences and Publics

Longevity & upkeep

Makerspace Wordle

Wordle summary of our 15 pages of notes as of 3:30pm on November 11

Rethinking Digital Publishing: A test case with RISING CURRENTS: PROJECTS FOR NEW YORK’S WATERFRONT

Thinking about our upcoming workshop, one route we could explore is taking an existing project that has its own life online, and considering how it could be better ‘presented’ and ‘published’ through a DH Toolkit/Platform such as Scalar.

See below for links to the “Rising Currents: Projects for New York’s Waterfront” exhibition, held at MoMA in 2010.

RISING CURRENTS EXHIBITION: Projects for New York’s Waterfront (MoMA)

Project Description:  http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/category/rising-currents – description

Blog   http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/category/rising-currents 

Index of Posts:  http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/category/rising-currents – posts 

Behind the Scenes of Rising Currents (video)  http://www.moma.org/explore/multimedia/videos/87/498/videos-all

Open House Presentations(videos of Zones 0-4 presentations)

http://www.moma.org/explore/multimedia/videos/92/533/videos-all

Publication preview (pdf format)  http://www.moma.org/momaorg/shared/pdfs/docs/publication_pdf/3138/RisingCurrents_PREVIEW.pdf?1351701878

In Sandy’s Wake, Revisiting MoMA’s Prescient “Rising Currents” Exhibition

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/11/121102-Revisiting-MoMA8217s-Prescient-8220Rising-Currents8221-Exhibition.asp

Revisiting ‘Rising Currents’ http://www.architectmagazine.com/architecture/revisiting-rising-currents.aspx

Rising Currents Revisited (MoMA Learning)

http://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/blog/rising-currents-revisited

 

DH Tookits, Tools, Content Management Systems and Web Publishing, Data Visualization, Timeline and Mapping Tools (CDHI)

The Carolina Digital Humanities Initiative (CDHI) at UNC has a great page with a summary of the main DH Toolkits and Tools.  It provides a good starting point for our group to investigate and discuss what is out there.  I’ve just sent a page with more detailed material we can explore to critique and discuss Scalar.

Link to CDHI Tools Page:  http://digitalhumanities.unc.edu/resources/tools/

DH Toolkits

  • Scalar
    A free, open source authoring and publishing platform that’s designed to make it easy for authors to write long-form, born-digital scholarship online. Scalar enables users to assemble media from multiple sources and juxtapose them with their own writing in a variety of ways, with minimal technical expertise required.
  • Omeka
    A project of the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, Omeka is a free, flexible, and open source web-publishing platform for the display of library, museum, archives, and scholarly collections and exhibitions. Omeka’s Showcase includes projects powered by Omeka. Triangle-based projects that put Omeka to work include the Khayrallah Program for Lebanese-American Studies and The State of History.
  • Neatline
  • A suite of add-on tools for Omeka, Neatline allows scholars, students, and curators to tell stories with maps and timelines.
  • DH Press
  • DH Press is a flexible, repurposable, extensible digital humanities toolkit designed for non-technical users. It enables administrative users to mashup and visualize a variety of digitized humanities-related material, including historical maps, images, manuscripts, and multimedia content. DH Press can be used to create a range of digital projects, from virtual walking tours and interactive exhibits, to classroom teaching tools and community repositories
  • Viewshare
  • A free platform for generating and customizing views (interactive maps, timelines, facets, tag clouds) that allow users to experience your digital collections.

Data Building/Cleaning

  • Google Refine
  • A tool for working with data, cleaning up data, transforming it from one format into another, extending it with web services, and linking it to databases.
  • XML
  • eXtensible Markup Language. A markup language designed to store and transport data. It’s easy to learn, and tags can be customized by the user.

Wireframing Tools

  • Balsamiq
  • A web-based wireframing and mock up tool.
  • Visio (Requires a PC)
  • A tool for creating and sharing diagrams and flowcharts.

Collaboration Tools

  • Google Drive
  • A free web-based tool for storing, accessing and sharing files.
  • Trello
    A free, web-based project management application which helps you keep track of and organize tasks.
  • Zotero
  • A free and open-source reference management software to manage bibliographic data and related research materials
  • Evernote
  • A suite of software and services designed for notetaking and archiving.

Content Management Systems and Web Publishing

  • WordPress
  • A free and open source blogging tool and content management system, whose flexibility as a digital humanities tool stems from its extensive library of plugins. DH Press–a project of the Digital Innovation Lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill–is built on the WordPress platform and its plugin-based architecture.
  • Tumblr
  • A blogging and social networking website
  • Commentpress
  • An open source theme and plugin for the WordPress blogging engine that allows readers to comment paragraph by paragraph in the margins of a text.
  • Drupal
  • Drupal is a free, open source software package that allows you to easily organize, manage and publish your content, with an endless variety of customization.
  • Drupal for Humanists
    A guide geared specifically at humanists that details how to shape Drupal core and its community-developed “modules” into web environments that are highly customized for use in the humanities, but don’t require code-writing expertise to develop or maintain.
  • ScholarPress
  • A set of WordPress plugins developed by the Center for History and New Media for scholarly and pedagogical purposes.

Data Visualization

  • Tableau Public
  • A free data visualization software. It allows users to connect to a spreadsheet or file and create interactive data visualizations for the web
  • Palladio
  • A web-based platform for the visualization of complex, multi-dimensional data.
  • Voyant
  • A web-based text reading and analysis environment.
  • Raw Density
  • A tool for creating vector-based visualization based on data
  • Simile
  • A collection of free, open-source web widgets, mostly for data visualizations.

Timeline Tools

  • Chronos Timeline
  • Designed specifically for needs in the humanities and social sciences to represent time-based data. Chronos allows scholars and students to dynamically present historical data in a flexible online environment. Switching easily between vertical and horizontal orientations, researchers can quickly scan large number of events, highlight and filter events based on subject matter or tags, and recontextualize historical data.
  • Dipity
  • A tool for creating interactive timelines.
  • Simile Widget 
  • A suite of free, open-source web widgets, mostly for data visualization.
  • TimeGlider
  • A web-based timeline builder.
  • Timeline Builder (Neatline)
  • Create timelines for Omeka
  • TimelineJS
  • An open-source tool for creating interactive, visually-rich timelines.
  • TimeToast
  • A tool for creating timelines which can be added to a website or blog.
  • ViewShare
  • A free platform for generating and customizing views, such as interactive maps and timelines.
  • XTimeline
  • A tool for creating timelines on the web.

Mapping Tools

  • ArcGis Explorer Online
  • A client for using, creating and sharing ArcGIS maps online.
  • InnovationGeo
  • A suite of tools for creating and sharing maps online
  • MapAList 
  • A tool for creating customized Google maps from lists of address.
  • Historypin
  • A digital, user-generated archive of historical photos, videos, audio recordings and personal recollections. Users are able to use the location and date of their content to “pin” it to Google Maps.
  • Neatline
  • A suite of add-on tools for Omeka that allows users to create timelines.
  • QGIS
  • A cross-platform free and open source desktop geographic information systems (GIS) application that provides data viewing, editing, and analysis capabilities.
  • PLOTS Map Knitter
  • An easy-to-use DIY tool for combining (“stitching”) maps together

Network Analysis

  • NodeXL
  • A free and open-source network analysis and visualization software package for Microsoft Excel 2007/2010.
  • Gephi
  • An open-source software for visualizing and analyzing large networks graphs.

Other

  • Digital Research Tools (DiRT)
  • A tool, service, and the most comprehensive and up-to-date collection registry of digital research tools for scholarly use. Developed by Project Bamboo, Bamboo DiRT makes it easy for digital humanists and others conducting digital research to find and compare resources ranging from content management systems to music OCR, statistical analysis packages to mindmapping software.
  • WraggeLabs Emporium
  • A free suite of tools designed for digital historians. It was designed especially to meet the needs of Australian historians but is open to all.
  • Tales of Things
  • Allows users to link any object to a video or text which provides further description for that project. It makes use of QR codes.
  • QueryPic
  • Provides a new way of seeing, searching and understanding the digitized newspapers made available by Trove and Papers Past.
  • Idea Sketch
  • An intuitive iPhone and iPad app that allows users to create concept maps. Faculty Focus provides a handy review of the app.
  • MIT App Inventor
  • A tool for android app development that requires little programming knowledge.
  • PhoneGap
  • Create mobile applications for iOS, Android, Blackberry Windows Phone, Palm WebOS, Bada and Symbian using HTML5, CSS and Javascript.

Thinking About Scalar: Publishing Possibilities and Pedagogical Applications

 “Scalar in the Classroom”  http://scalar.usc.edu/

Scalar in the Classroom

September 15, 2014

Blackboard, Moodle, Prezi … Scalar? More and more, scholars and teachers are turning not just to online tools built specifically for pedagogical purposes, but to wide-ranging digital platforms whose affordances can be leveraged to advance certain skills and competencies in the classroom. Scalar, so says Anita Say Chan and Harriett Green of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, is just such a platform. In spring 2014, Anita Say Chan, Assistant Research Professor of Communications and Assistant Professor of Media Studies in the Department of Media and Cinema Studies in collaboration with Harriett Green, English and Digital Humanities Librarian and assistant professor of library administration, began integrating Scalar into Anita’s undergraduate media courses. In Anita’s Media and Information Ethics course students were asked to build an archive of their own documentary materials and write their final research papers on Youth Interventions with Media using Scalar. In her course on Food Networks: Media, Technology, Sustainability students were required to construct two Scalar presentations: the first on the sustainability practices and messaging of a major U.S. food brand and the second on those of a major Swedish food brand.

The ANVC team recently got a hold of Anita and Harriett and asked them about their experience working with Scalar in the classroom.

Bios for Anita and Harriett are included just below the interview.

ANVC: In which courses have you used Scalar? And for which types of courses have you found it best suited?

Anita Chan: We’ve used Scalar now in two different undergraduate classes taught in the Media and Cinema Studies Department with the College of Media during the AY 2013-14: the MACS410: Information Ethics class, which looks at contemporary debates in information politics, and the MACS364: Food Networks class, that enables students to explore food production history and politics through the use of online digital and data visualization research tools, including Scalar. For both of these classes, the class site and all resources were hosted on Scalar. And students’ term projects required that they individually build their own Scalar sites that represented their research projects

Harriett Green: Scalar has been best suited for courses that engage with and create notable amounts of multi-media content: The Media Studies courses that we taught had students gather images and YouTube videos, and create audio content of their own via interviews. I can also envision Scalar being used in English and History courses that use video/film clips and multi-media.

Anita Chan: I agree. We were surprised by how quickly the undergraduate students took to the platform. Even when some students missed the class-length Scalar Introduction workshop session that oriented them to site features we hadn’t yet had to use in class together, like building paths and video annotation features – students managed to figure these steps out on their own without having to consult us. It definitely mattered that we built in-class group exercises during the term, so that we could be sure more basic functions (like publishing a page or using media from associated archives) were mastered. But the stats speak for themselves. In the MACS410 class, 24 of the 25 undergrad students in the class completed their own Scalar sites; and in the MACS364 class, all 8 of the undergrads completed 2 Scalar sites each during the course of the semester. And these were classes where, when we polled students at the beginning of the class, NONE reported having published their own blog before.

Landing page for Food Networks: Media, Technology, Sustainability.

ANVC: What do your students get out of composing their term papers in Scalar? What skills or literacies does it develop in your students that writing traditional research papers will not?

AC: The students really seemed to appreciate the multi-media modality of the platform, and that it allowed them to present their analyses in multi-media formats. For instance, in exercises that asked students to analyze the youth-targeted ad campaigns of mega-brands, they were able to post videos, print ads and website content directly within their responses to illustrate their analyses. We were also impressed by the number of students who exceeded the requirements for assignments on Scalar, and on their own, voluntarily engaged more with media production. In both classes, students were asked to include either 1 interview OR vlog post to their Scalar site – and we had many students go over the requirement: 6 interviews in 1 case, 5 in another, an edited comedy video of Man-on-the-Street style interviews with other undergrads on what the internet means to them. It was impressive. That said: students’ proclivity for multi-media production does NOT mean they are well-versed in how to use digital tools for research. And based on past class experiences, it was clear that students needed much more support and guidance in how to use even basic search tools – like Library search tools, EBSCO and JSTOR – and in seeing why getting a Google search result isn’t sufficient for a research project.

HG: Yes, I think that Scalar made the process of searching, finding, and gathering research content a much more visceral experience: The students connected their developing skills in searching research databases like Lexis Nexis and EBSCO Academic Search Premier to the searches they were doing in multi-media archives such as Critical Commons and Internet Archives. Furthermore, the students had to synthesize the multi-media objects with the news articles and scholarly writing they gathered, and this made them critically think about what they were finding and how they could use it on their Scalar sites.

ANVC: New pedagogical tools and/or practices can often reveal students’ latent interests or needs. What have you learned about your students getting them to work with Scalar?

AC: I’ve personally been inspired by the degree of self- and even co-teaching and media production undergrad students in the humanities and social sciences appear prepared for. We had students even running their own workshops for other students in other classes on some of the visualization tools they were introduced to during the course. But much more support for students’ ACADEMIC uses of media and digital platforms needs to be cultivated. Students’ day to day literacies with commercial platforms doesn’t and shouldn’t suffice for academic and scholarly applications. And even students themselves don’t seem to want this to be the case. We’re also glad to see that there are nascent efforts to support more cross-disciplinary and faculty collaborations to support the design of these kinds of course applications. And Harriett has more to say on this.

HG: Scalar has revealed the broad and powerful possibilities of using digital platforms for students’ scholarly work, and how we can incorporate multiple learning goals for information literacy, course-specific learning outcomes, and disciplinary outcomes into the students’ exercises and project work. And as Anita notes, I think Scalar also provides a strong basis for promoting collaborations in the classroom between different campus units, especially between faculty and the library, which is rapidly expanding its services to support digital scholarship by faculty and students. It’s been an extremely educational experience to work with Anita on this initiative, and I do hope that our departments and institution provide increased support in the future for these types of innovative teaching practices that we and many other of our colleagues are trying to implement.

Anita Say Chan

Anita Say Chan is an Assistant Research Professor of Communications and an Assistant Professor of Media Studies in the Department of Media and Cinema Studies at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, where she co-designed and taught the Food Networks and Information Ethics undergraduate classes in the Spring 2014 using Scalar. Her research and teaching interests include hybrid and interdisciplinary pedagogies, globalization and digital cultures, innovation networks and the “periphery”, and science and technology studies in Latin America. Her book on the competing imaginaries of global connection and information technologies in network-age Peru, Networking Peripheries: Technological Futures and the Myth of Digital Universalism, was published with MIT Press earlier this year. Her work has been awarded support from the Center for the Study of Law & Culture at Columbia University’s School of Law and the National Science Foundation, and she has held postdoctoral fellowships at The CUNY Graduate Center’s Committee on Globalization & Social Change, and at Stanford University’s Introduction to Humanities Program.

Harriett Green

Harriett Green is the English and Digital Humanities Librarian and assistant professor of library administration at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research interests include the usability of digital humanities tools and digital collections, research methods of humanities scholars, and humanities data curation.

Her publications include published and forthcoming articles in College & Research Libraries, Literary and Linguistic Computing, Library Quarterly, and portal: Libraries and the Academy. Her research has been supported by grants awarded from the Institute for Museum and Library Services and National Endownment for the Humanities. Her current research projects include working on the research teams for the HathiTrust Research Center and the Emblematica Online.

She has presented on her work nationally and internationally, including at the conferences of the American Library Association (ALA), Association for College & Research Libraries (ACRL), International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations, and Modern Language Association Annual Convention. She is professionally active in the Association for College and Research Libraries, the Association for Computing in the Humanities (ACH), Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing (ALLC), and the Modern Language Association (MLA). She earned her MSLIS from the University of Illinois, and also holds a MA in Humanities/Creative Writing from the University of Chicago and a BA in History and Literature from Harvard University.

Duke’s Network Ecologies Project Takes on Scalar

Duke’s Network Ecologies Project Takes on Scalar

September 6, 2014

Armed with a Graduate Digital Scholarship Initiative grant from Duke’s Franklin Humanities Institute, Amanda Starling Gould, a Ph.D. candidate in literature at Duke, has embarked on a project to map the ecology of networks.

The project, as she describes it, has two components. The larger component consists of an interdisciplinary exchange between scholars, artists and professionals who take networks as their object of study or interest. That exchange takes place by way of online conferences and face-to-face colloquia and is attentively documented by Amanda herself at the Networked Ecologies website. That lively exchange led to the planned publication of a multimodal, digital work – Network[ed] Ecologies – A Living Publication– the second component of the overall project. Designed in Scalar and published by Duke’s Franklin Humanities Center, the publication will consist of original essays on the topic of networks as well as document the ‘network’ of activities and conversations which constituted the first part of the project. Mapping ideas and data about a set of keywords, the publication will itself be, of necessity, a network. “A publication about networks,” writes Amanda and Florian Wiencek, Networked Ecologies Digital Project Designer “which is bound to live in a networked environment, can only be a network in itself, creating a meta-publication if you will.”

Scalar seemed well suited for this vision. “We chose Scalar,” Amanda and Florian write, “because it enables a variety of simultaneous interfaces and encourages a variety of digital ‘reading’ paths. It allows a reader to navigate variously, to choose between content displays, to dynamically interact with media elements, and to intentionally or unintentionally slip into another content path.” That slippage is important. Amanda and Florian hope that, with Scalar, they can create a structure which allows readers to experience the material as a network of data-nodes—a structure which encourages multiple, reader-directed, rhizome-like pathways through the publication’s content. “Our challenge” they write “[is] to create an open publication that is still professionally composed, editorially rigorous, thoughtfully – and provocatively – authored and dynamically maintained.”

The publication will be marked by a Network Ecologies Scalar “book launch,” as well as, potentially, an allied art show in the Spring.

If you’d like to contribute, please see their Call for Papers at HASTAC.

Invitation to Contribute to the Network Ecologies Digital Scalar Publication:

http://sites.fhi.duke.edu/ecologyofnetworks/  

Network Ecologies Symposium

http://sites.fhi.duke.edu/ecologyofnetworks/network_ecologies-symposium/  

Why Scalar for the Networked Ecologies Publication:

http://sites.fhi.duke.edu/ecologyofnetworks/2014/04/29/platform-considerations-why-scalar-for-the-networked-ecologies-publication/

Why Scalar? Well, here’s why…

1. Because it gives the reader multiple reading interfaces: the reader is permitted to traverse the network of content as s/he chooses

2. Because of its vast annotation possibilities -, annotations can provide slipping points

  • Our annotations will work both as traditional annotations – as footnotes, comments from fellow scholars, as captions, as subtitles – AND as networked and networking paths linking our pieces of content.
  • Also allow commenting. Might we consider continuing our editorial grab by graduating some of the public comments into the document? Or do we want to publish the project as-is and give it to the public as a finished-beginning. The living-content.
  • Idea: Present an incentive by saying that comments for the first year will be considered for in-text publication. After the first year, we end our editorial control and the piece lives on (hopefully) through the public commenting)

3. Because it is a network of data with architectures built atop and within that permit one to ‘read’ the piece as a network(ed) publication

4. Because we can author passages wherein a reader can intentionally slip between layers of content.

5. Because we can author passages wherein a reader can unintentionally slip between layers of content – this lends an element of emergent discovery. Through unintentional slips (that the reader can always escape if s/he chooses) the reader can fall into an unexpected path

6. Because we can do both 4 AND 5 AND at the same time also author a prescribed reading path that acts as do the more traditional publication navigation markers and systems

7. Because pages are paths and paths are pages. Pages can have specific roles – paths, comment, annotations, tag, etc

8. Because it permits public commenting

SOURCES ABOUT SCALAR:

https://prezi.com/9r7e85e_yo1_/scalar/  (Prezi summary)

https://anitaconchita.wordpress.com/whittierworkshop/  (Scalar in the classroom)

Scalar course image:

http://scalar.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/scalar_classroom-image1.jpg  

Course website:

http://scalar.usc.edu/works/uiuc-food-networks/users/1665  

Syllabus:

http://scalar.usc.edu/works/uiuc-food-networks/syllabus   

Course readings:

http://scalar.usc.edu/works/uiuc-food-networks/syllabus  

Project, Part I:  http://scalar.usc.edu/works/uiuc-food-networks/project-part-1-sustainability-and-us-food-companies  

Project, Part II:  http://scalar.usc.edu/works/uiuc-food-networks/project-overview-part-2-sweden  

Introduction to ‘Publishing Makerspace’ Visioning Exercise

‘Publishing Makerspace’ Visioning Exercise          Monday, Nov. 10, 2-4 p.m.

Introductions (2-2:30, 5 minutes per team member)

  1. Share a story about yourself that helps us understand your relationship to the digital world.   Your shared story can be about a place, something that happened to you, or a project you worked on. Be sure to include in this story how you were touched personally by your experience.
  2. Connect the story to your background and your interests. How do they intersect with our ‘Publishing Makerspace’ working group and with the SCI Workshop topic of Digital Scholarship and the Crowd?

The “Design Charrette” as a Model (2:30-2:45)

ORIGINS: The term “charrette” is derived from the French word for “little cart.” In Paris during the 19th century, professors at the Ecole de Beaux Arts circulated with little carts to collect final drawings from their students. Students would jump on the “charrette” to put finishing touches on their presentation minutes before the deadline.

PRACTICE IN DESIGN AND URBAN PLANNING: A charrette is typically an intensive planning session where citizens, designers and others collaborate on a vision for development. It provides a forum for ideas and offers the unique advantage of giving immediate feedback to the designers. More importantly, it allows everyone who participates to be a mutual author of the plan. Our charrette exercise today is a tool for developing collaborative strategies, visions, and for creating our own shared plan for our group work during this week’s workshop.

The Visioning Exercise (2:45-4)

We are going to do our own visioning exercise modeled after a charrette. The exercise will have four parts –
Part One:   Brainstorming – This is a “faucet” exercise, where we come up with, in quick-fire fashion, as many ideas as possible related to the prompt.

Part Two:   Backcasting and Visioning – This is a “funnel” exercise, where we distill the ideas we have come up with, and choose the ones we are most interested in exploring this week.

Part Three: Planning and Refining – Our third step is to take the results of the backcasting and visioning exercise, and refine the plan that we developed. Are there important steps or components of the plan we’ve left out? How do we want to parse out the pieces of our plan within the time frame of the SCI Workshop? (see tentative team schedule below)

Part Four: Reflection – In this last part of the visioning exercise, the team will take the results of the exercises in brainstorming, backcasting, and visioning, and reflectively look back over the process. What have we learned about each other and our shared vision through this exercise? In what ways was the exercise helpful? How has it shaped our plans?

 

TERMINOLOGY FOR CHARRETTE

Visioning – Visioning is an exercise in employing futures thinking and design thinking to imagine a future in which the practices, behaviors, and methods that you want to see take root have come into being. Visioning is an exercise that encourages ‘construction’ of the future that you would like to see come into existence, without worrying about the constraints that existing conditions impose on moving towards such a future.

See the article “Design Thinking” by Tim Brown, Harvard Business Review, June 2008, for an in-depth discussion of how design thinking works. http://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/thoughts/IDEO_HBR_Design_Thinking.pdf

Also see http://jasonfurnell.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/facilitating-collaborative-design-workshops-a-step-by-step-guide-for-rapidly-creating-a-shared-vision-for-execution/

Back-castingBackcasting starts with defining a desirable future and then works backwards to identify policies and programs that will connect the future to the present. The fundamental question of backcasting asks: “if we want to attain a certain goal, what actions must be taken to get there?” Forecasting is the process of predicting the future based on current trend analysis. Backcasting approaches the challenge of discussing the future from the opposite direction. [Source: http://www.sylvaincottong.com/management-models/on-forecasting-backcasting-design-thinking/]

backcasting

 

Charrette Rules –

  1. In brainstorming, don’t censor your thoughts. Introduce all the ideas you have, without taking time to deliberate on them or intellectualize.
  2. Once an idea is introduced to the group, the group takes joint ownership of it and accepts it. Ideas are not critiqued during brainstorming, just introduced.
  3. The role of the facilitator is to keep the process moving, to encourage everyone to contribute, and when helpful, to restate, summarize, and recap the results of the brainstorming session.
  4. In visioning, take the ideas you have generating in your “faucet” mode and collaboratively develop a shared vision for your desired future. Narrow down the ideas to key components as you enter “funnel” mode. What are the most important things you want to accomplish, and how can they be interrelated?
  5. In backcasting, once you have fleshed out your vision, and are aware of your goal in relationship to the present, start with the current status quo (in our case, the state of digital scholarship as content that is shared with various publics) and decide the key components. How can we move from the present and towards our visioned goals? What steps are necessary, and how should they be coordinated?
  6. Engage in creative and innovative practices as you devise solutions, strategies, and practices. Experiment through sketching, doodling, drawing, and diagramming, ways to generate new ideas and contribute your voice to the collaborative process.