[globaloutlookDH-l] DH Awards
efpriego at gmail.com
Wed Feb 5 05:54:01 MST 2014
Thank you for your reply, James. I don't feel we were abusing the list to
discuss these matters related to the DH Awards. This thread is titled DH
Awards after all. Replies are read by all members so everyone is part of
the conversation. After all what we are discussing is very relevant for
this discussion group as it has to do with the visiblity of research and
about how it is perceived, received, categorised, recognised.
*Dr Ernesto Priego*Lecturer in Library Science
Acting Course Director, MSc/MA Electronic Publishing, City University
City University London offers a wide range of postgraduate courses
delivered by world-leading academics. Register for our Open
th February to find out more.
MediaCommons' THE NEW EVERYDAY is happy to announce the publication of a
THE MULTIMODALITY OF COMICS IN EVERYDAY LIFE,
curated by Ernesto Priego of City University London and David N. Wright of
Editor-in-Chief, *The Comics Grid: Journal of Comics Scholarship *
Subscribe to the Comics Grid Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/iOYAj
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:41 AM, James Cummings
<James.Cummings at it.ox.ac.uk>wrote:
> On 05/02/14 09:59, Ernesto Priego wrote:
>> Hi James,
>> I gave you my feedback as a user. It's not that I found the lack
>> of links on the form "problematic", I said I wished there had
>> been links on the actual form. As someone who works online every
>> day, having to refer back to different tabs/pages always means
>> extra labour. When you accumulate them, clicks are time and
>> effort. Perhaps I am very slow and it's just me who felt I needed
>> to refer back to the form to remember what it was exactly I was
>> voting for.
> And thanks for your feedback, it is really appreciated. I'll investigate
> better ways to do it for next year. Using google forms buys all sorts of
> other benefits, but maybe there is a way I can put links into the
> You are right that the form does not have all the fields as
>> 'required'. This is in technical, database terms. If I am
>> presented with a form, I want to complete it all, even if some
>> questions in it are not compulsory. Instead of suggesting a user
>> is wrong for having perceived the whole form had to be completed,
>> perhaps an indicative text or a different design would help avoid
>> this misconception?
> I suppose it isn't entirely a misconception: the intent, after all, is to
> get people to know that these other projects exist. However, very many of
> the ballots do not vote in each category. I've updated the form.
> I am missing the point as an active, informed member of the DH
>> community, then. I did never suggest that the DH Awards are
>> offering some accurate measure of the 'best', I was suggesting
>> that allowing voters to categorise the nominated projects *could*
>> be an alternative to pre-categorising the projects in advance.
> Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. Currently the categorisation is done by the
> person nominating the resource -- where multiple nominations come in for a
> single resource but in multiple categories, then the nominations committee
> might make a decision for one or the other. But generally we try to leave
> it where it was nominated. The owners of the successfully nominated
> resources are emailed to receive feedback on whether they agree to stand,
> we're linking to the right place, or indeed if they think it is in the
> wrong category. However, we work on assumed agreement and if they don't
> email back we will assume there is no problem. (So Dan could have
> complained about Global Outlook DH being in 'tools' at that point if he had
> wished.) The system, as you might guess, is intended to minimize the amount
> of work done by the volunteers on our end over Christmas and New Year
> periods. Entirely selfish, I must admit.
> However, for many people (dare I say "most people"?) any awards
>> imply that the best in something is being publicly recognised by
>> a community of experts or consumers or whatever.
> That is precisely what the DH Awards aren't doing -- the nominated
> resources and the winners in any category aren't determined by some shadowy
> oligarchy who understands DH as experts, but by entirely open nomination
> and open voting.
> Awareness seems
>> to me to be a positive, but secondary consequence. Many public
>> reactions to the DH Awards expressed the sentiment that the
>> Awards were creating a "celebrity" culture around DH. It might be
>> possible that you are underestimating the reputational element of
>> the DH Awards.
> I understand people think that, and why, but so far disagree. If we look
> at the winners and runners-up from last year none of them are what I would
> view as DH Celebrities. http://dhawards.org/dhawards2012/results/ Omeka
> and DH Now are both certainly well respected but I don't think count as
> 'celebrities'? I don't know. The others I don't think have had any
> particular lasting glory because of it. I believe CEISMIC (winning in the
> Public Audiences category) was perhaps unusual in forwarding the voting
> announcement to their entire alumni mailing list. The benefit there is not
> only do those alumni who may know nothing about DH find out about that
> project but have learned that there are all those other DH projects out
> there. I've definitely received feedback that indicates both DH and non-DH
> people alike have found new resources entirely because someone had
> nominated them. To me this is the real underlying benefit and one of the
> reasons I had the idea to do this many years ago (and then sat on the idea
> for many years assuming someone else more important would do it).
> I'm not entirely convinced that having some DH 'celebrities' is entirely a
> bad thing (there are certainly bad aspects to that), but any academic field
> has their 'rock star' performers and this has both good and bad effects on
> the field. I'm very pleased if in just over one year a grass-roots entirely
> open DH awareness activity has gone from a casual musing about whether I
> should do something that first occurred to me when the first Robert Busa
> award was handed out to something with such an effect. (Though hopefully
> without being overly or additionally divisive.)
> My intention when voting was precisely to assess them properly
>> and make an informed decision. Maybe I shouldn't have done this?
>> I feel really stupid now for having taken this so seriously when
>> it fact it wasn't. Logically, if I wanted to make an informed
>> decision, I needed the time to do it, and this is I why I
>> suggested that it would be nice if it were stated more clearly
>> that one can only vote for one category and that's it (however,
>> projects nominated under just one category are a fair number
>> deserving proper assessment in my view).
> I've added a note like this to the form. Hopefully that will clarify it.
> Perhaps this text could be edited that the projects *nominated*
>> are already being recognised for their excellence, talent and
>> expertise? As currently written it suggests to me that the
>> projects that are deemed "excellent" are those who win. If you
>> don't win, you were not considered "excellent" by the community
>> of voters.
> Maybe 'excellent' and 'excellence' was a poor choice of words. This is
> difficult, of course, because we make no filtering based on quality. (To do
> so would turn us into the shadowy oligarchy I mentioned above.) I've edited
> the front page and tag line and would (offlist) appreciate any comments or
> suggested improvements.
> You have said in your reply that in order to assess which
>> projects are 'the best' (often interpreted as a synonym of
>> "excellent") the process would "necessitate individuals vote who
>> actually could assess these properly and make informed
>> decisions", and that "since it is open voting, I agree that this
>> is unlikely." It is my view that as currently phrased the
>> information around the DH Awards gives the impression that the
>> intention is to reflect informed decisions from the DH community
>> in order to recognize excellence. I personally don't think the
>> obstacle to this is the open voting, but the way it has been
>> implemented. Of course there are many positives in the way it's
>> been implemented, but our focus here is brainstorming how it
>> could be done better by sharing our feedback as users.
> I'm happy to receive (offlist) suggested changes to the way it is now
> expressed. I've already changed the tagline.
> I am posing these issues with a constructive mindset.
> That is appreciated. I am taking them that way.
> I understand you have worked very hard on the DH Awards and it must
>> be hard not to feel defensive. I know what it's like when one
>> unleashes a project onto the world and then the world seems only
>> to complain.
> I'm trying not to be defensive... all of the suggestions I've received
> here on GO:DH have been extremely useful. (Though I do feel we've wandered
> away from the 'how to encourage more non-English projects to submit' topic
> so should probably stop *abusing* the list as my own little focus group!)
> It only bothers me a little when people say things which aren't true and
> especially that the FAQ clearly explains.
> Like my colleagues who have participated in this
>> thread we have shared our feedback honestly and with the best of
>> intentions. I would hate it if you take our feedback personally.
> I'm not taking it personally. I've tried my best to make it open, fair,
> transparent, and useful. It is an experiment which seems to be more
> beneficial than not. As long as it feels that way (and doesn't become too
> much of a burden) I intend to keep doing it. If loads of people I know in
> DH were telling me it was a bad idea, I might stop.
> If one takes the time to share this feedback is because we
>> believe the project is important; it might even be more important
>> for others than what you as its creator might imagine.
> I can understand that it is important (which of course feels weird for
> me), but mostly for the opportunity it gives less well-known projects to be
> highlighted. It is not meant to be in competition with the awards by other
> organisations. (See note about this on the FAQ for this year.)
> As I said above, I've probably abused this list enough. But I'm more than
> happy to continue this discussion off-list.
> Many thanks for the thoughtful feedback!
> Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings at it.ox.ac.uk
> Academic IT Services, University of Oxford
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the globaloutlookdh-l