Archive for the ‘general shenanigans’ Category

  • KORA Account Contest – Update


    So we are extending the account giveaway proposal deadline until a week *after* GLTC ’11 (Sun May 11, 2011),  so people can check out the talk and submit some great proposals!

    A couple things I would like to point out to make sure there is no confusion:

    • KORA is open source and free – the value associated with it is related to hosting costs, not costs for using KORA.
    • Any data you put in to KORA is yours and you are able to export it from KORA at the end of the free year.  If you decide to run KORA on your own host you can easily import your data as well.
    • If you have *any* KORA questions please come to the KORA session tomorrow at 9am in room C202, email matt [dot] geimer [at] matrix [dot] msu [dot] edu, or twitter @mastermattg
  • New Session: Oral Histories


    There are 2 or 3 of us interested in Oral History, so we’re going to meet in the Lookout! Gallery (where the coffee is) at 3pm. We’ll move if more of you join us.  I’m interested in the technical side of recording and storing oral histories digitally and we may also talk about them more generally – what is their value in the humanities? etc…

  • Notes from digivangelism session


    Here’s a Google doc with notes from the “digivangelism” session about how to have productive conversations (oh, who are we kidding, how to CONVERT) technology-resistant academics to The Digital Way:

    If you were there, feel free to add or change things as necessary.

  • Digital Media is dead — There is Only Software.


    According to Lev Manovich (

    “Depending on the software I am using, the “properties” of a media object can change dramatically. Exactly the same file with the same contents can take on a varirty of identities depending on the software being used.

    What does this finding means in relation to the persisting primacy of the term “digital” in understanding new media? Let me answer this as clear and direct as I can. There is no such thing as “digital media.” There is only software – as applied to media data (or “content”.)”

    Do we need to think differently about “digital media”? Manovich uses the example of a photo. Is a digital photo (perhaps especially objects “born digital”) the same as a physical photo. The physical photo is produced once; if you have the negative and create it again, perhaps to lighten the photo, then you have a new physical object with it’s own characteristics. The digital photo, to lighten it, you run software to show it lighter. You may or may not create a new file and even if you do, this new file can be transformed by software to look like the old one. For the digital object, the software used, define the object revealed.

    Is Manovich right? Is there only software?

  • fluctuating collections, repositories, context, sharing, interoperability


    ….these are a few of my favorite things

    Hey repository, infrastructure, and archives people… anyone interested in the creation and desstruction and recreation and reconstruction of collections?

    I’m curious about things like working across repositories. Addressing the angst and fear that archivists sometimes have when their stuff is up online and so easily pulled out of contex (and maybe dropped into new collections). Virtual repositories (which I don’t really know about). Implications of representing (or claiming to represent) a physical collection in its entirety online (ala the Parker on the Web) vs. digitization projects that represent a single object/document or a few selected items.

    Anyone else?

  • Digital Pedagogy session links


    Here are some of the links to courses and projects mentioned in the Digital Pedagogy session — please put ones I missed in the comments.

    • A course blog by Paul Martin at University of Vermont:
    • Ecology class photos on Flickr:
    • Blogs at Baruch (uses BuddyPress):
    • UMW Blogs:
    • Intro to Blogging essay in Companion to Digital Literary Studies:
    • Mixable at Purdue (from Twitter, not from live session):

    There were a lot more . . . please add in the comments.

  • New Session: Luddite Support Group


    Sean Dunham is organizing a session right after gradhacker for folks who are interested in digital humanities but feel a bit overwhelmed by all of the projects and technology being discussed today.  It’s been added to the schedule.

    3pm, room c202.

  • Schedule…


    Here it is folks – the schedule:


  • Money, morality, technology, education


    Here’s a very last-minute post / session idea, somewhat unformed — I’ve been thinking a good bit lately about the role of money in digital humanities, and indeed higher education more generally. Some academics outside digital humanities really hate digital humanists’ willingness to accept money from corporations like Microsoft and Google, for instance, and at the same time I think a good bit of the recent “boom” in digital humanities is due to the undeniable fact that there’s money in and for digital humanities. The hideous job market situation for humanities PhDs isn’t nearly as bad for humanities PhDs who have some tech skills and are willing to move into administrative positions, and even though I am one of those people, I deplore the fact that universities are willing to create stable full-time jobs for the legions of staff members necessary to support university technology, but they’re not willing to create stable full-time jobs for university teachers.

    Audrey Watters and I were even talking about putting together some kind of book project around this, and we could use a session to, heck, write a proposal or something. We’d love to get people debating one another on this. Interested?

  • the creativity initiative


    ‘The Creativity Initiative’ is a cross-cutting research area, initiated in 2010 at MSU, focused on a broad and distinctive range of creative processes:

    • research that connects the traditional creative arts with one another, and the social and natural sciences
    • research on creativity in approaches to teaching math, engineering, and other stem disciplines
    • research on teaching creativity, across the curriculum, focusing on groups and communities, in addition to individuals, and “at risk” students
    • research on creativity in everyday decision making, in multimedia composing and digital gaming
    • research on creativity within scholarly communities (especially in an interdisciplinary context)
    • research on creativity in the development of preventative health practices
    • research on creativity in newly evolving forms of entrepreneurial activity
    • research on creativity in the use and cultivation of space in community contexts.

    The initiative embodies existing faculty research strengths, has broad and deep relevance across the university, has the potential to secure external funding and impact communities, and can enhance the role and reputation of MSU, and its partners, nationally, regionally, and locally.

    The Office of the VP for Research has committed to funding a planning process to develop this initiative.  The intent of the planning process is to identify and develop distinctive areas of research concerned with creativity in which MSU can play a key role, as either a leader or significant partner. Engagement is also fundamental to this initiative. Along with identifying research areas, the planning process will develop models for disseminating research outcomes through innovative and productive use of new communication technologies and MSU’s broad network of social and community resources.

    Goals for the initiative include the generation of a substantial body of research that contributes to a broad set of academic disciplines and professions. Just as importantly, the goals also include making a significant and sustainable contribution to the economic development of the state, and beyond, through initiatives related to creative processes.

    Based on models of other cross-cutting efforts, the Creativity Initiative is adopting a hub and cluster structure for the planning year. The “hub” refers to a decentralized administrative core.  and five thematic research clusters that will identify an initial set of possible research areas. One of the clusters will have the added cross-cutting responsibility of prototyping innovative supporting technology platforms.   As the planning progresses, other clusters could be added, in connection with the development of the distinctive areas of research.

    The planning year will conclude with the launching of a new journal, with  proposals for funding to external granting agencies and foundations, and with concrete research pilots to be initiated by each research cluster.

    Dean Rehberger, Mark Sullivan, Hilary Holman

Page 2 of 5«12345»