I attended the ACRL Digital Humanities Discussion Group during the American Library Association Annual Conference, which met at 4-5:30PM, on Sunday June 24, 2012.

Facilitated by Kate Brooks; (incoming head: Angela Courtney) there about 40-50 in attendance. (The ACRL Digital Humanities email list has over 500 subscribers.)

We went around the room for everyone introduced themselves, and mentioned their interest in digital humanities (hereafter DH) and why they came. In part this was to help determine the future direction of the group.

Some of the interesting projects mentioned were:

• A commons set up by the Modern Language Association
• A librarian involved the creation of an online multimedia book
• A librarian from UCLA noted that institution's 31^st year of offering a digital certificate. They have just recently opened an area for staff to participate in DH
• The University of Michigan plans to unveil a digital humanities project in October about the 1918 Influenza
• A joint project of the Brooklyn Museum, the Brooklyn Public Library, the Brooklyn Historical Society and Pratt University plans to explore the ways to showcase their digital photography project

While many attendee were able to mention projects at their institutions, other stated that they were present for in order to see what DH is about and learning more.

The agenda was based on responses to the questionnaire Kate sent out to the ARCL Digital Humanities email list: What do we understand DH and DH librarians to be? What are new directions for librarians to follow? Are they extensions of existing responsibilities?

How does a DH project begin? It's usually initiated by the faculty or students. The library or librarian is brought in at a later stage of the project. Librarians serve as the volunteers who can help shepherd the project through. They can function as facilitators. The library is one place where hierarchical status can be leveled and participants can be can equals.

It was noted that some faculty, used to dealing primarily with humanities, have a fear of technology. Some forbid students from consulting ebooks, or smart phones. They are very print-focused. Data, collaborations are new things to them. They can't see the value in (for example) text mining. All the more reason that a library is a natural home for the blending of humanities and technology. It is a space that fosters collaboration. Libraries are the ultimate connectors between faculty, students, IT, users – all parties involved in a DH project.

In the context of DH, the change in librarians' responsibilities was noted. It is a shift away from their area of subject expertise to an area that requires new skills. Prominent among these was the need for project management. Many participants in a DH project need someone with an overall view of the entire project, process, workflow, stakeholders, etc. and project management is one way to see the project to completion.

Is the word “digital” a term that fosters fragmentation? There was a perception that once the word “digital” was used, members of the institution felt a disconnect, a separation. The emphatic response was no, that DH should really be considered a part of humanities. DH is neither different nor separate.

Attendees clarified the difference between digitization (a transfer to a new format) and DH (how that new format is used).

Where are the standards in digitization? Documentation on best practices? It depends on the materials. Check out projects that you find similar. Many have documentation of their metholody and process as part of their website. Ask what are their tools, standards, etc.? (Do not be afraid to email them and ask how they did it.) Check out DigitalLibrary Federation, Nineteenth-Century Scholarship Online (NINES.org). TEI has a set of guidelines. (Developing a more comprehensive list of sources would be a useful project for the blog – see below.)

What are the challenges one faces with DH projects?  Some of them are:

• Reaching out to faculty
• Participating in DH projects
• Teaching in the library
• Institutions that don't have a DH department
• A project with no single DH person managing
• Not having dedicated staff

For dedicated DH librarians: how do you work with archivists, book groups, subject librarians, and other participants/stakeholders? One person mentioned a danger where some project initiator's enthusiasm will prompt them to imagine an expedited process that leaves out the library entirely (they'll be sorry later!). It shouldn't happen: Sooner or later the library is going to be involved (and most institutional staff will believe and want this.) [Remember the discussion above of the perception of the library was the unifier of disparate institutional communities.]

One librarian recalled what happened at his institution. He took on the role of project manager because it was the only way the proejct was going to get done. He created a DH group by bringing in people across the institution. He created a new workflow to see the project through and get it done. He observed that getting people on group made them have an investment in the project. Also important: a narrative of how it was implemented and done can be an important thing for tenure and for others who want to learn.

What should this ACRL DH group do? Should the group continue as a discussion group, or become an interest group. The differences: A discussion group is free form, open ended, no membership requirements (anyone can attend), but no financial support from ACRL. An interest group receives money from ARCL to assist with programing, for example, the presentation of papers. An interest group has to have at least 75 members, and goes for 3 years, after which the group is reviewed. Kate promised to poll the email list to see how they felt on whether to continue the group as a discussion group or move toward an interest group.

The blog. Recap: Based on conversations over the ACRL DH email list, it was felt that a platform using WordPress could be useful as a central place for the intersection of librarians and DH. The question currently before us: What do we want the blog to be? Some mentioned an aggregation function, although others were not interest in a site that was simply going to pull information from other sites. One idea was that it could be a site where people submit original content. Or it could be two site: one for announcements, and one for original content with editorial curation. People felt strongly that the ACRL DH email list has been a significant communication tool and that it should be maintained. There was some brainstorming on what path the site could take: It could be like http://Digitalhumanitiesnow.org, or it could be like ProfHacker (on the Chronicle of Higher Education). It could be a place where DH tools could be commented on as to their scope and usefulness, and providing documentation of various projects.

[The blog is being set up by Sarah Potvin, Roxanne Shirazi and Angela Courtney.]

Kate again promised to send out a survey over the email list to get an idea of what people envision.

The meeting closed with the final question: What should the blog be named.

It was an enthusiastic group and I'm interested to see what course it will take.  Bravo Kate and welcome, Angela!

Web 2.0 Expo: Some thoughts

I enjoyed this year's Web 2.0 Expo more than I thought I would. I was concerned that it might be a repetition of last year’s. Fortunately I was wrong. Some of the speakers were the same, but (from what I could see) they offered new views on a variety of issues.

Before I provide summaries of the individuals sessions I attended, I’ll offer some general comments about the Web 2.0 Expo in New York City.

Last year, overhearing talk in between sessions, it seemed that one of the most pressing concerns was how to monetize the Internet and social media, and determining ROI (return on investment). This year, though ROI was still on people’s minds, its concern seemed to be much more muted (based on my sense that there were fewer hard business types present). Rather, I sensed that the geeks who had entered the business world had come to the expo to reinvigorate their love and fascination of computers and the Internet. They came to explore new ideas and keep track of what they could bring back to the office or file away for later use.

The keynotes last year seemed to me rather perfunctory, whereas this year many were a highlight of the event. I first saw Baratunde Thurston portray @the_swine_flu back at IgniteNYC on June 1, 2009. Even then he had the audience howling with laughter. This time he spoke on hashtags in Twitter, but I was amazed at the way he delivered his speech. It wasn’t a speech: it was a dialogue with the audience. As an occasional stand-up comedian (and an editor for The Onion), he knew he had to get the audience right away. He succeeded, making his presentation among the most memorable presentation of the entire Expo. It is a model for all future presentations.

The sleeper for me was Beth Noveck, Deputy Chief Technology Officer For Open Government at the White House. Noveck spent over about 35 minutes in conversation with Tim O’Reilly, discussing the President’s Open Government Initiative. She described a direction for openness in the White House that would foster greater participation (and therefore activism) in political life. One of the first advantages of openness was making sure that no lobbyists would enter those who advise the president – and having the list of official visitors made public was a step to making sure no lobbyists would appear. She also singled out Manor, Texas, a town of 5,800 people, for the superlative efforts they’re doing to create a transparent government on a town level. You could feel the audience breathing “wow!” as she held them in attention, describing what they hope to achieve, including influencing other branches of government to be as open.

Much has already been written about – and by - Danah Boyd, her keynote speech, and the phenomenon of “tweckling” (an amalgam of Twitter and heckling). In brief, saddled with an unexpected and difficult situation for presenting her paper, Boyd was unaware that the Twitter feed being projected behind her began to comment negatively on her presentation, even to becoming derogatory. To be sure, even if the audience was correct in suggesting that she was reading her paper too fast, the nastiness was uncalled for and not constructive.

As ugly as it was, the situation suggested that the typical academic talk – of standing and delivering your totally prepared paper – is now a thing of the past. Today we're at Presentation 2.0: You must establish a relationship with and engage your audience. Do not depend on content alone to do that for you. Of course, attendees were spoiled by Thurston’s presentation – he spent a good five minutes warming us up, getting our attention, and establishing a memorable exchange with us even before he began sharing content. [Side note: When Michael Stephens (instructor at the Graduate School of Library Information Science at Dominican University) addressed staff at the New York Public Library, he began at the back of the auditorium, slowly making his way to the front, while asking short questions and getting answers. He was working the crowd.] This kind of Presentation 2.0 – which is as much performance as presentation – is now going to be necessary when conveying information to an audience, particularly if there are distractions such as slides, or simultaneous Twitter feeds (even if they are not projected, many conferences now have a backchannel, so it's not going to go away).

Despite the many good sessions I attended (summaries of which I hope to post soon), what I felt missing from the Expo were more opportunities for networking. In this day and age where the Internet enables quick and usually free dissemination, there has been much talk questioning the need for traditional conferences, when presenters could simply post their talks online.

Therefore attendance at a conference needs to emphasize the attributes beyond the papers, and that is usually networking. There is a need for more social interaction. There were a few opporunities: lunch time (often less than an hour), and pre-meeting coffee and tea in he lounge area:

Last year (which I sensed had significantly more attendees), one lunch allowed people to group themselves based on interest. I reported on sitting at a table labeled Museum 2.1 and discovering interesting people. It would have been a good idea to have this option available for all lunches. Instead, we were left to seek out others with similar interests on Twitter - not an efficient method of networking when you're with hundreds of people.

I was happy to have suggested and created an archive of tweets for the Expo - many thanks to Twapper Keeper. Even a staff member of O'Reilly thanked me. Access the archive here (Over 12,000 tweets as of the morning of November 25.)

Web 2.0 Expo: Museum 2.1

Now that I've finished summarizing the sessions I attended, I'll mention one social/networking aspect of the Web 2.0 Expo. There were plenty of opportunities for networking and socializing, from the various lunch venues and the waiting areas in the Javits Center that allowed one to plug in and charge one's batteries (literally - if your laptop was dying).

One of the lunches was a bit more scripted - and it was much better than just an open-ended meal. Tables were labeled based on mutual interest and one could sit down at the table of one's interest. In cases of excess interest, additional tables were created. I could have gone to the big choices (marketing, media, programming), but instead found something more in tune with my work: "Museums 2.1" as they called themselves.

It turned out to be a great lunch - not for the food, but for the interesting conversation. Most were staff of a variety of museums, as well as a staff member of Apple and 2 representatives of commercial firm (whose name and function I forgot, but who were interested in talking about what museum folks were doing).

Unfortunately the majority of what I remember was how we were all lamenting how difficult it was to get coworkers and bosses "on board" with recognizing the importance of the Web 2.0 world. I think all of the museum staff at the lunch table were greatly impressed and inspired by the Web 2.0 Expo. The problem most faced was communicating our interest in the value of Web 2.0 it to others at our institutions.

The people from commercial firms asked several interesting questions about how we deal with information/metadata about our materials. I remember we mentioned TMS - The Museum System as a way that many museums deal with their holdings. I remember seeing that some of the commercial firm people were surprised at the amount of metadata we had to use to create records of our holdings, and we tried to give reasons on why so much was needed (e.g. to distinguish between slightly different samples or manifestations of objects).

At the conclusion one of the participants collected everyone's name and email address and send us all a message so that we could keep in contact.

It was a very nice lunch experience. I wish more conferences and meetings would do this. It would be a great way to enhance networking among participants.

Why I joined SLA

Trained as a musician, I always thought I was going to be an academic. Once I decided to be a librarian, I worked (and still work) in a public library. So why did I recently join SLA - the Special Libraries Association? I'm sure I'll develop more as time goes on, but for now, in no particular order:

1. I wanted to take advantage of their Leadership & Management library of 998 (count 'em - 998) ebooks.
2. I wanted to network with an incredibly wide variety of individuals
3. In this ever-shrinking world, I wanted to get a view of how libraries function in a for-profit environment
4. I want to learn more about how special librarians are able to deliver product to their customers
5. I want to see what is Knowledge Management for myself
   
6. Finally: I don't want to feel guilty the next time I hear Stephen Abram speak.