photo by sfgamchick

Around this time two years ago I happily tweeted that I was accepting a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair at McGill. I should actually have said that I was accepting a position at McGill along with a nomination for a CRC. My impression at the time was that the institution was making the significant vetting and selection decision and that the CRC application to Ottawa was to ensure that no egregious lack of judgement had been made that could sully the reputation of the CRC program. It’s true that the success rate of applications is very high, but it turns out that CRC approval is much more subject to the strengths and weaknesses of conventional peer-review than I’d anticipated. The digital humanities is still a small enough community that I’ve collaborated with many of the more established scholars who would have been naturally suited to assess my dossier, which makes arms-length peer-review even more challenging – I have to suspect that some evaluators were maybe less familiar with what we hold to be some distinctive characteristics of the digital humanities.

Friends, in my case, it was close, but no cigar.

I’d be lying if I denied that there’s a small part of me that want to crawl under a moist rock and wallow in self-pity. Rejection is no fun, regardless of circumstances. I apply for a lot of grants and I’ve had many hits, but also quite a few misses. Even when I know it’s a long-shot, being told no is deflating. The CRC wasn’t a long-shot, but more importantly, it was intricately woven into my motivations for changing jobs, moving my family, and my envisioned identity for the coming years. So yeah, that part kind of sucks.

At the same time, I can very honestly and sincerely say that I’m also relieved that it didn’t work out. A Tier 1 CRC comes with enormous expectations, pressure, and spotlight – none of which I particularly want more of in my life. I think Tier 1 CRCs are really intended for hyper-productive, ambitious, endlessly energetic academics (not to mention more senior scholars; there’s clearly a significant structural gap between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels – I was a hair beyond eligibility criteria for Tier 2). It’s tempting to say that the Tier 1 CRC committee wasn’t quite ready for a highly collaborative tool-building digital humanist like me, but it’s probably also true that I wasn’t quite ready to assume the profile associated with a conventional Tier 1 CRC. The program seeks to support acknowledged world leaders in their fields, and achieving and sustaining that position takes considerable effort, and sometimes compromise. I know several CRCs and I have great admiration and respect for them; I also scratch my head wondering in awe how they manage to do everything they do.

It may be just my coping mechanism, but I do feel that this new trajectory give me increased freedom to make choices for the right reasons, to be the academic I want to be instead of the one I’m expected to be. I can continue to collaborate with teams and not be concerned about whether or not I’m the perceived leader (as principal investigator, lead author, or whatever). I can continue spending time on digital scholarship, including tool-building, without worrying personally about how that work is measured. I can focus more energy on interactions with students that are consistent with my notions of the contemporary mandate of the humanities for forming active citizens in a digital society. And so on. I’m not saying those things wouldn’t have been possible with a CRC (and the additional resources that come with the Chair would have been helpful in some ways), but I won’t need to question as much whether my choices are motivated by professional optics rather than by personal preference.

I also recognize that I have been unbelievably and undeservedly fortunate so far in my career. I’ve been a faculty member at three outstanding universities – I look around at many of the extremely bright and talented graduates and it pains me to see them struggle to find the academic jobs that they’d been encouraged to envision for themselves. I’m a tenured professor at McGill, a world-renowned institution with a justified reputation for excellence. The CRC nomination was really an enormous honour, regardless of the outcome. I have a great job in a stimulating environment, I live in the amazing city of Montreal, I have a healthy family… it would be absurd of me to really feel discouraged.

While the CRC rejection isn’t a happy event, I am convinced that it’s a better outcome for the more balanced lifestyle that I want. I look forward to a long, productive and satisfying career at McGill.

]]> http://stefansinclair.name/dayofdh-2012/feed/ 2 http://stefansinclair.name/voyant-workshop-at-dh2012-in-hamburg/ http://stefansinclair.name/voyant-workshop-at-dh2012-in-hamburg/#comments Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:59:42 +0000 sgsinclair http://stefansinclair.name/?p=152   Introduction to Distant Reading Techniques with Voyant Tools, Multilingual Edition

You have a collection of digital texts, now what? This workshop provides a gentle introduction to text analysis in the digital humanities using Voyant Tools, a collection of free web-based tools that can handle larger collections of texts, be they digitized novels, online news articles, twitter feeds, or other textual content. This workshop will be a hands-on, practical guide with lots of time to ask questions, so participants are encouraged to bring their own texts. In the workshop we will cover the following:

1. A brief introduction to text analysis in the humanities;
2. Preliminary exploration techniques using Voyant;
3. Basic issues in choosing, compiling, and preparing a text corpus;
4. Text mining to identify themes in large corpora;
5. Ludic tools and speculative representations of texts; and
6. Integrating tool results into digital scholarship.

This year’s workshop will pay special attention to certain multilingual issues in text analysis, such as character encoding, word segmentation, and available linguistic functionality for different languages. The instructors will present in English, but can also present or answer questions in French and Italian.

AUDIENCE: This is intended as an introduction to text analysis and visualization. We hope for an audience with a range of interests and relevant competencies. In the past we have had 20 to 25 participants, which works well with two workshop leaders. Participants are expected to bring their own laptop and are encouraged to bring their own texts.

LENGTH: half-day

WORKSHOP LEADERS: Stéfan Sinclair (McGill) and Geoffrey Rockwell (Alberta)

REQUIREMENTS: Participants are expected to have their own laptop.

The exact date and time of the workshop are yet to be determined.

Here are some of the more significant modifications that were made to RezoViz based on the Halfviz code:

• hovering over labels changes their colour
• labels that are linked also change colour, with little badges that indicate a value
• labels are drawn “above” the network lines to make them easier to read
• there’s an option to specify the maximum number of labels to show
• there is a search bar that produces results in the graph as you type
• edge (line) thickness and opacity are calculated dynamically based on relative values

Want to see it in action? Try the Humanist archives demo (that’s still a work in progress). I’ll post a link to the GitHub repository for the code soon. Keep posted as well for more news of full integration with Voyant Tools.

During the last MC² meeting we agreed that we would experiment with data aggregated by Montréal Ouvert, an initiative to promote open access to a range of municipal data from Montreal (similar open data initiatives exist in Canada and elsewhere). My usual research doesn’t much involved the use geographical data and I was keen to get my hands dirty and learn some new stuff; did I ever. I knew there was a variety of APIs and web services that would help us, though I hadn’t anticipated how quickly we would be able to create and play with a map, especially given data that wasn’t especially intended for mapping purposes. Much of the geo-coding magic was accomplished by BatchGeo, a service suggested by fellow MC² participant Renee Sieber.

The first step was to consult a list of data sources from the city of Montreal, compiled on the Actions page of Montréal Ouvert. The formats here vary, but it seemed preferable to start with something in XML – I was tempted by the bike-sharing Bixi data, but those were already geo-encoded (with latitude and longitude values), and I wanted more of a challenge. I opted for the “Health Inspection Infractions” from 2010, thinking it might be interesting to see what neighbourhoods had the most restaurants and other establishments that had been fined (for this quick and dirty experiment I didn’t correlate population, total number of restaurants, income levels or any other data that would probably be relevant if I were doing anything more than a quick experiment).

Once the source was chosen, I downloaded the XML file. I knew that BatchGeo required tabular data as presented in a spreadsheet, and since the XML file had a simple structure, I could do a quick search for a free, web-based XML to CSV converter like the one at Luxon Software. I uploaded the XML file to this service, and presto! downloaded at CSV file. I could now import this file into a spreadsheet program like Google Spreadsheets.

On the left is the source XML document (as viewed in a browser) and on the right is the converted spreadsheet data imported from comma separated values (as viewed in Google Spreadsheets).

Once in the spreadsheet, I could select on the content, copy it into the clipboard, and then paste it into the box in BatchGeo. Like magic, the table redraws itself with nicely formatted data. I still needed to set the relevant options, including to specify columns for the city, address, theme, and title. The final step was to hit the “Make Google Map” button and watch as the geo-coding was performed (BatchGeo was assigning longitude and latitude numbers based on the addresses provided). After about a minute, ding! there was a fully baked map:

The map generated by BatchGeo using the Health Infractions data in the spreadsheet. Click on the image to view the live map.

So, XML to CSV, CSV to BatchGeo to add geo-location data, and there we have a map. An amazing transformation from static XML data to an interactive map. Yes, it’s simplistic, but that’s the point: you can easily create and play with maps.

Given how unexpectedly quickly this went, I started looking for some alternatives. Again Renee introduced me to something new, the ability to import XML into a Google Spreadsheet, using a custom XPath query to define the values of each column. My first attempt at this actually failed, I suspect because the source XML document is wrongly declared by the server to be HTML, not XML. A quick posting of the XML file on my server allowed me to continue. Such are the joys of working with data in the wild – one must often use duct tape to make things work properly – in fact, I think that recognizing little problems along the way and figuring out how to resolve them is the essence of digital humanities – very little of interest works properly out of the box.

Anyway, now I could proceed with my importing of data into a new worksheet, using importXML.

The importXML function allows me to specify a URL source and an XPath query for each column.

I like my scripting languages as much as the next DHer, but Look Ma! No programming! Now that was a fun MC² meeting.

This morning’s order of business was to look at the department’s criteria for tenure and promotion. While I wasn’t able to substantially challenge the assumption that humanists should have a book, I do think there’s other language in the research criteria section that can provide enough leeway to allow for alternatives on an ad hoc basis. Two other things I care a lot about are 1) recognizing co-authorship (which I was overjoyed that one of my other colleagues brought up and we added language to the document to reflect that) and 2) and the inclusion of digital resources for tenure and promotion. I mentioned various guidelines and resources, including the MLA wiki on The Evaluation of Digital Work, and proposed the following addition to the document (hastily composed during the meeting):

Consideration may be given to digital resources (web sites, databases, programs, etc.) when the dossier provides evidence that such work represents original and substantial scholarship. Types of assessment may include formal peer review, citation metrics, and public impact.

I was very pleasantly surprised that my colleagues seemed unanimously and immediately supportive (there may have been objectors who remained quiet, but there was definitely a majority nodding in approval, not to mention the unanimous vote on this and other amendments proposed). In fact, one of my colleagues asked why we would put “consideration may” instead of “consideration should” – I replied that not all digital resources are created equal and that the onus can still be on the candidate to decide what to include and how to justify it as significant scholarship. Anyway, sometimes one anticipates the battles in the wrong places.

The document we were working on was specifically about criteria for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, and the clause about digital scholarship doesn’t really apply to anyone currently in the department, but I’m really delighted that my department has taken a pro-active step in recognizing digital scholarship.

Photo by Mathieu Thouvenin

As much as I love the calmer pace and greater flexibility of summer, I was very happy to be back in the classroom today. My days are typically spent staring at the computer screen a lot and though I do interact with colleagues in person and through various media, there’s something very stimulating and satisfying that happens in the classroom that doesn’t happen elsewhere, at least for me. There were a lot of firsts in this inaugural seminar of LLCU-602: New Approaches to Scholarship in the Digital Humanities: first fully-fledged digital humanities course at McGill; first class for me to teach since my arrival at McGill; first course I’ve taught where a colleague is auditing it; etc… Below is the syllabus for the course, a humble contribution to the ever growing number of digital humanities syllabi out there. This syllabus may be of interest for the organization of the topics & assessments – unfortunately the readings aren’t included in this view, but I’ll post an updated version later in the term.

Summary

The Humanities are rich from centuries of intellectual practices and millennia of historical records and thought. The Digital Humanities seek to engage with those traditions while also exploring the potential for using digital technologies to extend modes of humanistic inquiry. What new interpretations might be spawned when bits of cultural data can be infinitely rearranged into representations unimaginable in analogue form? What new arguments might be proposed when we can instantly ask questions at the unprecedented scale of millions of books? Through a mix of seminar discussions, hands-on tutorials, and project-based work, this course will provide students with theoretical and practical foundations for working in the Digital Humanities, covering topics such as digitization, encoding, analysis, and visualization. No technical background is required.

Outcomes

• students will be able to describe the essential characteristics of the digital humanities as a discipline
• students will be familiar with a wide range of tools and techniques for digital humanities scholarship
• students will have expertise in using a set of tools effectively to enhance their own research
• students will have experience in communicating their ideas using a variety of digital platforms
• students will have experience in planning and implementing a collaborative digital project

Schedule

• Module 1: Overview & Tentative Definitions:
  • Week 1: What are the Humanities? What is Digital? What are the Digital Humanities?
  • Week 2: Humanities Scholarship in the Digital Age
• Module 2: Exploring & Critiquing Projects
  • Week 3: Scholarly Editing & Libraries
  • Week 4: Literary Criticism & Authorship Attribution
  • Week 5: Music, Film, Gaming
• Module 3: Getting our Feet Wet
  • Week 6: Digitization & Encoding
  • Week 7: Data Preparation, Representations & Databases
  • Week 8: Analytic Tools
  • Week 9: Visualization Tools
  • Week 10: Roll Your Own
• Module 4: Collaborative Projects
  • Week 11: Planning & Describing
  • Week 12: Implementing
  • Week 13: Preserving

Please note that further details, including readings, will be provided via the course management system. There are no bookstore purchases to be made for this course.

Evaluation

• Blog (30%): Students will write at least one blog entry per week that contains at least one paragraph of reflection on the week’s readings and at least one paragraph on an additional relevant reading that the student has found. Students are also encouraged to write on other topics, such as reflections on the past week’s seminar, thoughts on relevant news articles, ideas about possible projects, etc. Students should adopt the tone of academic blog (including references as needed) and the entries will be assessed based on the quality of the ideas and expression.
• Presentation (15%): Students will choose a topic of interest from the course schedule and create a presentation. Presentations must make significant use of a digital technology, but may not use slideware (PowerPoint, Keynote, Impress, etc.). Alternatives include Prezi, Xtranormal, and multimedia videos. Students will be assessed on the quality and usefulness of the information presented, as well as the effectiveness of the use of the chosen communication platform. References should be included.
• Individual Mini-Project Write-up (15%): In conjuction with Module 3 “Getting our Feet Wet” students will produce a mini-project that is the fruit of their individual efforts to digitize, prepare and analyze some textual corpus. The write-up should be under five pages and include a short summary of each component of the methodology and reflections on the overall process and success of the project. References may be included as appropriate. (Tentative deadline: November 14th.)
• Group Project (30%): This major group project is the culmination of the class. Students will work in groups of at least two to create a project with a significant digital component. Projects will include a write-up that documents objectives, description, collaboration, challenges, and possible future directions. References should be included as needed (scholarly references, related projects, code, etc.). (Tentative deadline: December 23rd.)
• Participation (10%): Student attendance and participation in seminar discussions is a crucial component of the class.

Policies

• This course is a mix of theory and practice – students are expected to attend and participate thoughtfully and respectfully in the seminar meetings. If possible, students should bring a laptop to class to participate in the hands-on components.
• The Course Management System will be used extensively in this class to post notes, important date changes, assignment descriptions, etc. You are responsible for checking the site regularly (at least twice a week) for any changes or updates.
• In accord with McGill University’s Charter of Students’ Rights, you may submit in English or in French any written work that is to be graded. Please be aware that impeccable grammar is required whether you choose to write in French or in English.
• McGill University values academic integrity. Therefore all students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures (see www.mcgill.ca/students/srr/honest/ for more information). Please note that multimedia objects (images, video, etc.) as well as programming code are subject to the same standards of academic integrity.

Here’s the language that made it into my appointment contract:

The Faculty of Arts recognizes that Digital Humanities is a highly collaborative field where knowledge and innovation develop both through conventional modes of scholarship (peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, etc.) and through building of scholarly digital resources (including specialized software for the humanities).

Needless to say, this language wouldn’t work for every digital humanist, but I had two main objectives: 1) to emphasize that – unlike most research in the humanities – digital humanities work tends to be highly collaborative and the standard of single-author publications is not only irrelevant but in many cases counter-productive; 2) that part of digital humanities scholarship is building stuff, not to the exclusion of more widely recognized forms of scholarship, but potentially on equal footing (though the onus is still on us to argue and document how stuff we build is worth scholarship).

Although getting this language into my contract was a significant moral victory, it would be very naïve to suppose that the battle for valuing digital humanities scholarship stops there. To extrapolate from my own circumstances a bit, tenure, promotion and annual review committees are still likely to be composed of individuals who are more accustomed to traditional metrics of assessment, and – let us always remind ourselves – assessing digital humanities scholarship can be a challenge and is difficult to generalize into neat formulae. I think we want to make a case that co-authorship is different than how it’s commonly perceived in the sciences – in some cases a co-authored journal article may be worth a full article per author, in other cases it may be worth a straightforward proportion, and other times maybe yet another calculus is more appropriate. Assessing digital humanities projects is likely even more ad hoc. Again, the onus is on us to document and argue how are digital humanities work should be assessed. I actually think this additional responsibility will become one of the most significant defining characteristics of digital humanities scholarship. Very few people like documenting, but we need to get used to it and better at doing it.

I’d like to finish by saying that negotiating a contract is a weird and wonderful time – you’re elated that you’ve been offered a job and now you apparently enter into a perverse psychological battle of chicken to see how far you can get. Actually, I suspect most people under-negotiate (maybe in part because we’re (relieved) academics, dammit, not sales people). My advice, for what it’s worth, is to be respectful and realistic, but to try to create the best possible situation at the start. With the appropriate caveats and legal disclaimers, I would say that if you’ve been offered a job, they want you and you have more leverage than you may have for quite some time. I’ve never heard of anyone requesting something and then finding out that they’re no longer being offered the job – they may decline your request, but it’s worth asking. If you stay away from issuing ultimatums, you’ll know when you’ve pushed far enough.