[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