[GeoHumanities SIG] GeoHumanities SIG future

Kathy Weimer khw2 at rice.edu
Thu Apr 13 22:05:43 CEST 2017


Benjamin,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed note.  Your 
comments echo many discussions over the years with SIG members.

Regarding peer review, the SIG hosted a workshop at DH2015 to explore 
criteria and if/how the SIG as an organization could have a role. Much 
work still needs to be done and I am really glad to see there is still 
interest.

Attendance at the annual conference was certainly beneficial in the 
early years of the SIG formation, but should not impede a member 
(including steering members) from participating electronically and 
throughout the year!  In past years, I have observed that the other SIGs 
were able to have only part of their coordinating boards at any given 
annual meeting.  While in-person communication has its advantages, 
electronic participation is encouraged!

As we evolve in the coming months, I hope that all interested parties 
will contribute to the discussion - pro/con, new ideas, etc...

regards,
Kathy

On 4/12/2017 11:55 AM, Benjamin Vis wrote:
>
> Dear Kathy and Karl,
>
> While it will be a challenge to keep a good/qualifying project list 
> relevant, representative, and up-to-date, I think there is value in 
> having a ‘GeoHumanities research portal’ like that, listing ongoing 
> and archived projects, and linking to their accessible outputs and 
> project members.
>
> It may also be worth creating lists and/or calendars with relevant 
> training and events, but perhaps even more so, to promote them. I’m 
> not sure if GeoHumSIG has done this in the past, but one way to 
> diversify out of the ADHO conference, might be to have an efficient 
> endorsement process where events and training organised by affiliates 
> can be labelled ‘GeoHumSIG’ approved (e.g. does this apply to the 
> l’Aquila workshop?) and supported in marketing/outreach for the event. 
> Naturally, the risk is that this would only bureaucratise the 
> advertisement of events that currently can simply be posted on this 
> mailing list, so it should be considered what, if anything, the added 
> value would be. I find the thought appealing, because it creates 
> somewhat of a recognisable knowledge hub and would help GeoHumSIG to 
> keep track what’s going on.
>
> Arguably, depending on the affiliates/membership of the SIG, the 
> future could bring more accessible ‘chapter’ conferences in 
> geographical areas. However, I suspect we’re not quite at the stage of 
> requiring such multi-level approach.
>
> GeoHumSIG might also support publications and project grants by 
> offering informal peer review. I often find it difficult to access 
> relevant friendly input/review for project ideas. I would possibly 
> extend such an effort with a kind of ‘forum/matching online 
> environment’ where very early stage ideas could be posted for 
> collaborative outputs and bids for members to declare interest in 
> within a set timeframe (to move development on). This could make the 
> community proactively productive and create strong teams. Naturally, 
> where a grant scheme is already identified, it should be clear who 
> and/or which countries/institutions would be eligible to apply. If it 
> is just an idea, the team formation could precede identifying a 
> funding venue.
>
> In terms of reaching out to further disciplines, I think it’s 
> important to recognise that source data for GeoHumanities might also 
> be of material/physical (rather than documentary) nature (n.b. 
> declaring my interest). Such emphasis might strike more of a chord 
> with (physical) geographers, environmental sciences and humanities, 
> architecture and urban design, and urbanists. Coming from an 
> archaeological background myself, I’m curious how much reach GeoHumSIG 
> has within this discipline, as archaeology has a long history of 
> research and teaching work that could be described as GeoHumanities, 
> but I can also imagine this means many archaeologists might not have 
> seen a need to directly engage with this relatively new interest field.
>
> For any of these initiatives (and I’m not against the ones mentioned 
> earlier), I think a representative and responsible coordinating 
> steering group member should be appointed. Feel free to discuss with 
> me how this might be organised. Attendance at the ADHO conference has 
> been my main restriction so far.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Benjamin
>
> : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 
> : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
>
> Dr Benjamin N. Vis | _+44 (0)1227 82 <+44%20%280%291227%2082%20>6543_ 
> | https://kent.academia.edu/BenjaminVis|
>
> School of European Culture & Languages | University of Kent |
>
> Rutherford College W3.E7 | Canterbury CT2 7NX | UK |
>
> : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 
> : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
>
> !DSPAM:360,58ee5db039341154653870!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GeoHumSIG mailing list
> GeoHumSIG at lists.digitalhumanities.org
> http://lists.lists.digitalhumanities.org/mailman/listinfo/geohumsig
>
>
> !DSPAM:360,58ee5db039341154653870!

-- 
Katherine Hart Weimer
Head, Kelley Center for
   Government Information, Data and Geospatial Services
Rice University
Fondren Library - MS 225
P.O. Box 1892
Houston, TX 77251-1892
713.348.6212

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lists.digitalhumanities.org/pipermail/geohumsig/attachments/20170413/5105bd35/attachment.html>


More information about the GeoHumSIG mailing list