[SIGCIS-Members] Fwd: [Humanist] 28.299 events: Software as Scholarship cfp

Willard McCarty willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Tue Sep 9 22:40:38 PDT 2014


Perhaps the following will be of interest?
Yours,
WM

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Humanist] 28.299 events: Software as Scholarship cfp
Resent-From: <willard.mccarty at kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:09:01 +0000
From: Humanist Discussion Group <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
Reply-To: Online seminar for digital humanities 
<humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org>
To: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org 
<humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org>

                  Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 28, No. 299.
             Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                        www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                 Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org



         Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:03:09 +0000
         From: <tara.andrews at kps.unibe.ch>
         Subject: Call for papers 'Software as Scholarship', Bern, 29-30 
January 2015


Abstracts are now invited for a two-day workshop, jointly organised by 
Digital Humanities @ Uni Bern and Infoclio.ch http://Infoclio.ch , to be 
held 29-30 January 2015.

The full call for participation is now online:
http://www.dh.unibe.ch/en/2014/08/software-scholarship/
https://infoclio.ch/en/node/135615

Deadline for abstract submission: 11 October 2014.

With best wishes,
Tara Andrews

--
Prof. Dr. Tara L Andrews
Digital Humanities, Universität Bern
http://www.dh.unibe.ch/

Scholarship in Software, Software as Scholarship: From Genesis to Peer 
Review

‘Expressions’, 29 January 2015: Workshop on Software-based Scholarship
Organizer: Digital Humanities, Universität Bern

Computation and software analysis have entered nearly every imaginable 
field of scholarship in the last decades, in a variety of forms from 
digital publication of results to computational modelling embedded in 
experimental work. In each of these digital outputs – be it an 
interactive publication with mapping of relevant geo-referenced data, or 
perhaps a statistical program for the categorization of millions of 
books according to their literary genre – there is some manifestation 
directly in the computer code of the scholarly thought that underlies 
the project, of the intellectual argument around which the outcome is based.

The fact that scholarly software includes scholarly content is 
reasonably well-accepted. What remains controversial is the attempt at 
identification, in any particular instance, of what scholarly 
contribution has been made by a piece of software. Its makers tend to 
express the scholarship in writing separate from the software itself, if 
they even make explicit at all the scholarly reasoning that went into 
the code; its reviewers and users tend either to treat the software as a 
‘black box’, opaque to informed scrutiny and therefore to be looked on 
with grave suspicion, or to deny that this particular software has any 
scholarship inherent to the source code. Given that our mechanisms for 
identifying and evaluating the scholarship within computer code are 
nearly nonexistent, we must ask: how do intellectual arguments — how 
does scholarship — come to be expressed in the software of digital 
humanities? How does this scholarship, so evident in theory but so 
elusive in practice, fit into the scientific process of advancement of 
knowledge?

‘Evaluation’, 30 January 2015: Round table on Peer Review for Digital 
Scholarly Work
Organizer: Infoclio.ch

Related to the question of the expression of scholarship in software, 
and in other forms of digital publication as well, is the question of 
how to evaluate it. This topic will be the focus of a half-day 
roundtable, Peer Review for Digital Scholarly Work, to be held on 30 
January 2015. Digital scholarly works such as Digital Editions, Digital 
Libraries, Digital Exhibitions, Data Visualization, Geographical 
Information Systems and the like are increasingly frequent in the 
Humanities, as main or secondary output of research projects; the 
question of how best to evaluate them takes on ever greater importance. 
At the moment, researchers doing digital scholarly work are usually 
unable to obtain academic credit for their work—in order to obtain 
scholarly recognition, they must additionally publish a “normal” article 
in a print-based journal about their digital work.

As universities and national research funding agencies across the world 
move toward encouraging more digital scholarship in the humanities, 
there is an urgent need to discuss the criteria and benchmarks that 
should be in place for evaluating digital scholarly work. We welcome 
contributions about existing initiatives in this domain as well as more 
theoretical contributions that treat the topic of peer review of digital 
scholarly work.



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: 
http://www.dhhumanist.org/Restricted/listmember_interface.php
List posts to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
List info and archives at at: http://digitalhumanities.org/humanist
Listmember interface at: 
http://digitalhumanities.org/humanist/Restricted/listmember_interface.php
Subscribe at: http://www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/membership_form.php




More information about the Members mailing list