Followup on Meeting 7

Thanks for a wonderful discussion today. More “back channel” comments are available at the Twitter #nudhl hashtag.

A few followup links.

After I inquired, Kate Bagnell tweeted a blog post she wrote about the lack of women in Invisible Australians, the White Australia archive project we examined today: http://chineseaustralia.org/archives/1757.

Tim Sherratt’s presentation on building Invisible Australians here: http://invisibleaustralians.org/blog/2011/12/it%E2%80%99s-all-about-the-stuff-collections-interfaces-power-and-people/.

Sean Takats’s now infamous posts about his tenure case: http://quintessenceofham.org/2013/01/17/dh-tenure-1-the-talk/ and http://quintessenceofham.org/2013/02/07/a-digital-humanities-tenure-case-part-2-letters-and-committees/.

Scalar: http://scalar.usc.edu/scalar/

Please add additional links, followup, questions, comments as you see fit.

Best,

Michael

2 thoughts on “Followup on Meeting 7

  • April 7, 2013 at 2:33 pm
    Permalink

    Hi Michael,
    Thanks to you & Jillana for leading yet another great session. To me, projects like Invisible Australians (in spite of the problems they necessarily include, problems from which print monographs are often no less immune) indicate very visibly the productive intersections between scholarship and archival work/curation.

    The categorical indeterminacy of IA and other “building” projects (some philological, like WordHoard, for instance) are problematic in my view only insofar as they challenge our established disciplinary structure and hierarchy. This is certainly related to the problem of tenure procedure. (Of course, their sustainability is another issue altogether.) I’m looking forward to talking more about how emerging or in-between categories of scholarship can lead us to new questions and methods; I think Ben Pauley’s work exemplifies this kind of work.

    ASK

  • April 9, 2013 at 11:09 am
    Permalink

    Andrew —

    I also think your concept of “editions” will prove very fruitful in continuing to explore the “indeterminate” nature of forms of online scholarship. And I like how you draw upon the time period and topics you are studying to pivot back toward conceptualizing scholarly work in our contemporary moment. Onward!

    — Michael

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *