18.348 recording angels

From: Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty willard.mccarty_at_kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:43:44 +0000

               Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 18, No. 348.
       Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                     Submit to: humanist_at_princeton.edu

   [1] From: "Ray Siemens" <siemensr_at_MALA.BC.CA> (24)
         Subject: RE: 18.345 recording angels

   [2] From: Stephen Miller <Stephen.Miller_at_assoc.oeaw.ac.at> (14)
         Subject: Re: 18.345 recording angels / oral history

         Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:36:32 +0000
         From: "Ray Siemens" <siemensr_at_MALA.BC.CA>
         Subject: RE: 18.345 recording angels

Dear Willard, Vika, and all HUMANISTs,

I've been following this discussion with great interest, and -- with
mention of the early findings of a report that a group of us (under the
lead of Elaine Toms, at Dalhousie U) involved in TAPoR had carried out -- I
can no longer resist adding a little, though I fear it does not take us

The report was my brief presentation at ALLC/ACH, offered on behalf of the
research team headed by Elaine, on the early results of a survey in which a
number of members of this discussion list participated (I presume). The
survey asked questions centring on how humanists used electronic texts in
their work, and it did treat some issues related to work habits of our group.

Speaking now *not* as a member of the research team, but as my own curious
person, let me say that one of the things that intrigued me most about the
results to which Vika has drawn attention is that they provided partial
support to an intuition I've had about this: that we, as a community, may
well do a phenomenally good job of collaborating . . . but we may also do a
phenomenally poor job of indentifying it (and celebrating it) as such,
perhaps in large part because humanities-based disciplines do not have a
tradition of tracking collaboration as do some other disciplines, perhaps
in some part because of myths associated with various parts of the academy,
and likely because we quite naturally enjoy this element of our work and,
so, resist quantifying it in professional terminology and measureable units
suitable for surveys and promotion reviews. Just a hunch, this is.



         Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:36:59 +0000
         From: Stephen Miller <Stephen.Miller_at_assoc.oeaw.ac.at>
         Subject: Re: 18.345 recording angels / oral history

> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 06:07:54 +0000
> From: lachance_at_origin.chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance)
> >
>I just want to point out that your preliminary posting on the topic of
>ethnographic documentation may have overlooked the role of the oral
>historian. Post-hoc, the interview is a valuable genre. Are not some of
>the researchers you wish had left more documentation still living? Would
>they not be available for a series of interviews?

Of which the prime example is David O. Edge and Michael J. Mulkay,
Astronomy Transformed: The Emergence of Radio Astronomy in Britain (New
York: Wiley, 1976).

Stephen Miller
Received on Fri Nov 12 2004 - 01:54:24 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Nov 12 2004 - 01:54:27 EST