a bag of words. social perspectives on scholarly editing - paper @ social, digital, scholarly...
Post on 22-Oct-2014
1.095 views
DESCRIPTION
The text has long been the nucleus of scholarly editing which, in their print or digital products, serves two goals: establishing the best possible text for transmission and making sure it reaches as many people as possible. This transmissional and communcative function of the scholarly edition is joined by a third one when digital and social editing is applied: engaging. Not the authoritative fixed text of the scholary edition, but the social proces of textual interaction by its participants becomes the centre of social digital editing. This social function challenges the activities of experimental modelling, and reshapes the edition in a multifunctional and multidisciplinary bag of words to be explored by students and scholars.TRANSCRIPT
Edward Vanhoutte
Director of Research & Publications, Royal Academy of Dutch Language & LiteratureHon. Research Associate, UCL Centre for Digital HumanitiesEditor-in-Chief, LLC: The Journal of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities (OUP)
[email protected]@evanhoutte
Social, Digital, Scholarly Editing – Saskatoon – 12/07/2013
A Bag of Words
Social Perspectives onScholary Editing
No edition is more social than the full blown conventional printed scholarly edition
No edition is more social than the full blown conventional printed scholarly edition
1. Accessible2. Clearly targeted audience3. Explicit
1. Accessible
● Well known technology● Book shops● Libraries
Myth 1
Digital editions are more accessible
Nuances
Digital editions are more accessible
● may provide faster accessibility
Nuances
Digital editions are more accessible
● may provide faster accessibility● may provide better & direct accessibility to
representations of source materials
Nuances
Digital editions are more accessible.
● may provide faster accessibility● may provide better & direct accessibility to
representations of source materials● may provide better accessibility for analytical tools
More accessible?
Only when the digital edition overcomes the problems connected with the technology of reading
Conclusion
Digital editions do not provide a quantitative higher accessibility than printed editionsbut a qualitative different accessibility
Myth 1
Digital editions are more accessible.
2. Clearly Targeted Audience [implied]
● Domain specialists:
● Fellow textual critics● Fellow textual/literary scholars● Students● Publishing professionals
2. Clearly Targeted Audience
● Different audience = Different type● Different intent = Different type
● Student edition ● Reading edition● Facsimile edition
→ Typologies→ Formal orientations of editing
2. Clearly Targeted Audience
Problem 1:
Digital edition is not a type of edition
→ 'Most digital scholarly editions were just souped up books' [O'Donnel]
[Descriptive Classification Generator – 2007]
2. Clearly Targeted Audience
Problem 2:
Exploration of technological possibilities
replaced
Clear articulation of intent and audience
→ Everything for everyone
Nuance
Digital editions reach a wider audience than printed editions
● may potentially reach a wider audience
Nuance
Digital editions reach a wider audience than printed editions
● may potentially reach a wider audience
● Audience ≠ online world● Audience ≠ pagehits● Audience ≠ crowd sourcers
Conclusion
Digital editions reach/attract a different audience
And pagehits don't prove anything!
Myth 2
Digital editions reach a wider audience
3. Explicit
● Editorial principles● Citeable text● Critical apparatus / Record of variants
3. Explicit
● Editorial principles● Citeable text● Critical apparatus / Record of variants
3. Explicit
Critical apparatus / Record of variants
● Formalized● Formulized● Representation of research data● Account for editorial choices
3. Explicit
Critical apparatus / Record of variants
● explicit invitation for engagement with● The edition● The editorial choices / the editor● The text/work● Peers
→ Scholarly debate / publications
3. Explicit
2 Problems:
● Economics● Emotion
3. Explicit
Central aim of textual scholarship:
Provide the humanities with the foundational data for any sensible statement about texts/works
Scholarly edition [functions]:● Transmissional: establishing the best possible
text for transmission over time● Communicative: make sure it reaches as many
people as possible
3. Explicit
Problem 1: Economics
● Reduction to meaningful variants only● Stripping out all scholarly apparatus
3. Explicit
Problem 1: Economics
● Reduction to meaningful variants● Stripping out all scholarly apparatus
'Scholarly editing is a transaction between editor & reader' [Eggert]
→ taking out the evidence of this transactional act removes the main instrument for engagement
3. Explicit
Problem 2: Emotion
● Barbed wire [Mumford]● Cemetery of variants [Friedhofen – Koopmann]
3. Explicit
Cemetery
● Historical function: testimonies of our past● Social function: places to mourn● Cultural function: record of meaningful lives● Esthetic function: place for monumental art
3. Explicit
Cemetery
● Historical function: testimonies of our past● Social function: places to mourn● Cultural function: record of meaningful lives● Esthetic function: place for monumental art
● Freely accessible ● Very well organised layout● Tools: find any tombstone within walking distance
3. Explicit
Cemetery● Confrontational place to engage with life
Cemetery of variants● Confrontational place to engage with the text
→ But people fear confrontation→ Clear best text editions were preferred model for publishers whose main goal is to sell books
Myth 3
Communicative and transmissional function is best fulfilled by the clear best text edition
Myth 3
Communicative and transmissional function is best fulfilled by the clear best text edition
[Social] Digital Edition
● Engaging researchers● Engaging readers / general public
Teleurgang van den Waterhoek [2000]
● User choice of orientation text● User text/image annotation● User text/image links● User link annotation● Reading paths
→ Exchangeable between users
SGML [TEI] / HyTime
● Hard to produce● Hard to deliver● Hard to engage researchers / readers
Targeted audience: researchers
→ False presumption: there is a readership that wants to engage with the edition/text in a social way
In Oorlogsnood [2005]
● Calender driven● No further dynamic user interaction
Targeted audience: general public
Huge success→ 2 editions in print● Theme: WW I● Looking up birthday
De trein der traagheid [2012]
● Dynamic views on textual archive● Dynamically generated scholarly● Full record of variants● Fully annotated● Stable citeable edition included
Targeted audience: researchers
→ Request for clear text print edition for general public
Correspondence of Stijn Streuvels [2013]
2,500 letters ● Archive: extension to catalogue● Edition: fully annotated / images / indexed ● Text-base
Targeted audience: researchers / general public
Correspondence of Stijn Streuvels [2013]
→ Failed attempt at crowd sourcing
● Profound distrust of amateur editors● Overvaluation of professional editors
Correspondence of Stijn Streuvels [2013]
A bag of words
● Corpus of ego-documents● Exportable subcorpora● XML files → Analytical tools
De Leeuw van Vlaenderen [2012]
● Text-critical reading edition● Genetic essay● Selective scholarly apparatus
Targeted audience: specialized readers / researchers
→ Engagement: citations / scholarly debate