Humanities Commons Groups Month Week 2!

We are now in week two of Humanities Commons Groups Month, a month dedicated to groups features, sharing work, networking, and building community. Each week features a quick challenge (only 5-10 minutes!) to familiarize you with groups and develop your online presence at the same time. Once you complete the challenge, share your progress with everyone with #HCGroups and tagging @humcommons! That way we can answer questions, direct folks to your work, and keep the conversation going.

Week 2 Challenge

Respond to a discussion post that somebody else began.

To complete this challenge, navigate to the Groups area of Humanities Commons, and either find a group you’re already a part of or join a new one. Once you’re in the group, click on the Discussion tab of the navigation bar (by default, it’s right next to Activity, the main page for most groups). Once there, respond to one of the discussion topics! Or, if there aren’t any, make a discussion topic of your own (that’s jumping ahead a bit to week 3, but you won’t lose points, promise!). Topics can be anything related to the group’s purpose: a pressing issue in a given field, a call for papers, an announcement of a major publication, etc.

Week 2 Group Admin Challenge

Change the group photo or cover image. If you like the one you already have, feel free to switch it back!

To complete this challenge, navigate to a group that you are an administrator for. Next, click Manage in the navigation bar. Once on the Manage page, you can click on Photo or Cover Image in order to change these elements of your group. Do the process again to change it back to the old Photo/Cover Image!

Week 1 Solutions

Get stuck last week? Or missed the challenges announcement? Not to worry, you can still complete them this week! Here they are, with instructions.

Invite three new members to a group.

Navigate to one of your groups. Check to see if you have the Send Invites menu item. (Group admins can limit who has the option to send invites, so you may not see it on all groups.) From the Send Invites page, you can invite existing Humanities Commons members to join the group.

The Send Invites screen

Alternatively, as long as the group is not a hidden group, you could send potential group members a link to the group via the Commons, e-mail, or social media.

Group Admin Challenge: Set a welcome message for your group that all new members will receive.

Navigate to a group where you are an administrator. Once there, click Manage on the navigation bar. Next, click the Email Options button. On that page, you can set a welcome e-mail that will go out to all new members who join your group!

Introducing Humanities Commons Groups Month

In March 2019, Humanities Commons will host HC Groups Month by posting various challenges and encouraging tips on our Twitter account, @humcommons. By the end of the month, participants will have a better understanding of how they can take full advantage of the many benefits that HC groups offer.

Why should you take part in HC Groups Month?

Groups are an important feature of Humanities Commons because of their incredible networking potential. By participating in HC Groups Month, you’ll not only learn how to better utilize HC groups, you’ll put your learning to work immediately. This means that your work within the challenges will work for you: you’ll grow your digital network and hopefully make vital connections with other scholars in your field. This can help you grow your digital presence and share your work with a wider audience.

While building your network on HC groups, you’ll find many other benefits:

  • Find support for your work. Each HC group has a “documents” feature, which allows you to share and co-edit documents. This is a great way to ask for feedback on work-in-progress. Additionally, HC users can choose to share their CORE uploads with specific groups. Once shared, you can again ask for feedback, or simply sit back and bask in the knowledge that your work will receive a larger readership than had you not shared it with a group or uploaded it to CORE.
  • Fruitful discussions had at conferences no longer have to end there. You can create a group for a specific conference or society, allowing you to continue conversations held at conferences and share presentations and papers. This will also allow other scholars who were unable to attend the conference to read the work presented and take part in these important discussions.
  • Find the right type of group for you. Each group fulfills a specific purpose for a specific group of people. For example, you might want to support a particular network that currently has very little digital presence. Or, you may want to create a group for one of the courses you’re teaching or a workshop you’re leading. You might also want to create a group for a society or organization. HC allows group creators and members a number of personalization options. As a creator, you decide how public your group will be. As a member, you are in control of how many notifications and/or emails you receive from the group.
  • Enjoy advantages from the listserv model. During our opening Twitter chat announcing HC Groups Month, one HC user mentioned how much she enjoyed using HC groups over listervs because of the streamlined discussions and searchability of HC groups. It can be difficult to locate past conversations hosted in an emailed listserv; however, on HC groups, all discussions are easily located and neatly archived. Similarly, all documents and CORE uploads shared with HC groups are easy to find. By shifting your conversations from a listserv to an HC group, you won’t even lose your ability to post by email: group members can conveniently post discussion topics and replies by sending an email.

Ready for HC Groups Month?

Us, too! We look forward to hosting you on Twitter as we work through our groups-based challenges. Our calendar is below:

WEEK 1 (March 1-7): Invite 3 new members to a group you’re in.

WEEK 2 (March 8-14): Respond to a discussion post that somebody else began.

WEEK 3 (March 15-21): Post a new discussion post. Let at least 3 people know about it.

WEEK 4 (March 22-28): Make a new CORE deposit that gets shared to your group(s). Let folks know, in the group discussion or via social media!

End of Month (March 29-31): Help us add to our list of best practices for generating participation in groups. 

As you complete the challenges, share your progress! If you’re on Twitter, tweet with #HCGroups.

Extra! Group Admin Challenges

If you are already a group admin, or want to become one with a new group of your own, here are some extra challenges for admins!

WEEK 1 (March 1-7): Set a welcome message for your group that all new members will receive.

WEEK 2 (March 8-14): Change the group photo or cover image. If you like the one you already have, feel free to switch it back!

WEEK 3 (March 15-21): Show or hide a menu item for members. For example, if your group doesn’t use one of the group features, you can remove it from the menu to decrease clutter!

WEEK 4 (March 22-28): Advertise your group! Share it via e-mail, social media, in-person conversations, etc.

End of Month (March 29-31): Help us add to our list of best practices for generating participation in groups.

HC Groups Month begins on Friday, March 1st. Be sure to follow us on Twitter (@humcommons) so you don’t miss out on anything. Give us a shout out using our hashtag, #HCGroups, so we know you’re ready to grow your digital network using HC groups!

Scholars, It’s Time to Take Control of Your Online Communities

-Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Director of Digital Humanities at Michigan State University, Project Director for Humanities Commons

A couple of years ago, I got a bit fed up with the ways that certain for-profit networks were purporting to provide scholars with opportunities to share their work openly with one another, and I decided that it was time to mouth off about it a bit: about the fact that their “.edu” address was deceiving many into believing that they were an academy-driven initiative, about the ways their uncertain business model endangered the future of the work being shared there, about the damage that network was doing to genuine open access.

Not long after, Sarah E. Bond issued a direct call to action: “It is time to delete your Academia.edu account.”

And many scholars did, taking their work to networks like Humanities Commons. And they told their friends and colleagues to do so as well. Since that time, Humanities Commons has come to serve more than 16,500 scholars and practitioners across the humanities and around the world. Those members are building their professional profiles, depositing and sharing work via the repository, and creating a wide range of websites to support their portfolios, their classes, and their other projects.

But where we’ve been less successful has been in attracting groups of scholars to engage in active discussion and collaboration. The Commons has a robust groups structure, permitting communities of a range of types and sizes — from private committees to public subfields, and everything inbetween — to host threaded discussions, to share files, and more besides. But that feature of the network remains somewhat underutilized, despite the extent to which many scholars today want to be able to communicate and collaborate with one another online.

The heart of the issue, I’m pretty sure, is that those scholars already have communities that seem to be functioning pretty well for them, a ton of them on Facebook. And the problem is, as I noted in my original Academia-not-edu post, is the gravity that such existing groups exert, especially when, as with Facebook, everybody is already there. (Or so it often seems, at least. People who are not on Facebook might be quick to tell you how annoying it is when we assume that everyone can be reached that way.)

If it’s hard to convince individual scholars to change their ways of working and take up more equitable, open, and transparent systems, it’s all but impossible to convince groups of scholars to do so.

And yet: it’s time.

Part of the argument I made for abandoning Academia.edu in favor of non-profit, scholar-governed alternatives, alternatives that were not out to surveil or data-mine their users, was based on my assessment that “everything that’s wrong with Facebook is wrong with Academia.edu, at least just up under the surface, and so perhaps we should think twice before committing our professional lives to it.” The inverse is even more true: everything that’s wrong with Academia.edu is wrong with Facebook, and then some.

I’ll leave it to Siva Vaidhyanathan to delve into the details, but it should be apparent from recent headlines that Facebook is at the root of a tremendous amount of personal unhappiness, violent conflict, and political turmoil today. The company has routinely sold its users’ data to advertisers, to companies, and to highly damaging political agents like Cambridge Analytica. Facebook engages in deep surveillance of users and their activity both on the network and elsewhere on the internet, an activity that is not just being exploited by corporations but also by governments. Given that Facebook’s entire business model depends on selling us — our presence, our information, our clicks — to other entities, every interaction we engage in there supports that model, whether we like it or not.

Most of us know this already, and yet we use the network anyway, even if begrudgingly. Our distant family members and friends are there, and we don’t know how we’ll keep up with them otherwise. And our scholarly communities, too: there are active discussion groups on Facebook that we’d miss if we left. So we watch our privacy settings and try to be careful with what we share — and yet no amount of such prophylaxis can really protect us from malfeasance. Assuming that our ostensibly private groups are actually private is setting ourselves up for abuse.

On top of which, working in proprietary spaces like Facebook does ongoing damage to the scholarly record; we cannot control, preserve, or migrate the archives of our discussions as desired.

It’s extremely difficult to move an entire group of people, I know, but I hope that some of you might be willing to try. There are other non-profit scholarly networks grounded in academic values available out there, of course, but if you’re in or adjacent to the humanities, I hope you’ll consider moving your discussions to Humanities Commons. And if you’re not in the humanities, maybe come join us anyhow? We want to open the network up to all fields in the near future, and your involvement would help us chart a path toward doing so.

Rethinking Scholarly Communication: Open Peer Review

A central goal for Humanities Commons has always been to provide humanities scholars with a platform for communicating, sharing work, and collaborating. Beyond simply facilitating these processes––a significant task in itself––we strive to innovate on them, pushing for scholarship that is more open and engaged with communities. Often, this means rethinking the assumptions and practices that produce our work.

It was this desire to reimagine scholarly practice that led us to host a Twitter chat last month titled “Rethinking Scholarly Communication: Open Peer Review.” Twitter chats are synchronous social media events where moderators guide discussion of a topic using a particular hashtag. At the set time, everyone logs in to Twitter and follows the hashtag, answering questions and responding to each other’s thoughts as they’re shared through tweets. The goal of this Twitter chat was to generate community discussion of emerging peer review structures that are open, meaning the authors and reviewers of a work know who each other are and communicate about the work, usually with the facilitation of an editor or editorial team. While what this exactly looks like varies from publication to publication, most journals and organizations using open peer review put the author and the reviewers in contact with each other using a digital platform, allowing reviews to make comments and the author to respond to them in the process of revising the work for publication.

As the handful of questions and tweets below reveal, the discussion of open peer review covered many aspects of scholarly communication and how review contributes to clear and effective scholarship. Open peer review is a significant departure from traditional peer review, often described as double-blind or single-blind peer review (ableist terms that Cheryl Ball points out could be replaced with “double anonymous” and “anonymous”). Whereas double anonymous or anonymous peer review can often seem opaque, exclusionary, and even arbitrary, especially to early career scholars, open peer review makes the review process about a conversation that focuses on improving the work. As several participants argued, particular values and guidelines should shape that conversation with an emphasis on community and mentorship.

The tweets below are just a small sample of the Twitter chat. To view the rest of the chat, as well as check out more resources about open peer review, search for the chat’s hashtag, #OPReview, on Twitter.

  • Q1: What does open peer review look like in your experience? Which practices and tools are involved? #OPReview #Q1

 

  • Q2: Which values should guide open peer review? How should these values be enacted and communicated? #OPReview #Q2

 

  • Q3: How does open peer review affect the quality of reviews? Of the final publication? #OPReview #Q3

 

  • Q4: What are the limitations of open peer review? What are the barriers to more journals and scholarly communities adopting it? #OPReview #Q4

 

  • Q5: What are the future potentials of open peer review? How could it be improved in the future? #OPReview #Q5

 

The Twitter chat generated lively conversation about the values of scholarship, and collectively imagined what it would look like to publish our work as the result of open, transparent, and ongoing conversations between scholars. Of course open peer review isn’t a cure-all, and there are a number of institutional considerations (tenure, power, and workload, to name only a few) that limit what peer review can be and do. Still, open peer review can be one tool for research and scholarship that is more accessible and inclusive. This Twitter chat is not the last word on open peer review–far from it. Rather, it’s a point in an ongoing conversation that we can and must have together as we work to build the institutions and research practices that can sustain our communities.

Thanks to Kathleen Fitzpatrick and Cody Mejeur for moderating the chat. Kathleen is Director of Digital Humanities and Professor of English at Michigan State University. Her most recent book, Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach to Saving the University (John Hopkins University Press, 2019), argues for a mode of scholarly engagement that emphasizes listening over speaking, community over individualism, and collaboration over competition. She is also project director of Humanities Commons. Cody is a PhD candidate in English at Michigan State University specializing in new media, narrative theory, queer and feminist studies, and digital humanities. They have published on games and education, representation in games, and the narrative construction of reality. They are currently graduate lab lead for the Digital Humanities & Literary Cognition lab at MSU and work with the LGBTQ Video Game Archive, founded by Adrienne Shaw at Temple University.

Groups Best Practices

Making the Most of Your Humanities Commons Group

Once you’ve created a group on Humanities Commons, you may find yourself asking a number of questions:

  • What do I do next?
  • How do I get people do join my group?
  • How do groups promote exciting academic activity and collaboration?
  • How do I encourage members to post more?
  • What else can I do with my group besides sharing CFPs and CORE deposits?

To help you answer these questions and make the most of your Humanities Commons group, we’ve compiled a list of best practices for group moderators. Please be sure to first visit the collection of pages within our groups guide and FAQ. Each of these pages outlines the basic instructions and features for using our groups.

Continue reading “Groups Best Practices”

HC User Spotlight: Kendra Leonard

Humanities Commons member Kendra Leonard is the Executive Director of the Silent Film Sound and Music Archive, as well as a musicologist and music theorist. Kendra designs and maintains a personal site and two project sites on Humanities Commons: Spirit Films and Shakespeare in Early Film. She was kind enough to answer a few of my questions, not only about her project sites but also about her own experience in working on Humanities Commons. 

Spirit Films features Kendra’s book that was reviewed on the site using Open Peer Review. Currently, the project site provides additional information via links and embedded Youtube videos.

Shakespeare in Early Film collects digital materials relating to Shakespearean film adaptations from 1895 to 1929, including still photographs of actors, music, advertising campaigns, and reviews. Teaching resources will also soon be available!

Continue reading “HC User Spotlight: Kendra Leonard”

HC User Spotlight: Daniela Avido

 

Humanities Commons member Daniela N. Ávido designed and maintains Fauna 3D and was kind enough to answer a few of my questions, not only about the project, but also about her own experience and advice about working on Humanities Commons. 

 Fauna 3D is the public face of a project, “Generation and utilization of 3D models for the study of archaeofaunas,” directed by Marcelo Vitores, which was accredited by Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA), where Daniela is a student. Actually, all the members of the team are either graduates from or students at UBA. The purpose of the project was to experiment with free-open-source software for creating virtual replicas of bones from reference collections (which are used to ID bone fragments from archaeological sites).

If you would like to contact Daniela, or the team behind Fauna 3D, you can do so through her Humanities Commons profile, or via @danavido on Twitter.

3d mesh of a bone in the reference collection, being processed with Regard3D

Continue reading “HC User Spotlight: Daniela Avido”

HC User Spotlight: Lisa L. Tyler

I was recently fortunate enough to ask Dr. Lisa L. Tyler a number of questions regarding her digital project (Virtual Hemingwayas well as her experience as a member of Humanities Commons. Tyler is a professor of English at Sinclair Community College, where she teaches literature, composition, and business communication. Her research interests include modernist literature and intertextual connections between Ernest Hemingway’s fiction and novels by female authors. Tyler was also a major participant in the recent Humanities Commons digital summer camp, where she shared her thoughts, discoveries, and challenges. I was especially interested to learn more about Tyler’s Virtual Hemingway, a digital project that houses links to over 500 Hemingway-related online sources.

Continue reading “HC User Spotlight: Lisa L. Tyler”

HC User Spotlight: Sarah M. Dreller

For our second Humanities Commons member spotlight, I was fortunate enough to speak with Sarah M. Dreller, PhD, an independent art historian and editor in Chicago whose research focuses on the connections between architecture and modernity since the industrial and scientific revolutions of the late-18th century. Dreller is a particularly interesting person to interview because she has created multiple sites on Humanities Commons to support and share her research, as well as to collaborate with other scholars. Not only does she have a lot of experience designing and using Humanities Commons sites, but Dreller has also been an active and welcoming member across the platform. Her project sites include The Vanishing Porch in Perspective, which serves as a digital companion to her peer-reviewed article, Curtained Walls: Architectural Photography, the Farnsworth House, and the Opaque Discourse of Transparency,” and AfterImages, a collaborative work for which she served as the site’s designer and editor. Dreller is also currently building a CV site as well as a third project site, which she hopes to launch by the end of 2018.

Continue reading “HC User Spotlight: Sarah M. Dreller”