Can we use out of-the-box software to communicate our research findings and represent the fuzzy logic of the humanities?

Cartographers and artists have long made sentimental and subjective maps that portray the emotional states of individuals and communities. The Google N-grams viewer is another successful attempt at making subjective information visible to the broader public. These hijackings of the tools of scientific inquiry for qualitative research remain relatively rare and will not develop further unless they are adopted more broadly by researchers and in humanities classrooms.

This is a pity because there are so many simple tools like Google Fusion Tables and Tableau Public they are fun to play with. They could make for excellent teaching tools, or even make humanities research findings go viral in the way that scientific studies often do. But there is a big problem: visualization tools generally require precise locations and numbers, so we need to come up with new ways of thinking about data for qualitative research.

Which software packages have you used to visualize data in class? Have you come up with innovative ways to present qualitative research? Is there a body of qualitative research that you would like to see as a bar chart, map, or scatterplot?

Bring at least one idea for a subjective or emotional dataset. We will play with some online visualization tools, brainstorm uses for them, and execut a few small projects.

In my own research for my dissertation, I visited approximately 60 libraries around the country ranging from the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, MA, to the Historic New Orleans Collection, to more regional, smaller libraries such as the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society library in Honolulu and the Delaware Historical Society.  Every library had a different policy regarding the use of digital media for research purposes, particularly regarding the use of cameras and laptop computers in reading rooms.  Most libraries were friendly towards the use of these research materials, but many libraries and/or librarians viewed them with ire and scorn.  In almost every instance, those that allowed the use of such materials limited the number of images to be photographed and/or required a signed form specifying that none of these images could be circulated.  Although I was grateful for their permission, I have tens of thousands of images and other similar materials that I can neither use for my own publications nor share among my colleagues and other interested parties.

My proposal session consists of two parts: 1) sharing my own experiences and thoughts about digital research, and 2)  hearing feedback from others who have done similar research.  Finally, we would discuss if or how libraries are dealing with this issue and what is being done (if anything) to bring about a more uniform treatment of digital research.

As an archivist, I post content to my website but have fallen behind a bit in knowing the tools my users use and how to prepare my materials for them. As a teacher, F2F and online, I want to know how to integrate digital tools into my coursework and which tools I should teach to my students. As a community historian, I hope to provide info to a rising generation of avocational historians and need to know how they access that info. I need to listen more than talk, and though other sessions cover at least some of my personal concerns, I’d love the opportunity to hear about more tools and strategies from the makers and users assembled here.

I started my research in an analog world–large numbers of xerox copies, note cards for bibliography, etc.  The world is now digital.  How do I move research materials into a digital format so they can be worked with more easily, particularly without spending more time learning programs that working on research?  I have do answers to these questions, but I would love to learn from others in discussions about where to start.

I’m interested in discussing how Library Science’s bibliographic theories intersect with the Humanities’ conception of creative works. In particular I would like to examine Library Science’s FRBR concept in this light.

FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) is a conceptual framework that has had a large impact within the Library and Information Sciences world, particularly in how bibliographic entities are conceived within a catalog system. Among other things, FRBR proposes a system of four inter-related abstraction that are designed to describe different parts of a creative endeavor’s whole. Work describes the creative idea behind a bibliographic entity, Expression describes the specific artistic form that realizes the work, Manifestation describes the physical form that that expression takes (a specific edition of a book), and Item describes one single instance of a manifestation (the particular book that you have in your hand).

For example: Shakespeare conceives of a Work he will call King Lear. He writes a manuscript of this work for performance. This is one Expression. Shakespeare’s original manuscript is, of course, lost, and our modern text derives from the text of the First and Second Quartos and the First Folio. As the versions in the quartos and the folio are significantly different, they too represent different Expressions of the same work. The version created by conflating these two versions would be yet another Expression. The Norton Critical Edition of the play would represent one Manifestation of it. And then, the specific copy of the Norton Critical Edition that sits on your bookshelf, and that you’ve marked up and spilled coffee on, is one particular Item.

As you can imagine, these concepts can become fairly muddled, and often create significant questions about any particular bibliographic entity (especially when dealing with something that has as much of history as King Lear): Does the Norton Critical Edition represent a whole new Expression considering the editor primarily uses the Folio text, while also integrating passages from Quarto I? Yes, it probably does. What about the critical material that accompanies the text, do those have their own Works and Expressions? Yes… well… possibly?

How do library systems built around these ideas work with scholars’ expectations for information retrieval systems? How extensive should these systems be? Could systems built around these concepts impose too rigid of a structure on the critical history of a creative work?

FRBR is a rather large and unwieldy topic within Library Science, and it would be unreasonable to expect a tremendously in-depth discussion about it within the context of THATcamp, but I believe thinking about it within the concept of humanities could yield an interesting discussion.

Wikipedia has a somewhat comprehensible explanation on the concept of FRBR and, as usual, is a good place to get a broader picture of it.

The more information is collected, the more difficult it becomes to sift it, organize it, and find what you need.

Statistical data analysis (data analytics) is the process of this type of analysis, encompassing natural language processing and more.  This is what comes after gathering “big data”.  Imagine taking the contents of 2 or more online databases, combining them, and then sifting through them for relationships, correspondences, linkages, similarities and differences and more.

Data analysts are increasingly in demand by large research institutes, big business, and government agencies.  How will we fill the same need for humanities scholars?  Where could we find the funding?  How do we make this happen?

I for one am very interested in pursuing this type of career, but would like to do so in support of scholars, so I’m very interested in your thoughts about this.