Photo from SCI 2015

SCI 2015 has concluded, stay tuned for SCI 2016

The 2015 Scholarly Communication Institute concluded last Thursday and it was an exhilarating and exhausting week for everybody involved. As we hoped, participants started new collaborations, incubated new ideas, developed new plans, built new things, and made new friends. One team completed and submitted a grant proposal by the end of SCI in order to continue their project, and other teams are already working on their next steps. We got lucky with beautiful fall weather, ate well, took walks in the DuBose house gardens, and had tours of nearby universities and their host cities.

I won’t recount the whole week here, but will point you to some links where you can get a gist of what it was like to be at SCI.

We’ll soon begin work on planning SCI 2016, and will announce the RFP early in the new year. Check back on or @TriangleSCI for the announcement, and we hope you will consider submitting a proposal for the next round.

A big thanks again to everybody who participated, and especially to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for making this possible and to our partners at Duke University, North Carolina Central University, North Carolina State University, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Triangle Research Libraries Network, the National Humanities Center, and the American Council of Learned Societies for their work to make it a success.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

[ Featured photo and slide show photos by Eric Dye used under CC license: ]

SCI team time

Think, Do, Collaborate, Cross-Pollinate

We’re less than a month away from the beginning of the second Scholarly Communication Institute held in the Research Triangle area of North Carolina, and are looking forward to this year’s cohort coming to Chapel Hill for five days of thinking, planning, and doing in a collaborative and relaxed setting. Last year, the first year of SCI in it’s new home, most of the participants were from the local area, and we tested out a new model for how such an institute might work. By all accounts it was a great success, and this year participants are coming from far and wide – from all across the United States, and about one third from other countries too, including as far away as Perth, Australia.

What do we do during these Institutes?

About a third of the schedule is unstructured, what we call “team time”. Each of the invited participants is part of a team working on a project they proposed during the RFP process – they set their own goals, process, and deliverables. During the team times there are no rules – teams can brainstorm, research their topics, run a charrette, document plans, develop software, write a paper, test models – last year participants did all of these things and more during their unstructured team times.

Another third of the schedule involves the entire cohort in discussions together, what we call “plenary” meetings. During these sessions all the teams come together in conversations regarding issues of mutual interest to all of their projects. Some of these sessions start with a focus on a particular team’s project, allowing them to seek advice from the broader group on issues that are challenging them, or to seek feedback on ideas they are trying to advance. Other plenary sessions are conversations guided by several facilitators, who throughout each day have been engaging with each of the teams, and listening for and suggesting areas of intersection between the different projects.

DuBose House gardensThe final major piece of the schedule is social time. We know that often the best insights come when you’re not necessarily looking for them, but rather over a meal, or drinks, or when taking a walk someplace you haven’t been before. So we’ve built a lot of time for that into the schedule. Breakfast and lunch each day will be in the rooms of a historic house on the grounds the conference center, with ample time after lunch to take a walk in the nearby gardens. On one evening we’ll have a reception at the National Humanities Center, where SCI participants will have an opportunity to talk with fellows and staff of the Humanities Center as well as invited guests from nearby universities. And on other evenings there will be optional small group dinners at various restaurants in Durham and Chapel Hill, with visits to Duke University and the University of North Carolina along the way.

However, almost all of this is flexible. Last year, we adjusted the schedule along the way, based on suggestions from participants, and in response to observations about how useful different types of activities were at different times of the Institute. Mealtimes are fixed, but aside from that the schedule is fair game.

Slide: Notes for a retreat

What there won’t be at the Institute are PowerPoint slides. No reading a prepared talk, no deciding which conference track you’re going to attend, no vendor sales pitches. Alright, maybe there are a few presentations, but they’re brief and mostly about sparking ideas and setting tone. We’ll have some brief remarks at the receptions, and on the first day, Tom Scheinfeldt will be opening the Institute meetings with some observations on setting the conditions for a productive retreat. On the last day each team will practice their “elevator pitch” with SCI’s advisory board, answering these questions about their project: What? So what? and What next?

The participants will come together on October 11 mostly not having worked together or even met each other before, and will leave on October 15 having started new collaborations, incubated new ideas, developed new plans, and built new things. They will also have eaten well, relaxed away from their usual work, and, we hope, made new friends.

Over the next few weeks you’ll be able to follow the progress of the 2015 Triangle Scholarly Communication Institute via the #TriangleSCI hashtag on Twitter, and afterwards, via this blog. To get a sense of what it was like last year, see this Storify thread that collected a representative sample of tweets from SCI 2014, and these blog posts from SCI 2014. And if you’re interested in participating next year, keep an eye on this blog for the next RFP, to be announced in early 2016.

An Analytical Attribution Framework

This is the fifth and final in a series of posts about each of the teams that will be attending SCI 2015, and their projects. This one was submitted by Christopher Blackwell.

What are the goals of your project and how do they fit the theme of this year’s Institute?

Attributing and valuing scholarship was easy when scholarship was monographic and communities of scholars were small. It was easy to attach an author to a citation when the author was universally known (“Aristotle”, “Linnaeus”) and the citation pointed to a clearly defined, grossly granular publication, one of relatively few to have emerged in a given year. Scholarship has always emerged from collaboration, but in a rigid hierarchy it was easy to collapse a team of researchers to a single named authority.

When scholarship was largely monographic, attribution could remain monolithic: a name or one-dimensional list of names attached to a work. Just as scholarship supported one primary and straightforward method of interaction—reading—attribution likewise supported a relatively simple number of methods: credit for authorship, ranking in a list of authors, a multiplier based on the perceived value of the work.

Detail from the Venetus A manuscript, showing Iliad 3.1-9

The promise of digital scholarship lies in the potential for synthesis and analysis, a much richer body of operations that may extract more meaning and prompt more insight from a given body of data. We wonder if approaches to synthesis and analysis that have proven fruitful for our own research might also be fruitful ways of approaching how we credit and value contributions to that research. We have all encountered problems of attributing and valuing authorship in situations like:

  • many editors producing a single edition of a text,
  • a group of developers contributing to a single software project,
  • many editors indexing or commenting on a body of data (texts, images, &c.),
  • scholars producing complementary analyses of a given text, (that is, one scholar produces a syntactic analysis, and one a semantic analysis),
  • scholars producing exclusive analyses of the same data (that is, one scholar analyzes syntax one way, another analyzes it another way).

In each case, while it is possible to attach “authorship” to individual pieces of work—lines of code or XML, individual indexed relationships, individual analysis—it is extremely difficult to quantify the significance of each author’s contribution:

  • Editor A enters an initial OCR text of the Iliad to a GitHub repository, thus “contributing” 15,000 lines; Editor B meticulously documents variants, receiving credit for only 75 lines.
  • Author N writes a short algorithm that is called innumerable times throughout the execution of a piece of software; it is brilliant because it consists of only 12 lines of code.
  • Scholar A captures the syntax of a complex sentence in Thucydides; Scholar B builds on that initial analysis, making it better. It would be desireable to capture Scholar B’s debt to Scholar A, and the extent to which the two analyses differ.

Who is on your team, and what are you hoping they will contribute to the project?

The members of this proposed working group have extensive experience applying innovative approaches to analysis, for topics that require collaborative effort across diverse data, often under conditions of uncertainty:

  • documenting conflicting interpretations of damaged text-bearing artifacts,
  • integrating various kinds of image-data for recovering lost text,
  • exploring the intersection of syntactic and semantic graphs of texts,
  • associating metadata with texts and data-structures at differing levels of granularity,
  • capturing iterative analyses of corpora undergoing collaborative editing,
  • aligning diverse data across generic and chronological axes,
  • building learning portfolios to track specific performance in the acquisition of a foreign language.

Our team members are:

  • Bridget Almas, the lead software developer and architect for the Perseus Digital Library
  • Christopher W. Blackwell, Project Architect for the Homer Multitext and co-developer (with Neel Smith) of the Canonical Text Service Protocol
  • Francesco Mambrini, research fellow at the Digital Humanities Department (IT-Referat) of the German Archaeological Institute
  • Ségolène Tarte, senior research fellow at the University of Oxford’s e-Research Centre
  • Gabriel A. Weaver, a Research Scientist at the Coordinated Science Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

What do you look forward to most from SCI, and what do you hope to accomplish through the Institute?

All the members of our team have talked about these issues, and possible technological solutions, for years, in various ad hoc conversations. The Institute will give us the most valuable opportunity of dedicated in corpore time and space to align our individual ongoing work and technologies with our shared goal of flexible, expressive, machine-actionable attribution and evaluation.

We are also looking forward to the opportunity to share ideas with, gather criticism from, and face the need of clear presentation to the larger group that will gather in October.

Venetus A

What are your plans for next steps after the Institute this fall?

We are all engaged in collaborative work that could immediately serve as test-beds for ideas about analytical attribution. Blackwell’s work on historical botany, for example, continues to engage undergraduate students from across disciplines, over relatively short periods of time, contributing diverse and very specific data to an evolving digital library: taxonomic indexing, medical commentary, historical essays, transcriptions of letters, compilation of geo-spatial data, photography. Almas, in her work on Perseids has an immediate need and audience for innovative approaches to citation of complex and evolving analyses. Mambrini’s research at the DAI is likewise focused on analysis of texts and meta-analysis of scholarly interpretation.

Weaver notes that an analytical framework for attribution would be immediately useful in the domain of computer science as a discipline and within industry. Currently, there is demand among practitioners to be able to search, retrieve, and measure the evolution of multiple versions of security policies and compliance reports over time.

The proposed discussion for this SCI workshop can have strong impacts on the current activities of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, and any conclusions that we reach would be welcomed contributions to any of the ongoing outreach initiatives of the Institute, e.g. the Digital Classicist Berlin series of symposia. Mambrini is a co-chair of the conference on “Corpus-Based Research in the Humanities” (next held in Warsaw in December 2015), whose participants would be specifically interested in this topic.

Is there anything else you’d like to say about your project or participation in the Institute?

The Scholarly Communication Institute represents an opportunity that is all too rare: a space for forward-looking conversation among scholars from different disciplines. We are excited at the prospect, and honored to have been invited.

[ Image credits: and ]