Like I said, I'm not sure there is as persuasive a case to be made for membership in the absence of a proposal. So I think discussing it here might be a good idea.
Basically, my view is that we have nothing to lose by seeing what would be involved in becoming a CO and potentially something to gain, for a variety of reasons:
* it would give our representatives (however we decided to select them) some direct influence in how the major channels of international DH are run; * it would leverage what really is a lot of good will towards this organisation; * there might be some ways of ensuring some form of financial support for GO::DH from the collective.
GO::DH has already been very influential within ADHO. It was the first SIG, but more importantly, the SIG category was really created in response to its formation (i.e. it wasn't the first group to apply to be a SIG, we proposed that a category "Special Interest Group" should be created to accommodate us... and it was). As a result of this, we had/have a different relationship to ADHO than other SIGs. For a while, at least, we had a seat on the Steering Committee, for example.
I think that relationship has also been good for GO::DH. While I wouldn't say that GO::DH created the global turn in DH, I would say that it was an important part of bringing global and diversity concerns to the forefront of DH as a field. We (or reactions to us and support for us) are directly responsible for a number of structural changes that make it easier to hold events outside of North America, Europe, and English. We (with the Multilingual/Multicultural committee) are also responsible for much more attention being paid to matters of linguistic diversity. And despite some nominal setbacks and mistakes in the last year or two, I think it is fair to say that these have become central to so much activity in DH in part because we've had good, solid access to the boards and committees that run our conferences, journals, and fora.
Indeed, even the mistakes and setbacks have been, in my view, anyway, productive: I think it is fair to say that things looked a little glum in 2016 with some activity and comments that could have been seen as being relatively reactionary to kind of research and diversity we were pursuing. But the result--due in part to great bravery on the part of several of our members and supporters--has been if anything an even greater attention to these matters in the various organs.
I think also that GO::DH is part of an interesting change in how DH is being organised, one that picks up a lot of the themes that Domenico and others have been arguing in their work, even if (as I understand it) they don't think that it goes far enough or has been effective as it might have been. So the recent trend in ADHO governance has been away from the geographic organisation and towards the interest group organisation. We have CentreNet--which was the first CO that wasn't arguably organised around a territory; and now we have Humanistica, a linguistically organised group. We know that people are organising that way outside of ADHO COs, as well (e.g. the Portuguese language group).
Because GO::DH is in many ways about this kind of organisation of the discipline--about breaking down barriers among researchers, about surmounting and/or collaborating through regional and network disruptions, and (in my view at least) about supporting researchers to be themselves in their interests, habits, and methods--I think it is perfectly suited to help cement this move in the group that organises most of our important activities--ADHO. I.e. I think ADHO (and the organisations that make it up) is trying to become more like what we are and we can lead that important development (I am not trained in post-colonial studies and so am not necessarily expert at expressing what I mean here--please forgive me if I'm putting things badly).
Speaking as somebody who has some experience negotiating contracts (I'm our Faculty Association's negotiator), I can see some issues that might arise in the application. For example, currently COs both contribute to and draw from the ADHO central fund. That is to say, ADHO collects membership fees from the members of all COs and then distributes the resulting money via a formula so that each CO is guaranteed a minimum income, even if their membership receipts are less than that minimum income--in essence, the bigger COs subsidise the smaller ones, but all contribute. Our current membership model will require some finessing to fit into that model, since we subscribe by simply joining a mailing list (rather than subscribing to a journal) and since it is a crucial fact of our organisation that it be open and free to all.
However, I know that Harold and others have been thinking this thing through and they have a history of coming up with really creative ideas to match the circumstances of new COs--it is really not fair to say that ADHO is unresponsive in that way, since it has shown itself on the whole to be much more creative, flexible, and sensitive to local needs than any other scholarly society I know of. I'd be shocked if we couldn't come up with a solution that maintained these bedrock principles. And of course, if we can't, then we shouldn't and won't join.
Anyway, I think the argument for formally discussing joining ADHO as a CO is that ADHO has shown every indication that they'd be eager to talk with us; they have a history of adapting creatively to the needs of candidate organisations and so there is every reason to think they would adapt to ours; we have a lot of good will in the community and organisation; we could both benefit ADHO by becoming a CO--bringing what has been some really successful work right into the heart of the organisation--and benefit from having access to the committees and commissions that run the major journals and activities in our field. I think ADHO would be good for us and we'd be good for ADHO and if I'm wrong, then we don't have to join.
In short, I don't see any threat from something we could walk away from if it doesn't work out and I see lots to suggest that we may find things to be extremely to our liking given how much good will and interest there is. I think it is entirely possible that we could join them without having to change much if anything of what made us what we are today. And if that's not true, that we could say "no."
The decisive thing for me is that the opposite approach, not asking and not seeing what is possible before saying no, means giving up a chance to see what we might be able to do. Perhaps, in the end, it will make sense to say no after all. But in that case we're no worse off than we are now and we'd have discovered, in the meantime, that saying no was definitely the right thing for us to do. But by asking and establishing what would be required before we say "no," we might (I think are likely) to discover that there are lots of reasons why it makes sense to join.
That's my $15 worth.
-dan
[U of Lethbridge Logo]
Daniel Paul O'Donnell
Professor of English and Associate Member of the University Library Academic Staff
Editor, Digital Studies/Le champ numhttp://digitalstudies.org/érique http://digitalstudies.org/
Vice President, Force 11http://force11.org
Department of English and University Library
University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive West
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Canada
Tel. +1 (403) 329-2377
http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell
@danielPaulOD
________________________________ From: globaloutlookdh-l globaloutlookdh-l-bounces@uleth.ca on behalf of Roopika Risam rrisam@gmail.com Sent: October 16, 2017 4:16 To: globaloutlookdh-l, MailList Subject: Re: [globaloutlookDH-l] Why we should leave ADHO, go minimal and return to the planet.
Ernesto,
I know I'm not Alex but the list belongs to the members, so I would argue that the conversation should happen however the members will it.
Roopika
-- Roopika Risam, PhD Assistant Professor of English Chair, Program Area for Content Education Salem State University http://roopikarisam.com
On Oct 16, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Ernesto Priego <efpriego@gmail.commailto:efpriego@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for this, Alex.
We should have a collective deadline of December 1 for deliberations. In that time, we encourage general and executive members to debate on the list what you would like to see GO::DH become. All of your discussion, comments, will be taken into consideration as the executive votes on a final decision by December 15.
Should we have that conversation on this thread (i.e. in reply to your message as I am doing now) or would you prefer to have a different thread or even different threads?
Thank you!
Ernesto
Dr Ernesto Priego
@ernestopriego https://epriego.wordpress.com/ http://www.comicsgrid.com/ Subscribe to the Comics Grid Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/iOYAj
The information contained in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail. The contents of this e-mail must not be forwarded, disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of any related organisations, projects, colleagues or employers.
On 15 October 2017 at 20:50, Alex Gil <colibri.alex@gmail.commailto:colibri.alex@gmail.com> wrote: Dear all,
As promised, here is the document with the argument for why we should leave ADHOhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1BBq-mXnzJgw_5vVe4zlCDRXev9c5YAq9O6eDdt3IE5s/edit?usp=sharing. The first round was written by Dr. Roopika Risam and me, but those in support can add their own rationales and arguments, or comment on ours. Instructions are in the Google Doc.
A second argument will be prepared by those who support the idea of becoming a Constituent Organization of ADHO. I think Dan O'Donnell (Canada), Barbara Bordalejo (Argentina) and Glen Worthey (USA) have signaled they would be interested in drafting such a document. Hopefully sooner, rather than later, so we can proceed with deliberations.
After the second argument is made, a third argument is possible if enough members feel there should be a middle path, or a "third way."
We should have a collective deadline of December 1 for deliberations. In that time, we encourage general and executive members to debate on the list what you would like to see GO::DH become. All of your discussion, comments, will be taken into consideration as the executive votes on a final decision by December 15.
We will announce the results of the process before the year ends, and hopefully move forward with renewed energy into the next stage of GO::DH. Next year, I will pass on the baton to a new chair who will carry out our collective will, but will help in the transition, whatever that is, as long as I'm chair.
All best, Alex.
_______________________________________________ globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.camailto:globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
You are currently subscribed to this list in NON-digest mode. This means you receive every message as it is posted.
If this represents too much traffic, you can also subscribe in DIGEST mode. This sends out a single email once a day containing the entire day's postings. To change your settings go to http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/options/globaloutlookdh-l You can request a password reminder from this page if you have forgotten yours.
_______________________________________________ globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.camailto:globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
You are currently subscribed to this list in NON-digest mode. This means you receive every message as it is posted.
If this represents too much traffic, you can also subscribe in DIGEST mode. This sends out a single email once a day containing the entire day's postings. To change your settings go to http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/options/globaloutlookdh-l You can request a password reminder from this page if you have forgotten yours.
