If, like me, you are committed to finding prescient work in the realm of computational approaches to the humanities, it means you are often tracking down somewhat difficult to find volumes and quickly photocopying an article or two while you still have the volume in your hands. Anna Birgitta Rooth’s “Pattern Recognition, Data Reduction, Catchwords and Semantic Problems” is one such article, and the PDF I am making available has been OCRed.
For those who have asked, below are links to the paper I gave at this year’s meeting of the American Folklore Society along with the slides and the handout (which was a version of the slides, so you don’t need both). As I catch up with everything on which I have fallen behind, I will post my notes about the conference itself in some fashion.
Abstract: Concluding his consideration of “Time in Folk-Narrative,” Bill Nicolaisen noted that the nature of human experience is centrally of time and that what marked genres of folk narrative, perhaps as much, or more, than anything else, was their management of time: “What must be stressed, however, is that in contrast to the concepts and realization of an extended present and of narrated time in the folktale, the dramatic comparisons made in the legend are designed to demonstrate the incompatibility of the two time frames, which exist as parallel systems” (318). Much of Nicolaisen’s efforts are focused on a careful compilation of how time is signaled, and thus managed, within the discourse of ten fairy tales drawn randomly from Thompson’s One Hundred Favorite Folktales. This paper revisits and extends Nicolaisen’s work, taking as its central task the careful attention to words used. Where Nicolaisen focused principally on the folktale, with occasional references to legend, this paper, part of a larger examination of legends in the current moment, uses a number of legends taken, first, from oral discourse, and then a number of legends found online. It follows this examination with a look at, what the paper itself argues, is the adjacent genre of the personal anecdote, sometimes also known as the personal experience narrative, in order to determine how a close examination of the management of time, in discourse, might reveal where the two genres converge or diverge, in hopes of finding a better way to model both and reliable discursive cues. Some of the methodologies deployed are computational in nature, beginning with forms of markup first explored by computer scientists Pustejovsky et alum and followed up by recent attempts to automate temporal signals in texts by David Elson. The current work seeks to re-imagine the pioneering work of Bill Nicolaisen, and before him Benjamin Colby, in light of recent developments in computational modeling of narrative with an especial focus on what that means for the study of genre.
Nicolaisen, William. 1978. Time in Folk-Narrative. In Folklore Studies in the Twentieth Centuries, 314-319. Ed. Venetia Newall. Rowman and Littlefield. (Available as a PDF.)
Much ado over the American History Association’s proposed embargo of dissertations being made available. A lot of of interesting conversations [covered here](http://s-usih.org/2013/08/on-thinking-about-the-dissertation-as-a-book.html), which, perhaps, brushes up against the topic of the nature of the scholarly book. The central question: who are books for? Fellow scholars? Wider audience?
I like Henry Glassie’s stance on this, as he once noted in conversation as I struggled to think the topic for myself early in the process of researching and writing _The Makers of Things_: “Books are for people, articles are for scholars.” You don’t have to agree with him, but you can still admire the precision of his thinking and the realization that there are two audiences. He followed the distinction with the observation that he had never achieved recognition from within the field until he had achieved it outside the field, and so his “breakthrough” books were those that had “broken through” elsewhere, and that *that* was what his (our) colleagues recognized.
This dynamic is more generally true than most of us care to admit. Here at my university, as probably occurs other places as well (but I cannot speak to them), significant raises are only possible through two routes:
1. *sycophancy*, which is the most common one locally, and
2. *portability*, e.g., getting a job offer from elsewhere.
In Glassie’s distinction and in the second route what we see is that internal audiences don’t themselves feel comfortable judging the merit of their own but require an external audience for validation. On the one hand, this is not a bad thing, since third parties might just offer the objectivity we seek, but it is stymying to those who seek a middle way of improving from within according to an external sense of quality. (Confessional aside here: I tried this middle way, and it doesn’t work. At least not in my local environment. Perhaps others have had better luck elsewhere. I get the sense, for example, that a colleague of mine at Indiana University has been very successful in this regard, though he has shown uncommon persistence in pursuing such a path.)
Locally, I encourage my dissertators to write as much as they can as if they were writing a book to be published into the trade nonfiction marketplace. This works in their favor, I think, in two ways: first, it encourages them to think about what it means to write a book and moves them closer to having a manuscript of that nature, and, second, it encourages them to think of the dissertation as a vehicle for communication and not simply display of scholarly mastery. This is important since many, if not all, of my students are working at the margins of traditional literary scholarship, and they need to think about how they are going to position themselves in the marketplace. Sitedness is very important in such a rhetorical moment, and young scholars especially need to be aware of their audience’s expectations, biases, and blindnesses.
The L.A. Times has a short article, with lots of great links, about [the rise in popularity of long-form non-fiction](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2011/07/calls-for-longform-nonfiction.html). If the monograph is dead, as many lament, viva the readable book!
_PLoS Medicine_ has a fascinating article by John P. A. Ioannidis that argues that in an era where all research must establish, almost *a priori*, its “significance,” that we in fact have ended up with research that is insignificant. The problem, as I understand it from my reading, is that too many scientists — and the window onto the scholarly world is open here, I think — are required to be productive in ways that bureaucracies can “measure.” Thus, the race is on *toward* smaller studies that are easily commoditized into publications and *away* from larger studies which either require years to produce results or have too many collaborators for credit to be pieced out in ways that institutions like.
> There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
Here’s the official citation:
Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
The report should probably really be titled “Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: A Really, Really Long Report” but in fact its subtitle is “An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines.” One of the disciplines profiled is history, which I chose as being closest to my own field of folklore studies. How long is that one report — one of seven, remember? — 115 pages. Brevity, thy name is not Center for Studies in Higher Education.
[Here’s the index page for the whole report.](http://escholarship.org/uc/cshe_fsc)
The University of Prince Edward Island cancelled their subscription to Web of Science:
This is to inform the UPEI campus community that we have not renewed our subscription to ISI’s Web of Science database (WoS). We realize this is a key research database for many of you and we have taken steps to ensure access to appropriate alternative resources, as well as the WoS back‑files. Late last year we received notification that our subscription price was going to increase by 120%. A number of factors went into the decision not to renew:
‑ a challenging fiscal climate means that we are unlikely to see an increase to Library budgets;
‑ any subscription increase in these challenging times is difficult, but an increase of 120% is simply not acceptable;
‑ we would have been forced to sign a 3‑year agreement, with additional increases in each of the 3 years;
‑ a weaker Canadian dollar would have a significant impact on our subscription costs;
‑ accommodating this level of increase lends credence to the vendors’ business practices and we felt it important to make a statement against these practices (see http://chronicle.com/article/U‑of‑California‑Tries‑Just/65823/ for a recent decision at UC).
UPEI is also leading an effort to create a free and open index to the world’s scholarly literature called “Knowledge For All”. This proposal is currently being sent to various Canadian and international library consortia in an effort to gain support for the project. One goal of Knowledge For All is to ensure that scholars and members of the broader public are no longer disenfranchised by a broken system of scholarly communication. We will provide the campus community with updates on this effort.
It’s interesting to note that it may very well be the smaller universities that make some of these shifts, perhaps clumsily, first because they usually are closer to the economic trends than the majors. I think such is also the case with my own university.
**Your backyard** is the best place to discover new things, at least in the case of species. At least that’s what Stephen Fry claims in [this episode](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXryBTL5S0c) of QI. Apparently a biologist in Leicester performed a long-term study of her own garden and over the course of several years discovered many species that had never been documented in Great Britain and four new species of wasp that had never been documented before at all.