COMPUTER SCIENCE & THE HUMANITIES BUILDING BLOCKS

Language & Literature

Field Committee Meeting

New York Public Library

4 February 2000

MEETING REPORT

March 8, 2000

Questionnaires
Workshop Structure
Workshop Field Sessions
Interdisciplinary Topical Sessions and Plenaries at Workshop
Workshop Participants/Questionnaire Recipients

Attending: Steve Olsen, Elaine Martin, Co-Chairs; Thomas Beebee, Gail Hawisher, Michael Levenson, Mary Ann Lyman-Hager, Worthy Martin, Stuart Moulthrop, Cynthia Selfe

I. Questionnaires

Following lengthy discussion, which included not using the questionnaires at all and/or substituting our own questions for our field, committee members agreed on the following items in regard to using the questionnaires:

1. Only the bold-faced questions should be used. Committee members felt that the italicized questions were too directive and leading. Reduction to the main questions would also make a cleaner and more inviting questionnaire, thereby increasing potential return rates.
2. The following field-specific questions should be added to the existing questionnaire: "What limitations, if any, do you see in the current system of academic publication?" "How might technology extend the possibilities of publishing?"
3. The questionnaires can be distributed/made available electronically (only), but multiple return formats should be offered to increase return rate. For example, the questionnaire could be sent out in the body of an email letter inviting participants to respond. It could also be attached in several fomats to the same email (as Word document, Wordperfect document, etc.). And the email letter could advise potential respondents that the questionnaire is also available on a website where it can be filled out interactively. The respondent could choose which of these three electronic response modes to use. It would also be useful if respondents had the option of printing out the questionnaire and returning it hard copy, but that may be too cumbersome for the organizing committee to deal with. Committee members felt that a cover letter/document from David Green/NINCH should accompany the questionnaire.
4. Committee members were not universally comfortable with urging their questionnaire respondents to return the document. It was decided that any follow-up of this type would be left up to the discretion of the individual field committee member.

Note: The committee would also like some means for participants to report on projects around them in addition to their own research methods and involvement in research or pedagogy projects.

II. Workshop Structure

There was a consensus that the majority of the time at the Workshop should be spent in field meetings. In conjunction with this, it was suggested 1) that the initial meeting of the field group on Day One be lengthened; 2) that on subsequent days, the field meetings be held after the topical meetings to capitalize on the interdisciplinary sharing of information; 3) and that plenary speakers be moved to evening slots to make more time available for field meetings during the daytime.

III. Field Sessions at Workshop

To address the generally perceived need (in the committee) to balance abstract consideration of the larger "technology and the humanities" issues with concrete projects, the committee unanimously decided to focus the field meetings on the topic of electronic publishing, in its broadest conception. Committee members also agreed that subgroups would be formed to meet and report back to the larger Language & Literature group; these subgroups would focus on topics, which we termed "Workshop Opportunities," to be determined by the Workshop participants in their first session. These opportunities might include the following and/or other suggestions from the Workshop participants: current models of electronic publication, structured data, literacy and technology (emerging reading and writing practices), peer review in electronic contexts, archival practices, including questions of longevity, intellectual property rights, and the changing nature of "texts" (both delivery and reception).

IV. Interdisciplinary Topical Sessions and Plenaries at Workshop

The Committee suggested that topical sessions should be limited to around 10 people to enhance participation.

The following subjects were suggested for the interdisciplinary, topical sessions:

1. data structure
2. electronic publishing
3. literacies in electronic contexts
4. longevity issues for databases and retrieval systems
5. evaluating computer-related work in the humanities, and
6. distance learning.

The Committee also suggested a list of topics that might be addressed by invited plenary speakers:

1. human factors/ psychic ergonomics
2. electronic publishing,
3. intellectual property rights
4. the intersection of technology/poverty/gender/race issues
5. distance learning, and
6. corporate universities.

A list of potential plenary speakers who could address some of the above-mentioned topics was generated. The prioritized list is:

1. Sherry Turkle, MIT, author of Life on the Screen
2. Donna Harraway, UC-Santa Cruz, specialist on the nature of knowledge
3. Manuel Castells, UC-Berkeley, author of The Rise of the Network Society and Power and Identity
4. Ben Snidermann, U of Maryland, cognitive scientist, specialist on how cognition and comprehension are affected by the electronic environment

V. Workshop Participants for the Language & Literature Group and Questionnaire Recipients

Prior to convening in New York for the meeting, field committee members had been asked to submit to the co-chairs via email 10 nominees for Workshop participants and 10 nominees for questionnaire recipients (with the appropriate identifying information). The compiled lists were then circulated on the L&L listserve.

It was agreed that questionnaire recipients consist of the names nominated by the committee members plus the 18 Workshop participants, the total of which would be approximately one hundred.

Following lengthy discussion based on the lists of nominees put forward by the committee members via email, the final list of Workshop participants was agreed upon:

1. Marie Hanson, Johns Hopkins UP; conservator, publishing, senior
2. Beverly Harris-Schenz, U. Pittsburgh; administrator, neutral, senior
3. Susanna Pathak, Virginia Commonwealth U., librarian, senior
4. Marie-Laure Ryan, independent scholar, public humanities, junior
5. Elaine Richardson, Pennsylvania State U, literacy and technology, junior
6. Matt Kirschenbaum, U. Kentucky, visual arts, English, junior
7. Paul LeBlanc, Marlboro College, college president, administrator, senior
8. Terence Ford, MLA, editor of the MLA Bibliography, librarian, senior
9. Charles Harris, Illinois State U., English, department chairman, senior

Alternates were also selected:

1. Michael Spooner, Director of the Press, Utah State UP, senior
2. Victor Villanueva
3. Rick Kern, UC-Berkeley
4. Anne Balsamo, Xerox Park, or, Elli Mylonas, Brown U.
5. Octavio Pimentel, PhD candidate, U. Utah, or, Rafael Salaberry, Penn State U.
6. Ann Wysocki, Michigan Tech U.
7. Alan Lieu, UC-Santa Barbara
8. Elli Mylonas, Brown U.
9. Claire Kramsch, UC-Berkeley

Since it would be good to maintain representation in the various categories, it was suggested that first-tier nominees be asked to suggest replacements if they themselves cannot participate in the Workshop.

Final Version of Report submitted by Elaine Martin, 3-8-00

Top of Page

BUILDING BLOCKS