Day of Digital Ideas 2015

Digital humanities is an area that I’ve been interested in for a long time but which I haven’t had much opportunity to engage with, so earlier this week I was really excited to be able to go along to the Digital Scholarship Day of Digital Ideas at the University of Edinburgh.  In the absence of my EDINA colleague Nicola Osborne and her fabulous live blogging skills, I live tweeted the event and archived tweets, links and references in a storify here: Digital Day of Ideas 2015.  I also created a TAGS archive of tweets using Martin Hawksey’s clever Twitter Archiving Google Spreadsheet.

The event featured three highly engaging keynotes from Ben Schmidt, Anouk Lang, and Ruth Ahnert, and six parallel workshops covering historical map applications and OpenLayers, corpus analysis with AntConc, data visualisations with D3, Drupal for beginners, JavaSCript basics and Python for humanities research.

Humanities Data Analysis

~ Ben Schmidt, Northeastern University

Ben explored the role of data analysis in humanities and explored the methodological and social challenges presented by humanities data analysis.  He began by suggesting that in many quarters data analysis for humanities is regarded as being on a par with “poetry for physics”.  Humanities data analysis can rase deep objections from some scholars, and seem inimical to the meaning of research.  However there are many humanistic ways of thinking about data that are intrinsic to the tradition of humanities. Serendipity is important to humanities research and there is a fear that digital research negates this, however it’s not difficult to engineer serendipity into cultural data analysis.

But what if borrowing techniques from other disciplines isn’t enough? Digital humanities needs its own approaches; it needs to use data natively and humanistically, as a source of criticism rather than to “prove” things. Humanities data analysis starts with the evidence, not with the hypothesis.  The data needs to tell stories about structures, rather than individual people.   Johanan Drucker argues that what we call “data” should really be called “capta”:

Capta is “taken” actively while data is assumed to be a “given” able to be recorded and observed. From this distinction, a world of differences arises. Humanistic inquiry acknowledges the situated, partial, and constitutive character of knowledge production, the recognition that knowledge is constructed, taken, not simply given as a natural representation of pre-existing fact.

Johanna Drucker on data vs. capta

Ben went on to illustrate these assertions with a number of examples of exploratory humanities data analyses including using ngrams to trace Google books collections, building visualisations of ship movements from digitised whaling logbooks, the Hathi Trust bookworm, and exposing gendered language in teachers reviews on Rate my Teacher.  (I’ve worked with ships musters and log books for a number of years as part of our Indefatigable 1797 project, I’ve long been a fan of Ben’s whaling log visualisations which are as beautiful as they are fascinating.)

Ships tracks in black, show the outlines of the continents and the predominant tracks on the trade winds. © Ben Schmidt

Ben concluded by introducing the analogy of Borges The Garden of Forking Paths and urged us to create data gardens and labyrinths for exploration and contemplation, and to provide tools that help us to interpret the world rather than to change it

Gaps, Cracks, Keys: Digital Methods for Modernist Studies

~ Anouk Lang, University of Edinburgh

Manifesto of Modernist Digital Humanities

Manifesto of Modernist Digital Humanities

Anouk explored the difficulties and opportunities facing scholars of twentieth-century literature and culture that result from the impact of copyright restrictions on the digitisation of texts and artefacts. Due to these restrictions many modern and contemporary texts are out of digital reach.  The LitLong project highlights gaps in modernist sources caused by copyright law.  However there are cracks  in the record where digital humanities can open up chinks in the data to let in light, and we can use this data as the key to open up interesting analytic possibilities.

During her presentation Anouk referenced the Manifesto of Modernist Digital Humanities, situating it in reference to the Blast Manifesto, Nathan Hensley’s Big Data is Coming for Your Books, and Underwood, Long and So’s Cents and Sensibility.

By way of example, Anouk demonstrated how network analysis can be used to explore biographical texts. Biographies are curated accounts of people’s lives constructed by human and social forces and aesthetic categories. There is no such thing as raw data in digital text analysis: all the choices about data are subjective. Redrawing network maps multiple times can highlight what is durable. For example network analysis of biographical texts can reveal the gendered marginality of writers’ wives.

In conclusion, Anouk argued that digital deconstruction can be regarded as a form of close reading, and questioned how we read graphical forms such as maps and network illustrations. How do network maps challenge established forms of knowledge? They force us to stand back and question what our data is and can help us to avoid the linearity of narrative.

Closing the Net: Letter Collections & Quantitative Network Analysis

~ Ruth Ahnert, Queen Mary University of London

Ruth’s closing keynote explored the nature of complex networks and the use of mathematical models to explore their underlying characteristics.  She also provided two fascinating examples of how social network analysis techniques can be used to analyse collections of early modern letters, a set of Protestant letters (1553 – 1558) and Tudor correspondence in State Papers Online,  to reconstruct the movement of people, objects, and ideas.   She also rather chillingly compared the Tudor court’s monitoring of conspiracies and interception of letters with the contemporary surveillance activities of the NSA.

Ruth Ahnart.  Picture by Kathy Simpson, @kilmunbooks

Ruth Ahnart. Picture by Kathy Simpson, @kilmunbooks.

Ruth introduced the concept of betweenness* – the connectors that are central to sustaining a network.  Networks are temporal, they change and evolve over time as they are put under pressure.  Mary I took out identifiable hubs in the Protestant network by executing imprisoned leaders, however despite removing these hubs, the networks survived because the sustainers survived, these are the people with high betweenness.  In order to fragment a network it is necessary to remove, not the hubs or edges, but the nodes with high betweenness.

Ruth went on to introduce Eigenvector centrality which can be used to measure the quality of people’s connections in a network, and she explored the curious betweenness centrality of Edward Courteney, 1st Earl of Devon (1527 – 1556). Courteney’s social capital is quantifiable; he was typical of a character with high Eigenvector centrality, who cuts across social groups and aligned himself with powerful nodes.

In conclusion, Ruth suggested that network analysis can be used to open archives, it doesn’t presume what you’re looking for, rather it can inspire close reading by revealing patterns previously unseen by traditional humanity research.

I was certainly hugely inspired by Ruth’s presentation.  I have some passing familiarity with the concepts of network analysis and betweenness centrality from the work of Martin Hawksey and Tony Hirst however this it the first time I have seen these techniques applied to historical data and the possibilities are endlessly inspiring.  One of the man aims of our Indefatigable 1797 research project is to reveal the social networks that bound together a small group of men who served on the frigate HMS Indefatigable during the French Revolutionary War.  Using traditional techniques we have pieced together these connections through an analysis of ships musters, Admiralty archives, contemporary press reports, personal letters and birth, marriage and death certificates.  We have already built up a picture of a complex and long-lived social network, but I now can’t help wondering whether a more nuanced picture of of that network might emerge through the application of social network analysis techniques.  Definitely something to think more about in the future!

Many thanks to Anouk Lang and the Digital Scholarship team for organising such a thought provoking, fun and engaging event.

* For an excellent explanation of the concept of betweeness, I can highly recommend reading Betweenness centrality – explained via twitter, featuring Tony Hirst and my former Cetis colleagues Sheila MacNeill, Wilbert Kraan, and Martin Hawksey.  It’s all about the genetically modified zombies you see…

The Society for Nautical Research

Last week I was honoured to chair the Publications Committee of the Society of Nautical Research at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.  I was appointed to replace the interim chair, Admiral Sir Kenneth Eaton, towards the end of last year, but last week was my first time in the chair.

The Society was founded in 1910 and encourages research into matters relating to seafaring and shipbuilding, the language and customs of the sea, and all subjects of nautical interest.  The Society plays a major role in promoting international scholarship in naval and maritime history, preserving the nautical heritage of the UK, and recognising excellence in historical research and preserving maritime heritage through a number of awards.

Since 1911, the Society has published The Mariner’s Mirror, the leading international journal of naval and maritime history, and all aspects of seafaring and lore of the sea.  The Mariner’s Mirror promotes the work not just of established academics and professionals, but also talented and enthusiastic independent scholars and new researchers. The Honorary Editor of The Mariner’s Mirror is Dr Martin Bellamy, the Research and Curatorial Manager at Glasgow Museums.

Over the last few years the Publications Committee has undertaken a number of new initiatives to publicise the Society’s work, including a new website and twitter account (@nauticalhistory) which was launched at the end of last year.  I’m delighted to take on the role of chair of the Publications Committee in order to continue this exciting work and I’m very pleased to have the support and guidance of Dr Cathryn Pearce, as Secretary of the Committee.

If you’re interested in maritime or nautical history, you can find out more about the work of the Society for Nautical Research and information about how to join at our new website: snr.org.uk

snr_website

snr.org.uk

RRS Discovery and HMS Unicorn

Of course I couldn’t go to Dundee without visiting RRS Discovery and HMS Unicorn

RSS Discovery

Discovery

A post shared by Lorna M Campbell (@lornamcampbell) on

Great cabin, HMS Unicorn

Great cabin, HMS Unicorn

A post shared by Lorna M Campbell (@lornamcampbell) on

Wardroom, HMS Unicorn

Wardroom, HMS Unicorn

A post shared by Lorna M Campbell (@lornamcampbell) on

Carpenter’s walk, HMS Unicorn

Carpenters walk, HMS Unicorn

A post shared by Lorna M Campbell (@lornamcampbell) on

Upper Clyde Shipyards: Scottish Industrial Heritage and Maritime Identity

govan_1_smallA couple of weeks ago the fabulous Port Towns and Urban Cultures folk posted an article I wrote on the history of the Upper Clyde Shipyards and the Scottish media’s reaction to announcements of the threatened closure of the Govan yard at the end of last year.  If you’re interested, you can read the post here:

Upper Clyde Shipyards: Scottish Industrial Heritage and Maritime Identity

And while you’e over there, I can highly recommend having a browse around the Port Towns and Urban Cultures site as they post a wide range of fascinating articles. One of my recent favourites is Daniel Swan’s “It’s because we’re just women.” Listening to women in port town industries

Encouraging news from the Wellcome Library and Europeana

I’m a bit pressed for time for blogging at the moment, but there have already been two news items this week that are worth highlighting.

First of all, the Wellcome Library have followed the lead of the National Portrait Gallery, the J. P. Getty Museum and many other institutions worldwide, and announced that they have made over 100,000 high resolution historical images available free of charge.  All the images, which include of manuscripts, paintings, etchings, early photography and advertisements, carry a a CC-BY licence and can be downloaded from the Wellcome Images website.

Among many fascinating collections, Wellcome Images includes works by my favourite Georgian satirical cartoonist Thomas Rowlandson, along with his contemporaries James Gillray and George Cruikshank.

Swimming by Thomas Rowlandson

“Side way or any way” by Thomas Rowlandson

In a press release accompanying the launch, Simon Chaplin, Head of the Wellcome Library, said

“Together the collection amounts to a dizzying visual record of centuries of human culture, and our attempts to understand our bodies, minds and health through art and observation. As a strong supporter of open access, we want to make sure these images can be used and enjoyed by anyone without restriction.”

The BBC also published a rather entertaining article about the collection here:  Grin and bare it: buttock cupping & other health ‘cures’.

The other announcement that caught my eye was the launch of the second release of the Europeana Open Culture app.  I haven’t had a chance to try the new app, but I haven’t had too much success searching Europreana in the past, so I’m hoping that it will be an improvement.   The new app promises to bring “enhanced functionality, new content,  a more user-friendly layout” and is available in seven languages (English, German, French, Spanish, Dutch, Bulgarian, and Swedish).  The press release states:

“you can now download the hi-res image for free and use it however you want to – for your work, study or leisure projects”

However, as I haven’t had a chance to load up the app, I don’t know what licence or licences these images carry.   However the app code for the Muse (Museum in your pocket) Open Source iPad App used by Europeana is available from Github.

It’s really encouraging to see more and more museums, libraries and galleries making their content freely available under open licence, these are invaluable resources for teachers, learners and researchers worldwide.  I just hope we will see more education institutions joining them!

The six best conference questions: Or, how not to paper-bomb at a conference

Recently Times Higher Education published an article by Allan Johnson about the six questions every academic dreads to hear at conferences, which started an interesting discussion among a group of historians on twitter about the kind of conference questions we really like to hear.  Joanne Bailey, Reader in HIstory at Oxford Brookes University, suggested this would make a great topic for an article and took the lead in turning the twitter discussion into something more coherent, and it gives me great pleasure to post the resulting article here.

The six best conference questions: Or, how not to paper-bomb at a conference

By Joanne Bailey, Isaac Land, Lorna M. Campbell and Steven Gray

Giving a conference paper can be a daunting and sometimes even an unpleasant experience, as Allan Johnson reminded us in his article in the Times Higher about the six conference questions every academic hears, and wishes they didn’t. They range from the helpful, to the ambush, to the direct attack. There are the well-intentioned, if condescending offerings: the ‘Courtesy Question’ and ‘The Tell-Us-What-You-Want Question.’ Then there are the conference versions of photo-bombing: ‘Talk-To-Me-Personally Question’ and ‘Wandering Statement’ where the questioner sticks their research in front of the speaker’s. Finally, the argumentative: ‘Obstinate Question’ and ‘Display of Superior Knowledge’.

Well, we’ve all been there, possibly on both sides of the desk. Some of us even avoid giving papers to escape these questions. One of us remembers the joy she felt at a conference when the fire-alarm went off as she finished the paper, which avoided questions altogether. But of course we need other researchers’ questions to make our research efforts worthwhile. Their questions are the life-blood of conferences. That is why we give papers. We want to test our direction, our findings, and our approach. By the way, if you go to a conference in order to monitor the competition rather than to survey the field, we suggest you should save your money as that kind of attitude is unlikely to be helpful to you or anyone else.

So in the ideal world what should conference Q&A sessions be like? A short survey on Twitter asking academics what kind of questions they’d benefited from after delivering conference papers came up with several horror stories but – more importantly – the sort of interaction and enquiries we want and need when we bravely set our work in front of others.

The supportive Question

Okay, sometimes the audience is silent because of its state of exhaustion, hangovers, desire to have lunch, or need to get the train. So for the kindly soul who breaks the ice, we like questions which show that the audience member has actually listened to our presentation, so ask about a specific point that was raised. It can be robust: ask for clarification as that actually gets the speaker to engage and explain; particularly useful for researchers at the start of a project.

The Selfless Question

When you give a conference paper you want the questions to be about your paper or aspects of your research. So the questioner who focuses on your research is more helpful than the one who dwells on their own work.  It means the panel member can think about their own research and not get distracted by trying to guess who the speaker is from the clues in the question, or if they already know who the speaker is, trying to (a) avoid offending them, or (b) offend them.  For the egotist academics out there, why not see your questions as an opportunity to publicly help others? They’ll be eternally grateful!

Another way to do this is to try to ask questions about more than one paper. This makes the conversation a three-way discussion between the questioner, the speakers and the audience. We can all learn something then.

The Tough-but-Fair Question

This is probably the most rewarding question. Tough makes us explain and clarify. It can turn our research around. One PhD student advocates the kind of questions which ‘point out the holes and inconsistencies in my arguments/proof, or extrapolate off my argument and then poke holes. I find those questions to be really useful, because they show me where I need to do more work, especially at expressing my ideas’. But, the question must be fair. Try something like: ‘You mentioned your (evidence type) which poses problems, can you say a few words about the solution?’ Or how about offering the speaker an exception to their case and ask them to reflect on it?

The Practical Recommendation

Everybody loves this question. We need to know what we have missed in the primary and secondary sources, but phrase it positively please!  Don’t demand to know why the speaker has omitted classic work a, b, or c. Try: ‘Have you consulted such and such because it reinforces your argument?’ Or, admit that there isn’t a reason for the speaker to have looked at this, but tell them it is similar.

The Think-Outside-the-Box Prompt

Another popular question is one which gets the speaker to think outside the box in which they have neatly confined their research. Remember this is not an attack, nor should it be about the questioner’s own work. Simply ask the speaker to think about a specific comparative case, or comment that their findings may be reflected in other fields or time periods. Not only does this challenge pre-conceptions in a useful way, it may help speakers to think about expanding their work in new directions. This should be exciting rather than threatening. One medievalist offered a question that had helped them: ‘You were talking about women in England, I know that in Germany at the time this was happening, is that the same?’

The Tell-Me-What-Else-You Know

We all cut loads out of our papers. Very often, speakers comment on this while delivering the paper, partly because we are so desperate to point out that we haven’t missed something obvious, we just haven’t had time to cover it. So ask the speaker about the areas they had to leave out! Useful questions, like: ‘You mentioned that time did not permit you to go into XYZ. Can you elaborate now? Speakers appreciate the chance to flesh out details and demonstrate the depth of their research.

When academics give conference papers we don’t necessarily want everyone to agree with us and praise us, though admittedly that can be nice. What we seek is for our audience to take us seriously, whatever stage of our careers we are at.  And that means not dismissing speakers because they are at an early stage of their research and have not yet read the ‘seminal’ work.  As one well-established academic observes: ‘Never greet a young scholar’s paper with “that’s not where the field IS,” which is self-evidently incorrect’. Similarly, those of us at the other end of the academic life-course need to be challenged by ‘new’ approaches and techniques. Early-career scholars can offer so much here, even if they might feel vulnerable about questioning more senior academics. Try phrasing questions along the lines of: ‘How do you respond to (specific scholar) when they say (specifically X)’, rather than dismissing them with ‘You are out of touch’.

What emerged from the Twitter survey is that we give papers in order to think things through and to learn. Audience members are at the panel for the same reasons. This puts us on the same team, not on opposing sides, even when we hold alternative views! So questions should be about personal and collective development, not scoring points off the captive speaker. Next time you ask a question in a conference be a giver, not just a taker. Learn, but offer your learning too, so that it is helpful rather than confrontational.

What academic speakers need and want is simple: courtesy, civility, and interest. Rephrase your ‘Obstinate Question’ into a ‘Tough-but-Fair’ question that allows the speaker to think and respond. Turn your ‘Wandering Statement’ into a ‘Practical Recommendation.’  If you are desperate to fill a silence, make the ‘Courtesy’ question a ‘Supportive’ one, or help out constructively with a ‘Tell-Me-What-Else-You-Know’. We all like to talk about our own work, but recognise that you aren’t giving a paper, so make ‘Another Place-or-Time-Prompt’ which introduces your interest but asks a question of the speaker, encouraging them to think beyond their chronological or spatial boundaries. Be brief, be focused, be answerable, and respond to something specific in the actual paper.

There is, perhaps, a seventh type of conference question that deserves consideration here. What to say when the disagreement is genuine and large, so large that downplaying it would be an injustice to your own intelligence and the speaker’s?  Consider that civility is more important in this situation than in any other.  It may be helpful to frame your comment as a request for clarification (“are you arguing that…” or “perhaps I misunderstood, but…”).  Even if you heard the argument correctly, you are offering them an opportunity to introduce nuances or climb down altogether from an untenable position. If you back a speaker into a corner with an accusation, they are likely to respond in a purely defensive spirit.

A good rule for the statement of strong disagreement is to keep it brief.  Jane Austen said it best: try ‘… to unite civility and truth in a few short sentences.’ You can register your dissent and the reasoning behind it without taking up so much time (or unleashing such strong emotions) that others in the room cannot go on to engage with the speaker on their own terms in the remainder of the Q&A.  If the reasoning behind your point is widely shared in the room, you won’t need to belabour it; if it is not widely shared, a lengthy intervention will not win you many converts. Remember that you can discuss the issues with the speaker after the session.

A practical problem remains unexamined: How should a speaker respond when faced with a question that feels inappropriate or hostile? We should bear in mind that people have different natural styles and levels of social skill, and a bluntly worded question is not necessarily a malicious one.  Audience members have little time to prepare their questions.  It may be helpful to respond in a tone and style that is slightly friendlier than the questioner’s. In some cases, this is all that is required to smooth the waters and enable dialogue. Avoid the temptation to shrug off the challenge with a minimalist reply, ask for clarification if needed, for instance. Honesty is disarming: ‘that is very interesting, but there really isn’t enough time to expand the scope of my work in that direction.’ Do consider that one source of belligerent audiences and long-winded questions may be past history with speakers who came across as dismissive.

We should also be sensitive to the ways that acerbic questioners may be imitating aspects of their own rough treatment at the hands of (anonymous) peer reviewers or (named) book reviewers.  We cannot expect a Rivendell of civility at conferences to last for long if the trolls have taken over elsewhere.

Useful Links

Six conference questions every academic hears by Allan Johnson
How not to ask questions at a conference by Kevin Burke
How to disagree with civility by Lincoln Mullen 

The Authors

Joanne Bailey is a Reader in HIstory at Oxford Brookes University where she a historian of early modern, Georgian and Victorian Britain, with particular interests in marriage, marriage breakdown, family relationships, the domestic economy, parenting, masculinities and identities.  Joanne blogs at Joanne Bailey Muses on History.

Isaac Land is an Associate Professor in the Department of History at Indiana State University  where his teaching and research interests focus on the intersection of national and international histories, and the history of sailors and port cities.

Lorna M Campbell is the Assistant Director of the Centre for Educational Technology, Interoperability and Standards at the University of Bolton.  Along with her colleague Heather Noel-Smith, she is also undertaking an independent research project on the the careers of young officers in the Napoleonic navy.  Lorna blogs at Open World and Indefatigable1797.

Steven Gray is undertaking a PhD at Warwick University with the working title ‘Imperial Coaling: Steam-power, the Royal Navy and British Imperial Coaling stations circa. 1870-1914’. Steven’s research concerns the expansion of a steam-powered Royal Navy in the second half of the nineteenth century and the wider ramifications across the British empire. Stephen blogs at sjgray.blogspot.co.uk.