<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="color:#1F497D">Tom & SIG:<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I regret that I was unable to attend the meeting, but from following it on Twitter [!] and from your comments, I see that it was a big success.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I went looking in my files to see if I could find out about the humble beginnings of the SIG—the earliest I found was letter from David Allison announcing the SIG lunch, on Saturday from 1:00 to 2:00 PM, at the
SHOT 1990 meeting in Cleveland. In those days the meeting consisted of a lunch where we circulated a list of names and e-mail addresses if we had one (I had BITNET but no internet e-mail). As the letter from David suggests, we still communicated by regular
mail a lot. I couldn’t find any of the early lists, unfortunately. If any of you have one, It’d be fun to share. As this pre-dated the Internet, there is a good chance that someone saved the paper copies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">One of the most memorable meetings that I can recall was at Charlottesville in 1995. We managed to convince Jean Sammet, author of those monumental histories of programming languages, to drive down from DC. Jean
was treated like a movie star, with the younger scholars clustered around her in admiration. For those of you who knew Jean, try to picture that!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Great to see the health & evolution of SIG-CIS. On a more serious note, the growth of the SIG, especially in comparison to other SHOT SIGS that still follow the more informal model, hints at a changing relationship
between the history of computing and the history of technology in general, and by extension the relationship between SIG-CIS and SHOT.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Paul Ceruzzi<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:ceruzzip@si.edu"><span style="color:#0563C1">ceruzzip@si.edu</span></a><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">202-633-2414<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Thomas Haigh<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 14, 2015 6:32 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> members@sigcis.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [SIGCIS-Members] What can SIGCIS learn methodologically from the history of science, environmental history, etc?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear SIGCIS,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We just had a wonderful meeting, which I could enjoy all the more as it was the first of the seven SIGCIS workshops where I had no operational responsibilities. Nathan really did a great job with the keynote, and it was splendid to see
so many people making the transition from list membership to physical participation at SHOT and SIGCIS for the first time. Better still were the people who had been “first timers” in 2013 or 2014 coming back for a second meeting, as this proves they found
the experience useful. I think we accounted for a very significant fraction of the overall graduate student attendance at SHOT.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My impression was that the research and delivery of the SIGCIS papers held up pretty well against the quality of material in most parts of the main SHOT program. However I also heard a suggestion from one person that many of the papers
in both venues tended to be very narrowly framed, telling a particular story without really engaging with a broader literature or being explicit about what general lessons or methodological implications the work holds.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To the extent that this is true, one could see an aversion to explicit historiography and to the drawing of broad conclusions as a kind of aesthetic preference rather than a failing of craft or scholarship. Still, I was wondering if list
members might be able to suggest recent (say post-2010) papers from other traditions that are effective in using a focused historical study to make a compelling case that we should think differently about a topic of broad interest to the field in question.
I’m not thinking necessarily about work related to IT, since the literature in many areas of history of science, environmental history, history of medicine, and other fields is more mature and appears to have developed a clearer sense of what the “big questions”
are. However I have had few opportunities since grad school to read systematically in other literatures.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So list members, please post away with your nominations of recent articles from other fields with an explanation of what cool thing you think the article is doing methodologically that those of us writing on the history of computing could
learn from.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best wishes,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tom<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>