Paige Morgan

April 1, 2013
by Paige Morgan
Comments Off on MLA 2014 Special Session Proposal: Marketing the Humanities

MLA 2014 Special Session Proposal: Marketing the Humanities

How can we justify funding for the humanities? Questions like this one have become the basis for numerous articles proposing what colleges and universities could be doing differently. These articles focus on what the humanities will have to do next semester, next year, next budget cycle in order to become more attractive in today’s marketplace. As such, the articles often remain essentially theoretical, rather than looking at the choices departments are making right now.

This panel takes a different angle on the subject of marketing the humanities. Instead of looking for the best way to do so in the future, we will present critical analyses and case studies regarding marketing that is already taking place in campuses across the US. Marketing is a much broader activity than merely designing flashy websites, or taking up the language of mainstream for-profit advertising culture. We are already marketing the humanities, whether or not we are embracing that marketing as a significant part of our role as teachers. Marketing is not a should-we-or-shouldn’t-we? question — it is part of the way that funds are allotted in annual budgets, and a complex process involving a series of ongoing decisions and commitments from faculty and staff.

Our panelists agree that defending the humanities requires conversations, reflection, and analysis about these decisions and commitments. Discussing the implementation of strategies designed to raise the profile of the humanities and the challenges that accompany such implementation illuminates how marketing is far more than rhetoric. It is a collaborative activity requiring labor contributions from multiple individuals.

The MLA Convention provides an important space for dialogue that is difficult to achieve in online comment threads. To take full advantage of the format, we are presenting talks from faculty and administrators from a community college, a 4-year college, and three universities. Our panelists are committed to keeping their talks at 13 minutes, in order to ensure that there is space for dialogue with panel attendees in the last part of the session. The four papers to be presented include both critical analysis of proposed rhetoric for defending the humanities, and discussions of the specific steps and obstacles that departments have taken. By combining both of these types of discussions about marketing, we can see how the theoretical meets the practical.

Peter Kerry Powers, Dean of Humanities at Messiah College, will begin the discussion with “Career Development, Critical Vocationalism, and the Humanities in the Marketplace,” by examining some features of the relationship between the humanities and the marketplace today. The gradual dissolution of traditional notions of canonicity and universal worth has left the humanities naked in the public square without a clear public rationale for their value, in part because the notion of a “public” has also been fracturing under the pressure of the markets. In this context, Powers will explore the possibilities and realities of what Gerald Graff and Paul Jay have terms “critical vocationalism.”

Tonya Howe’s “Public Humanities as Marketing Strategy: Making the Private Public” (co-authored by Bess Fox and Hollynd Karapetkova), will build on Powers’ presentation by looking at the private and public in the humanities from a different perspective. She argues that public humanities can be the middle way between “private,” intrinsically valuable academic scholarship, and (over)emphasizing “marketable” skills. Howe explores what would be involved in a curriculum overhaul resulting in a deep and systematic incorporation of public humanities in a small university’s English department. Specifically, this presentation will examine how public humanities challenges what Julie Ellison describes as “normative academic identities.”

Community colleges face different challenges when it comes to promoting the humanities, and searching for the “perfect” marketing strategy. Cecilia Kennedy’s “Humanities Colloquium Anyone? Marketing A Humanities Event to Academic and Non-Academic Audiences” will present the experiences of the Humanities Colloquium Committee at Clark State Community College in trying to set up the first regular events that were spotlighting only the humanities. The committee made efforts to develop publicity and partner with STEM field representatives without success. Instead, they found that their biggest ally was the local county government. Kennedy offers a review and assessment of the successes and failures the Clark State Colloquium Committee experienced getting this event off the ground, keeping it going, and attempting to expand the audience.

In “Selling Students: Market Realities in the Digital Humanities,” Jesse Stommel and Kathi Inman Berens will consider the ways that departmental budgets are split between permanent faculty and student recruitment/retention. They ask: do we need more enrollment to sustain recurring costs of full-time faculty? Or do we need full-time faculty to foster the student work that will attract enrollment? This presentation examines the specific budget decisions made by Marylhurst University regarding the faculty/recruitment question. Stommel and Berens use their investigation to explore the role of digital humanities-oriented curricula, and to discuss what adopting a DH track would involve, in terms of departmental budget decisions, and collaborations with university marketing teams and other community entities.

Biographies:

Paige Morgan (Session Leader) is a Ph.D. student in English and Textual Studies at the University of Washington, focusing on 18th and 19th-century English poetry and economics, and the digital humanities.  She is the organizer of the Demystifying Digital Humanities workshop series, sponsored by the Simpson Center for the Humanities at the University of Washington, and the creator of the ongoing digital humanities project, Visible Prices, an archive of literary and economic information. Her articles on digital humanities, William Blake, and textual studies, can be found in Romanticism and in the upcoming Palgrave anthology Sexy Blake. She works on publicity for the Textual Studies Program, the Interdisciplinary Writing Program, and other UW Departments.

Rachel Arteaga (Session Co-Leader) is a PhD student in English and a Fellow in the Certificate in Public Scholarship at the University of Washington. Her research focuses on theories of affect and the realist and modernist American novel. Her scholarly work takes up the topic of confinement and begins with discussions of the prison; describes the ways in which this institution is largely invisible to the outside public; and analyzes formations of confinement across texts. She is also engaged in a project that will assess the use of digital humanities resources in K-12 schools; initially, the project will work in rural communities in the state of Washington.

Peter Kerry Powers has been Dean of the School of the Humanities at Messiah College for five years.  In that capacity he has been involved in a variety of initiatives designed to address enrollments in the humanities and to re-envision humanities curricula for the 21st century.  These have ranged from developing new emphases in career development within traditional humanities curricula, supporting faculty initiatives in the digital humanities and pedagogy, creating new curricula in areas such as digital media, and being involved in the marketing and promotion of humanities programs to internal and external constituents.  Dean Powers oversees seven departments and a center for the public humanities; he also runs summer programming in the humanities designed to promote humanities learning among high school students.  Dean Powers is also a full professor of English at Messiah College; as a scholar his work has focused primarily on multi-ethnic American literature, and more recently on the history of books and reading in a digital age.  He has begun a process of new research on the humanities crisis which he envisions leading to an edited collection on what Gerald Graff has called “critical vocationalism.”

Committed to a technologically and publicly informed critical pedagogy, Tonya Howe teaches and researches in the areas of 18th-century British cultural studies, disability, and digital humanities. She is currently Associate Professor of Literature and Director of the Graduate Program in Literature, Language, and the Humanities. Specializing in the study of popular performance genres, Tonya presents widely at national conferences, is an avid THATcamper, and has recently published on the 18th-century posture master and farce as an embodied and self-conscious theatrical form. This project on the public humanities, emerging from research conducted for a campus Ethics initiative, is co-authored by Hollynd Karapetkova and Bess Fox, the director of Marymount’s Composition Program.

Cecilia Kennedy is Associate Professor of English and Spanish at Clark State Community College. Her work combines interests in theater, literature, eco-criticism, and performance with a focus on spaces and audiences for humanities related events. She is the author of Sitios: A Community-Inspired Approach To Spanish, a textbook featuring the elements of “place” and Spanish language-learning; and her scholarly work has previously been published in Hispanófila. At Ohio State and the University of Dayton she has taught Spanish literature, composition, language, and culture.  At Clark State, she currently teaches Spanish, English literature/composition, and Regional Studies of Latin America. As a service to the college, she has chaired the Clark State Humanities Colloquium Committee since its inception in 2011, and experienced the triumphs and tribulations of organizing this annual event and attempting to advertise it to a wide audience.

Kathi Inman Berens teaches at the Universityof Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communication and is a Fellow at the Annenberg Innovation Lab, where she works on virtual classroom software and embodiment.  She curates and researches electronic literature. She teaches and researches transmedia branding, communication interfaces and hybrid pedagogy.  She is co-teaching a class with Jesse Stommel in which students are creating a social media campaign to promote the Showcase of Electronic Literature at the Library of Congress, of which Kathi is co-curator.

Jesse Stommel is Director of English & Digital Humanities at Marylhurst University in Portland, OR and Director and Co-founder of Hybrid Pedagogy: a digital journal of teaching and technology. He earned a Ph.D. in English from University of Colorado Boulder. He recently co-authored  “The Bill of Rights and Principles for Learning in the Digital Age” with Sebastian Thrun, Cathy N. Davidson, Phillip Schmidt, Audrey Watters, and 8 other carefully selected educators.

January 31, 2013
by Paige Morgan
Comments Off on Current Projects

I’m going to have to come back to reading David Golumbia’s The Cultural Logic of Computation — a project I attempted for #acawrimo and#digiwrimo before getting absorbed in conference presentations and dissertation revisions.

If you’re curious about what I’ve been up to lately, check out DMDH, the site for Demystifying the Digital Humanities, a year-long workshop series sponsored by the Simpson Center for the Humanities and the UW Textual Studies Program. At the DMDH site, you can find slides from the workshops, audio tracks where my co-instructor, Sarah Kremen-Hicks and I talk through the content, and other updates about what’s happening with the series.

If you’re interested in an update on Visible Prices, then you can check out the slides and rough notes from the presentation I gave in November at CELL.

Otherwise, this space will remain largely quiet while I finish my dissertation revisions. But feel free to contact me using the link at the top of the page if you’d like to get in touch.

Fly a kite together

 

November 2, 2012
by Paige Morgan
Comments Off on #CLOCread: Ch. 1: The Cultural Function of Computation

#CLOCread: Ch. 1: The Cultural Function of Computation

In this chapter, David Golumbia sets up his argument, and lays out his goals. I’ll recap those goals, but I think it’s also useful if I use this post to explicitly identify how I’m likely to respond to his ideas, based on my own background as a reader with experience in literary history and digital humanities. I should probably add that I’m interested in keeping this series of posts in the realm of  low-stakes writing — formality isn’t the goal. Instead, I’m aiming for something a bit more like the Mark Reads series.

I think it’s significant that I’ve heard this book referred to as The Cultural Logic of Computingrather than Computation. Right away in the intro chapter, Golumbia clarifies that his book is about the latter — computation, rather than computers or the specific computing that people do with them. Computation refers to “the methods computers use to operate,” and it’s the “rhetoric of computation” in society today that is a major focus for this book. To illustrate, computing is the program I write to produce a list of prime numbers from 1-100; computation is the way I get this list: dropping the numbers 1-100 into the program, and having it quickly run a series of tests (is this number divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9?) which eliminates most of the numbers and lists the rest, all in about 3 seconds. In short, by asking questions that sort and eliminate until a sufficiently small answer remains. The rhetoric of computation is (t0 give one example) the view that if you allow everyone access to edit Wikipedia, then the process of their interaction will naturally provide, test, and eliminate data to produce a reliable source of information, while simultaneously revealing which people are most usefully knowledgeable as either well-trained scholars or savage savants. Or, to give another example, the rhetoric of computation influences the educational system to promulgate the idea that if you make sure that students are given a steady four-year diet of information of 30% humanities, 20% science and math, and 50% concentration in a subject of their choice, they will emerge as fully autonomous, intellectually and emotionally functional members of society. Or even the idea that if you try to write an essay, and it isn’t coming, that the answer is to try harder, because you must not be working hard enough. (This last one is a topic that’s contentious in my classroom — the revolutionary idea that the best way to write an essay is not, perhaps, to bolt yourself to the desk and force yourself to bleed the words out.)

The problems with computationalism, then, are much larger than the rise of smartphones in the classroom (or Twitter being assigned to the syllabus).Thus, in regard to Wong’s NYT article, it might be better to say, “the world is changing the way that students are, and it is no simple thing to know how to adapt our teaching to meet their needs.” To describe the situation in those terms in no way lessens the seriousness of the issue.

Would it be easier for the technology enthusiasts and skeptics to find common ground and work towards solutions if both were aware of the idea of computationalism? I suspect so, just as it’s easier for my first-year comp students to craft a careful and delicate discussion when they become aware that they are allowed to think and write about abstract concepts; and that it is worthwhile to write about the ways that two different people define love [1. I say this because my favorite way to introduce this idea is to ask them about the differing concepts of love expressed in songs by Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga; and to describe the significance of these different definitions. It works. Almost instantaneously.].

Golumbia treads very carefully in explaining the problem and significance of computation, and not fear-mongering. The problem with computationalism is that it “underwrites and reinforces a surprisingly traditionalist conception of human being, society, and politics.” His goal is

to show the functions of that discourse in our society, to think about how and why it is able to rule out viable alternative views, and to argue that it is legitimate and even necessary to operate as if it is possible that computationalism will eventually fail to bear the philosophical-conceptual burden that we today put on it.

That burden, of course, is the idea that our current and future internet and associated computing tools will promote a primarily beneficial and democratic societal structure, along the lines described by Clay Shirky in Here Comes Everybody (to name just one title).

I would be lying through my teeth if I said anything other than how much I loved this chapter; or how excited I was to read through it and be treated to a discussion of how computationalism has developed in the last 4oo years, and which is helping me to consider Enlightenment thinking in more complex terms than rationality and anti-rationality. I see that so rarely in academic texts, even those that I consider to be very smart on other subjects. I find it difficult to track discussions that treat this as a simple opposition, because I’m usually frowning over the foundational assumption that rationality has a simple and conventionally-agreed upon meaning. But then, my own research deals with the confluence of rational and irrational thinking and imaginative writing in regards to issues of value and economics in 18th and 19th century England — and so, to my great delight, the scope of this argument actually looks as though it’ll connect beautifully with the dissertation I’m currently revising. (My director will be thrilled.)

And as long as I’m squeeing, I’ll praise the writing for discussing theory without alienating people who haven’t spent years reading and studying it under the guidance of teachers who are adept at teaching it; or without making me feel as though I’m going to be hopelessly lost unless I rush right out and read 600+ pages of Deleuze & Guattari and Derrida right this minute.

What I understand about the rest of the book from this chapter is that it will involve an exploration of  the places in our society where computationalism has had a strong influence, including philosophy, linguistics, corporate practice and structure, academia, and politics — and that Golumbia will be considering both computationalism as an everyday social practice or discourse, and computational protocol — the computing network and infrastructure that is what many people picture as “digital technology/Teh Internets.” Doing this will require a discussion of how those phenomena have affected the way we exist, as humans, and consider what it means to be human. I’m really looking forward to digging into that exploration.

Three years ago I attended a talk by the digital-physical performance artist Stelarc, and was both startled by what he had done, and struck by how much some of his precepts and experiments reminded me of William Blake’s ideas and art; and left me puzzling over whether Blake’s ideas on perception and thought meant the same thing in the 21st century as they had in the 18th. Said puzzling mostly melted my brain before I figured out what I was trying to say (and turned it into an article coming soon to a Palgrave collection near you!); but suffice it to say, I really wish I’d had The Cultural Logic of Computation handy when I was struggling with it.

I really wish I could say more, but I’ve got a conference presentation to work on.

Next up: (Sunday, I hope): Ch. 2: Chomsky’s Computationalism. Will I be able to follow the discussion? I’m a bit nervous, but definitely optimistic, given the first chapter.

 

 

November 1, 2012
by Paige Morgan
Comments Off on Read-Along for #acwrimo/#digiwrimo: David Golumbia’s The Cultural Logic of Computation

Read-Along for #acwrimo/#digiwrimo: David Golumbia’s The Cultural Logic of Computation

[Mirrored at hastac.org.]

For #acwrimo/#digiwrimo I’ve decided to read David Golumbia’s The Cultural Logic of Computationand post about it here and on Twitter throughout the month (I’ll be using the hashtag #CLOCread.

I’m doing this for a couple of reasons. One, because I got into an interesting conversation on Twitter this morning about Simon C. Wong’s article in the NYTimes on whether technology was changing the way that students learn. Most teachers, according to the article, fear that tech is detrimental — it leads to situations where students spend class surreptitiously texting, and rush to uncritically harvest answers from Wikipedia.

Neither of these fears are new — but in the last couple of years, as I’ve studied and learned more about metacognition (and how to encourage it in course structure); and taken a good hard look at perfectionism and failure, and how I’ve been socialized to respond to them, my response to these fears has changed. I think it’s more complicated: to wit, if students are rushing to Wikipedia, it indicates how uncomfortable they are with not understanding instantly. The temptation to text constantly demonstrates just how unsocial our educational system has become — regardless of whether we’re sitting in classrooms with other people.

In short, tech may exacerbate those problems — but it’s not the cause of them. And thus, blanket statements to the effect of “technology is the answer!” or “technology will ruin everything,” are both problematic. And yet, they dominate edtech coverage in the mainstream media.

Golumbia’s book explores the far more complex middle ground. Here’s what the blurb from Harvard U Press says about it:

 

Do computers by definition set us free? Advocates make sweeping claims for their inherently transformative power: new and different from previous technologies, their widespread use constitutes a fundamental shift in our orientation towards established power, and by their very existence they effect positive political change in an “open,” “democratic” direction. Just keep in mind that the people who hold real power are probably OK with you thinking that.

In The Cultural Logic of Computation, David Golumbia, software-design veteran turned Professor of English, Media Studies, and Linguistics at the University of Virginia, confronts this orthodoxy, arguing instead that computers are cultural “all the way down”—that there is no part of the apparent technological transformation that is not shaped by historical and cultural processes, or that escapes existing cultural politics. From the perspective of transnational corporations and governments, computers enable the exercise of already-existing power much more fully than they provide the masses with means to distribute or contest it. Despite this, our thinking about computers has ossified into an ideology, nearly invisible in its ubiquity, that Golumbia dubs “computationalism”—an ideology that shapes our thinking not just about computers, but about economic and social trends as sweeping as globalization.

Driven by a programmer’s knowledge of computers as well as by a deep engagement with contemporary literary and cultural studies and poststructuralist theory, The Cultural Logic of Computation establishes a forceful and considered corrective to the glib, uncritical enthusiasm for computers that dominates the popular cultural discourse around them.

I’ve only just started reading the introduction (and written this blog post, twice now, since the HASTAC server ate it once, and my friend Matt Schneider pointed me to Lazarus) — but I’m impressed so far. I really wish I’d had this when I was teaching this quarter’s Demystifying Digital Humanities workshops at UW; and I’ll certainly work it into the winter and spring sessions.

Here’s the schedule I’m planning to post on for the rest of the month. If you’d like to join me, I’d love the company — whether you’re posting on your own blog, or here, or just commenting; or even just following along via the #CLOCread hashtag.

Nov. 1: Ch. 1: The Cultural Functions of Computation

Nov. 4: Ch. 2: Chomsky’s Computationalism

Nov. 8: Ch. 3: Genealogies of Philosophical Functionalism

Nov. 11: Ch. 4: Computationalist Linguistics

Nov. 16: Ch. 5: Linguistic Computationalism

Nov. 21: Ch. 6: Computation, Globalization, and Cultural Striation

Nov. 24: Ch. 7: Computationalism, Striation, and Cultural Authority

Nov. 27: Chs. 8-9: Computationalism and Political Individualism // Computationalism and Political Authority

Nov. 30: Epilogue: Computers without Computationalism

 

November 1, 2012
by Paige Morgan
Comments Off on Current Endeavors: #DMDH, #AcWriMo, #DigiWriMo

Current Endeavors: #DMDH, #AcWriMo, #DigiWriMo

I’m revising my dissertation chapters (how nice to say revising, rather than writing!), and working on Visible Prices — but most of what I’ve been doing recently is visible over at Demystifying Digital Humanities (known on Twitter as #dmdh), the site that accompanies the workshops I’ve been teaching with Sarah Kremen-Hicks at the Simpson Center for the Humanities at UW.

As one of the UW’s 2012 HASTAC Scholars, I’m also blogging occasionally over at the main HASTAC site.

And this month, I’m taking part in two online writing events: Digital Writing Month, or #digiwrimo; and Academic Writing Month (#acwrimo).

Ironically, I do most of my writing with a pencil in a narrow-ruled notebook — but no one’s said that I couldn’t use the digits on my hands, rather than the digital interface of my laptop.

I am aiming, perhaps improbably, for four chapter revisions, a conference paper, and 2 blog posts a week. We’ll see how this goes.

June 8, 2012
by Paige Morgan
Comments Off on Demystifying the Digital Humanities: coming to UW in 2012-13

Demystifying the Digital Humanities: coming to UW in 2012-13

I am delighted — especially after a thrilling week at DHSI at U Victoria — to announce that during the 2012-13 academic year, Sarah Kremen-Hicks and I will be leading a year-long series of workshops titled Demystifying the Digital Humanities. This series will include 2 workshops during each quarter — so, 6 total. The series is oriented towards providing an introduction to digital humanities for members of the UW community (our primary target audience is humanities graduate students) who are both curious about getting started in the digital humanities and who may feel uncertain about what “getting started” involves, or may feel intimidated about the speed at which technology develops and changes. We hope that this series will support attendees’ own exploration of digital humanities — whether independently, or in conjunction with programs in their own departments.

This program would not be possible without generous support from the University of Washington Simpson Center for the Humanities and the Textual Studies Program — both in terms of funding, and in terms of providing mentoring and inspiration. Nor would it have been possible without the support of our faculty sponsors, Ann Lally (UW Libraries Digital Initiatives), Brian Reed (English), Míċeál Vaughan (English), and Stacy Waters (NELC).

The theme in the final DHSI Colloquium this morning was “The Way Forward” — and thus, many of the presentations focused on means of supporting student training and methods for developing digital humanities infrastructure. In order to contribute to this discussion, we’re making our grant application/detailed plan for the workshop series publicly available. We hope it will be useful to others thinking about similar workshops; and if you have comments or questions, we would be interested in hearing them. (You can reach me through the Contact page on this site, and reach either of us through our contact info within the workshop plan itself.)

Demystifying DH Grant – Public

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

April 5, 2012
by Paige Morgan
Comments Off on What is digital humanities?

What is digital humanities?

Digital humanities, sometimes described as “humanities computing,” and often abbreviated as “DH,” involves

  • using computer technology to preserve, conduct research, and discover new perspectives on literature, art, music, and history from any era and region.
  • studying the humanities artifacts: literature, historical records, art, etc. — that are created for digital environments, rather than in print.

As an 18th and 19th century person, I’m more engaged with the former than the latter. When I first learned about it, I was excited because digital humanities involved making things, as well as writing essays. I love making things.

DH can be an imposing field, apparently populated by people who’ve become adept in two separate fields: literature and tech. But it doesn’t need to be seen in this way.

Sometimes, making things involves learning programming languages. Not always. It might just mean that you know which of the already existing tools and platforms will accomplish your goal. Literature professors teach students how to study novels and poetry, and how to produce essays. As a digital humanist, I have a responsibility to help people become more comfortable working in an electronic environment. That’s why this site is WordPress-based instead of built from scratch — because I need to be intimately familiar with the tools that my students, clients, friends, and colleagues encounter.

It’s tempting to sum this up as “teaching people how to use computers,” but that doesn’t really capture the whole picture. A teacher who loved books, and taught children to read, would see the ultimate success as the point when her students were able to choose library books because they were interested enough to want to read them.

For me, then, the digital humanities isn’t about trying to teach my students and colleagues till they can write code all day and all night. It’s when the tools are so accessible that deciding to use them (or not to use them) is as simple as deciding to go to the library to find an interesting book. And I can contribute to reaching that point by teaching, by listening, and by making things.

October 4, 2011
by Paige Morgan
Comments Off on Dissertation hibernation

Dissertation hibernation

Since I’m in the final phase of completing my dissertation, this space will be quieter than normal for the rest of this academic year.  I’ll be back online (and back to my usual social self) as soon as it’s done — or at least, as soon as it’s in the final stages of revision.

However, there is likely to be at least some periodic activity over at the page for Visible Prices. And I can always be reached via the contact info above. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you’d like to speak with me.

March 25, 2011
by Paige Morgan
Comments Off on Using Twitter at #sts11, and at academic conferences in general

Using Twitter at #sts11, and at academic conferences in general

I’ve been attending the Society for Textual Scholarship conference since 2007, but this is the first year that the conference was held in a location with easily and widely accessible wi-fi, and thus, the first year that it’s had a lively backchannel, thanks to the wi-fi and the fact that Program Chair Matt Kirschenbaum created a digital humanities track running throughout all three days of the meeting.

On the last day of the conference, Barbara Bordalejo was gleefully tweeting about showing Twitter to Paul Eggert, Peter Shillingsburg, and Marta Werner, which made me wish that I’d thought of showing them myself, because they’ve certainly all shown me amazing things, and it would be only courteous to return the favor. But I can still do that. This post, then, is written for an audience who haven’t used Twitter before (at all, or who use it, but not within a conference.) It’s long, but broken up into sections; read one, or all, as you like. I want to avoid asserting baldly that everyone should be on Twitter when they attend a conference. Different styles work best for different people. But if you’re curious about it, then this post may be useful to you.

Tweeting to promote, and document
Tweeting to interact
Twitter can make conferences more professionally useful
Too big to tweet: Peter Shillingsburg’s Presidential Address
Twitter and conflict; or, Twitter isn’t enough — but sometimes, neither is spoken discussion.
Tweeting in a textual context
But can’t you get ADHD from Twitter?
What I don’t know

Tweeting to promote and document

This was my first time tweeting at a formal conference (as opposed to at a THATCamp); which meant I had to figure out what I wanted to say. At the first session I attended on Wednesday afternoon, How to Do Things with NINES, there were only 3 people, including me, and tweeting wasn’t especially conducive to interacting fully with them; but I did send out a couple of messages describing what we were doing; knowing that people in the other sessions would be doing the same. And Typewright, which we ended up discussing as much or more as NINES itself, is worthy of more buzz: it’s a tool for crowdsourcing OCR correction in databases like ECCO, and one of the most exciting features of it is that once a user has corrected a full text, Gale will give him/her the rights to it. (My podcast scholarly edition, which I spoke about at MLA 2009, languishing in part precisely because of rights issues), should finally become a reality, once Typewright goes live).

Continue Reading →