Knowledge Mobilization in the Humanities/Knowledge Mobilization in the Humanities in Practice

Community-Engaged Research Allard, Danielle, and Shawna Ferris. 2015. “Antiviolence and Marginalized Communities: Knowledge Creation, Community Mobilization, and Social Justice through a Participatory Archiving Approach.” Library Trends 64 (2): 360–83. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2015.0043. Allard and Ferris explain the development of a participatory archiving approach with stakeholder community groups in three digital archives at the University of Manitoba: the Murdered Indigenous Women Database, the Sex Work Database, and the Post-Apology Residential School Database. The scholars and archivists working on these archives involved community stakeholders in both the archival processes of collection development, appraisal and description, as well as in the planning, design, functionality, and appearance of the digital archives. This participatory approach is based on the idea that archives have the potential to support social justice for marginalized populations. To achieve this goal, the authors prioritized building flexible and trusting partnerships with the stakeholder groups of the three archives to discuss the goals and outcomes of the projects and to amplify the activist efforts of these groups. Ball, Sarah, Brandi Leach, Jennifer Bousfield, Pamina Smith, and Sonja Marjanovic. 2021. “Arts-Based Approaches to Public Engagement with Research: Lessons from a Rapid Review.” RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA194-1.html. Bell, David, Steve Pool, Kim Streets and Natalie Walton, with Kate Pahl. “How Does Arts Practice Inform a Community Development Approach to the Co-production of Research?.” In Co-Producing Research: A Community Development Approach, edited by Sarah Banks, Angie Hart, Kate Pahl, and Paul Ward, 95–114. Bristol University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv80cccs.11. This chapter presents a dialogue between the authors: a researcher (David Bell), an artist (Steve Pool), a chief executive of a museum service (Kim Streets), and an arts educator (Natalie Walton) about how arts can be leveraged to imagine better futures and methods and trends within collaborative research. The first part of the dialogue focuses on the ways arts projects can and cannot empower communities to imagine better futures, with an emphasis on how class influences practices of re-imagining. The second part of the dialogue explores the historical, political, and economic dimensions of community-university partnerships. Central to this conversation is an interrogation of language and terminology. David Bell argues that the word “community” can often serve as a “dog whistle term,” invoking only certain kinds of communities. The chapter concludes by outlining several lessons gathered from the conversation: arts can be used to explore—and reproduce—social tensions, hierarchies, and contradiction; it is at the in-betweenness of conversations that collective knowledge can emerge; and building a more equitable society requires the forces of art, culture, and research, although these forces often get restricted. Burg, Jacob. 2020. “Pedagogy of and for the Public: Imagining the Intersection of Public Humanities and Community Literacy.” Community Literacy Journal 14 (2): 130–37. Burg discusses how a pedagogy of and for the public, constructed at the intersection of university and community, implements the digital frameworks and organizational tools of public humanities to enliven practices of community literacy. This type of literacy aims to foster sustainable models of multimodal learning, social justice, and community listening. The author relies on the concepts of concrete utopianism and community listening to refocus the humanist’s work around the cultivation of publics and counterpublics. One way to implement this approach is through new graduate student conferences that expand their audience, are reimagined beyond the university context, and root interactions between organizers, presenters, and the public. Cultivating rooted spaces, Burg concludes, can be a ready-to-hand tool to expand individual and community literacy. Chiles, Prue, Louise Ritchie, and Kate Pahl. 2019. “Co-Designing for a Better Future: Re-Imagining the Modernist Dream at Park Hill, Sheffield.” In Co-Producing Research, edited by Kate Pahl, Sarah Banks, Angie Hart, and Paul Ward, 1st ed., 115–34. A Community Development Approach. Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv80cccs.12. Gaertner, David. 2017. “Why We Need to Talk About Indigenous Literature and the Digital Humanities.” January 26, 2017. https://novelalliances.com/2017/01/26/indigenous-literature-and-the-digital-humanities/. Harte, Liam, and Barry Hazley. 2021. “Creative Writing Workshops and the Narrative Construction of Self: Using Oral History to Explore the Impact of Public Engagement in the Arts and Humanities.” The Oral History Review 48 (1): 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940798.2020.1869911. Harte and Hazley argue that cause-and-effect models of research impact such as the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) are insufficient for evaluating the impact of humanities research. They propose that more nuanced approaches that account for participants’ subjective experiences would represent these impacts more accurately, drawing on a case study about the effects of research-based creative writing workshops. The workshops were part of a project in which participants wrote in response to a research-based play (inspired by a history of Irish literature) centred on themes of Irish migration and diaspora. An initial survey failed to capture the impact of the workshop, so it was followed a few years later by a series of interviews. Participants’ oral histories were analyzed for evidence of how they interpreted and narrated the impact of the experience. The authors conclude by emphasizing that, since research can impact people in complex and indirect ways, analyzing oral histories offers a way to observe how the impact of humanities research emerges and is interpreted over time. Hoult, Elizabeth Chapman. 2018. ‘On Not Doing Co-Produced Research: The Methodological Possibilities and Limitations of Co-Producing Research with Participants in a Prison’. In Co-Producing Research, edited by Sarah Banks, Angie Hart, Kate Pahl, and Paul Ward, 135–52. Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781447340775.ch007. Hoult explains her experience conducting co-produced research among a community that resides in prison. The main challenge found is that government and ethics clearance for research in prisons limits the possibility of developing connections with the community so that they can influence the methodology and research questions. Hoult’s study involved several showings of science fiction films to the participants and a qualitative analysis of their discussions about the films, as well as interviews. After hearing the participants’ concerns with being reduced to their crimes, the author proposes that co-produced research in prisons could address this problem by encouraging the participants to create other readings of their lives by writing multiple versions of their futures that challenged the information that was found online about them. For similar future projects, Hoult recommends learning the practices of participants to co-design the study from the start, adjusting to the partner’s timescales, and even working with two separate groups, so the first group can provide their input on the methodology for the second group. Hubbard, Melanie, and Dermot Ryan. 2018. “Digital Humanities as Community Engagement: The Digital Watts Project.” In Digital Humanities, Libraries, and Partnerships: A Critical Examination of Labor, Networks, and Community, edited by Robin Kear and Kate Joranson, 139–47. Cambridge, MA: Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102023-4.00010-0 Hubbard and Ryan elaborate how the partnership between a librarian and a faculty member can foster community engagement by students working on a digital public humanities project. They report on the Digital Watts Project, which allowed English students to reflect on the characteristics of a public—as opposed to purely academic—history project. The authors rely on postcolonial and subaltern studies, including the work of Ranajit Guha, as a basis to argue how the narratives and the representation in collections can oppose or reinforce biases and prejudices. The authors close the chapter by highlighting the successful librarian/faculty partnership that got the students thinking about the production of materials as a form of activism against racism, and feeling that they were contributing to the community beyond the university. Leadbeater, Bonnie J., Elizabeth M. Banister, and E. Anne Marshall. 2011. “How-What-We-Know-Becomes-More-Widely-Known Is Context Dependent and Culturally Sensitive.” In Knowledge Translation in Context, edited by Elizabeth M. Banister, Bonnie J. Leadbeater, and E. Anne Marshall, 3–12. Indigenous, Policy, and Community Settings. University of Toronto Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/9781442689961.5. Leadbeater et al. present a book on context-based knowledge translation efforts that apply research to address health and social issues. The case studies in the book demonstrate that effective knowledge translation requires context-sensitive approaches and infrastructures. Therefore, the studies are organized into sections focusing on the contexts of communities, policymakers, and Indigenous groups. Knowledge mobilization in community contexts is collaborative and facilitates the use of research; knowledge translation in policymaking aims to provide research-based knowledge among other competing sources of knowledge for decision-making; and knowledge translation in Indigenous settings occurs through personal exchanges and community engagement to reconstruct traditional knowledge. These case studies show that knowledge translation is a multidirectional and dynamic process that fundamentally affects the way social and health issues are addressed. Meringolo, Denise D., Lee Boot, Denise Griffin Johnson, and Maureen O’Neill. n.d. “Creating Knowledge with the Public: Disrupting the Expert/Audience Hierarchy.” American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Accessed November 30, 2022. https://www.amacad.org/publication/creating-knowledge-public-disrupting-expertaudience-hierarchy. Ostashewski, Marcia. 2020. ‘Studying Singing Storytellers in Cape Breton: Community-Engaged Research-Creation as a Methodology’. In The Routledge Companion to Interdisciplinary Studies in Singing, Volume III: Wellbeing. Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315162546 Ostashewski discusses the Singing Storytellers project, created in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. This was a public outreach initiative of scholars, artists, and community stakeholders that studied the music and art of bardic traditions through practice-based research that involved singing. The main outcomes of the project were the co-creation of a CD of Ukrainian bardic songs, and a live performance of Malian griots (an oral tradition of epic art). By developing research and creative practice in collaboration with the people who traditionally are the subjects of study, the outcomes are deeply contextualized and attend to the diversity of music and cultures, which transgresses traditional ethnomusicological research. The author defines this research as practice-based, because it looks at music as a tool for change and theoretical praxis rather than an object of study. In addition to the research outcomes, the project led to an increased awareness of the diversity of local communities and their cultures by connecting Ukrainian and African people living in Nova Scotia. GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums) and Cultural Heritage Bath, Jon, and Michael Peterson. 2020. “Building with the Community: Developing Digital Tools for Engaging with the Arts in Saskatchewan.” Pop! Public. Open. Participatory, no. 2 (October). https://doi.org/10.54590/pop.2020.008. Bath and Peterson discuss a community-engaged arts research project called Shared Spaces, including their process of community consultation. The project is funded through the Canada Council for the Arts Digital Strategy Fund, which funds transformational projects that support Canadian arts communities in responding to the changing digital world. Shared Spaces began by consulting with arts communities in Saskatchewan to determine their needs, which informed the project’s design. Once funding was awarded, the project team travelled to various communities across the province to gather more information about the challenges they faced; they then held a rapid prototyping hackfest and developed a prototype virtual exhibit using a mobile AR app. They then took that prototype back to the arts communities for further feedback and consultation. The next stage of the project will involve developing a custom AR app and training participants to produce 3D scans of artworks for inclusion in virtual exhibits. The authors emphasize the importance of ongoing community consultation and engagement at all stages of the project. de Jong, Sara, and Saskia Wieringa. 2014. “The Library as Knowledge Broker.” In Teaching Gender with Libraries and Archives, edited by Sara de Jong. Central European University Press. Fabian, Carole Ann, Charles D’aniello, Cynthia Tysick, and Michael Morin. 2003. “Multiple Models for Library Outreach Initiatives.” The Reference Librarian 39 (82): 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J120v39n82_04. Greenfield, Briann. 2013. ‘Making the Humanities Public: The Example of Connecticut’s Humanities Council’. The Public Historian 35 (1): 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2013.35.1.5. Greenfield traces the history of Connecticut Humanities (CTH), one of the largest humanities state councils in the U.S. in terms of budget and number of staff. In the 1990s, the council lobbied the Connecticut legislature to support its work by arguing that the humanities could increase heritage tourism and generate revenue for the state. While this approach was successful in increasing funding, Greenfield criticizes it for commodifying the public humanities, prioritizing public history over other disciplines, and being unsustainable because of its reliance on inconsistent state funding. After state budget cuts and the 2008 economic crisis, CTH shifted its focus from heritage tourism and advocacy to engaging with community organizations and developing its own cultural programming as ways of reaching local citizens instead of tourists. Kern, Verletta. 2022. ‘Going Public: Library Support for Knowledge Translation and Mobilization for the Public Good’. Journal of Library Administration 62 (3): 312–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2022.2043689. Kern describes the results of the Going Public symposium organized at the University of Washington to promote and provide training in knowledge translation and mobilization among faculty and graduate students. The four annual Going Public events they organized from 2017 to 2021, all had over 100 participants who expressed interest in knowledge translation and community work to solve problems through public scholarship. Kern argues that libraries can support knowledge mobilization through events such as the Going Public symposium. In turn, libraries can continue with their tradition of bridging academics and the community for the co-production of knowledge. Makula, Amanda Y., and Laura S. Turner. 2022. “Toward Engaged Scholarship: Knowledge Inclusivity and Collaborative Collection Development between Academic Libraries and Archives and Local Public Communities.” College & Research Libraries 83 (2): 246–277. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.2.246. Amanda Makula and Laura Turner discuss the role of academic libraries and archives in movements toward more inclusive ways of knowing and community-engaged scholarship. They investigated patterns in more inclusive, community-focused collection development by surveying and interviewing academic librarians and archivists at universities across the United States. Of the 118 survey respondents included in their analysis, 76% indicated that their academic library collects, curates, or preserves materials originating from their local public community. Makula and Turner also found that in community-oriented projects, survey respondents were twice as likely to report working with unpublished archival material as opposed to circulating, or non-archival material. Libraries opening their archives to materials created and/or owned by local public communities is reflective of a broader movement within academia towards including traditionally marginalized perspectives in scholarly projects. Makula and Turner conclude that through integrating locally produced forms of knowledge into academic libraries, universities can create new learning environments for students and faculty and open the academy to those whose knowledge has been traditionally excluded from scholarly conversations. McGrath, Jim. 2020. “Teaching Digital Public Humanities with the Public Library.” In Doing Public Humanities, edited by Susan Smulyan, 39–54. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003058038-3 McGrath describes digital public humanities in specific contexts to document how digital spaces and tools should vary depending on audiences and objectives. He uses the collaboration between his graduate-level course on digital public humanities and the Providence Public Library as a case study to explore the benefits of approaching digitization and publication through the lens of public humanities. McGrath argues that digital public humanities should require institutions to reassess their approaches to staffing and training, their ideas about labour and expertise, and their methods of collaboration. Furthermore, he encourages public humanities practitioners who are new to digital initiatives to learn from the people, projects, and publications that have been debating the value of public and digital humanities efforts over the last few decades. Ridge, Mia. 2013b. “From Tagging to Theorizing: Deepening Engagement with Cultural Heritage through Crowdsourcing.” Curator: The Museum Journal 56 (4): 435–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12046 Ridge reviews the relationship between crowdsourcing and cultural heritage material. She argues that public interaction with a museum or library’s holdings fosters participants’ sustained interest and satisfaction. Ridge surveys crowdsourcing in GLAM institutions (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums), and considers the difference between crowdsourcing and other user-generated content, like survey feedback. She outlines effective techniques for developing crowdsourcing projects, including the integration of games and conscientious design that employs appropriate scaffolding. Ridge underscores the importance of acknowledging crowdsourcing as a public engagement activity, even if the “crowd” and the project initiators never meet face-to-face. Ruffins, Fath Davis. 2022. “Grassroots Museums & the Changing Landscape of the Public Humanities.” Daedalus. https://www.amacad.org/publication/grassroots-museums-changing-landscape-public-humanities. Salazar-Porzio, Margaret. 2015. “The Ecology of Arts and Humanities Education: Bridging the Worlds of Universities and Museums.” Arts & Humanities in Higher Education 14 (3): 274–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022215583949 Margaret Salazar-Porzio discusses the vital importance of museums to the United States of America. She reflects on her own experiences as curator at the National Museum of American History (NMAH)—and those of students and professionals in the field—to emphasize the importance of museums in fostering civic education. This paper may be of interest to policymakers considering museum partnerships or creating arts funding plans, and to those working to foster civic learning. She concludes by saying that, because of their ability to teach civic skills, museums are essential to a democratic society. Van House, Nancy. 2003. “‘Digital Libraries and Collaborative Knowledge Construction.’” In Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by A. P. Bishop, B. Buttenfield, and Nancy Van House, 271–96. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Van House reminds her readers that libraries are more than just storehouses; libraries comprehensively support and foster knowledge creation. Consequently, she claims, designing and building effective digital libraries depends on a thorough understanding of knowledge work. For Van House, the emergence of digital libraries represents a significant shift in how individuals and communities create knowledge. Digital libraries often foster transgressive, situated, distributed, and social networks of research and knowledge production. Notably, she reinforces the concept that artifacts are not knowledge in and of themselves; knowledge is a complex social phenomenon rooted in contact, daily practice, and partial mediation by artifacts. As such, digital libraries function differently than as mere conduits—digital libraries are boundary objects, and they affect knowledge work significantly by introducing variation in terms of manipulability, credibility, inscription, access, and organization. Wilson, Emma Annette, and Mary Alexander. 2016. “When Metadata Becomes Outreach: Indexing, Describing, and Encoding for DH.” Dh+lib, July. https://acrl.ala.org/dh/2016/07/29/when-metadata-becomes-outreach/. Although it is widely recognized that metadata librarians have skills that are necessary and in demand for DH projects, Wilson and Alexander argue that this presents an opportunity for metadata to function as a catalyst for new forms of library outreach. To illustrate some of the possibilities, the authors outline three example projects based in the Alabama Digital Humanities Center (ADHC), run by Wilson. These include the indexing of a clothing industry trade publication that includes fabric swatches, the digitization and markup of marginalia in John Stuart Mill’s personal library, and the development of a digital edition of a c. c17–c18 Colombian manuscript with student collaborators. Wilson and Alexander conclude by emphasizing the importance of good metadata to DH projects and the value of collaborations between DH researchers and metadata librarians. Zalta, Edward. 2006. “The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A University/Library Partnership in Support of Scholarly Communication and Open Access.” College & Research Libraries News 67 (8): 502–4. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.67.8.7670. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) has been an open access encyclopedia since its inception in 1995, years before open access became a byword in the academic world. In this article, Zalta positions SEP as a model for reform of the scholarly communication ecosystem due to the strength of its university/library partnership, which he sees as a method of supporting principles of reform such as widely available open access research, scholar controlled publishing, reduction of cost, peer review, quality assurance, fair use, and preservation. Zalta argues that SEP provides a model for fair use scholar-led knowledge mobilisation, highlighting its long term global success and broad readership, a readership which includes not only other professionals in the field but also high school students, undergraduates, and the general public. Industry Partnerships Barnett, Tully. 2020. “Public-Private Partnerships and the Digitization of the Textual and Cultural Record.” Pop! Public. Open. Participatory, no. 2 (October). https://popjournal.ca/issue02/barnett. Writing in the first year of the Covid-19 Pandemic, Tully Barnett provides a critical analysis of the digitization landscape manifesting in public-private partnerships. The article examines a number of such partnerships, highlighting benefits in terms of the funding that is made available to public organizations through partnering and a variety of attendant concerns: putting public documents into private hands, private-sector partners shutting down the products of partnerships, low pay and labour conditions for those working to digitize the world’s cultural material, and public cultural and textual material being used to train AI for private purposes. What emerges is the tension between public and private interests, which has implications for open social scholarship and scholarship in digital spaces more broadly. Cassity, Elizabeth, and Ien Ang. 2006. ‘Humanities–Industry Partnerships and the “Knowledge Society”: The Australian Experience’. Minerva 44 (1): 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-005-5412-9. Cassity and Ang examine the experiences of Australian scholars participating in the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects between 1998 and 2003, which promoted collaborations between industry and academic researchers, including the humanities and creative arts. The authors found that most academic and industry partners knew each other before working together, and the most common outputs were scholarly publications, followed by less conventional scholarship, such as digital products, exhibitions, and films. However, researchers had fewer collaboration skills and practical pressures than their partners (such as deadlines, budgets, short-term objectives), while the industry partners had to be persuaded of the benefits of research. In this context, the most successful projects involved negotiating the curiosity of researchers and the need for industry outcomes. Cote, Amanda, Kishonna Gray, Christopher Paul, Kelly Bergstrom, Alison Harvey, Christine Tran, and Akil Fletcher. 2022. ‘Studying and Speaking to Industries: A Game Studies Roundtable’. Console-Ing Passions 2022, June. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cp2022/program/indigo/7. Cote et al. share the experiences and challenges they have faced when researching and engaging with the videogame industry. To discuss these questions, the scholars draw on their different backgrounds in critical feminist scholarship, black gaming, and decolonial theory, among others. They coincide that when speaking to people in the videogame industry, it is important to write in a clear, short, and accessible way because game developers are trained at production rather than critique. Regarding the teaching of game studies, they mention that the field should broaden the type of work it values and encourage non-traditional research outputs, such as Twitch streams or alternative dissertations. This would foster skills that can be applied not only in the academic industry but in other industries as well. Siemens, Lynne, and the INKE Research Group. 2019. ‘Building and Supporting Humanities-Based University–Industry Partnerships: View from the Academics’. Pop! Public. Open. Participatory, no. 1 (October). https://popjournal.ca/issue01/Siemens. Siemens explores humanities researchers’ perspectives on the potential, challenges, and outcomes of the Implementing New Knowledge Environments: Networked Open Scholarship partnership between universities, libraries, and academic-adjacent organizations, a project aiming to understand and resolve issues related to digital scholarship in Canada. The participating scholars found challenges in collaborating with others, having differing priorities from industry, and the diversity of the partners making it more complex to move in the same direction. The measures of success were publications, grant funding, tenure and promotion, and improving the implementation of open access. Due to the multiple partners involved in the project, coordination and negotiation is required, but it gives the scholars a larger audience and a practical application to their research, including the possibility to influence policy on open access. Siemens, Lynne and The INKE Research Group. 2019. “Joining Voices: University–Industry Partnerships in the Humanities.” KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies 3 (1): 15–15. https://doi.org/10.5334/kula.42. Siemens points out that, although university–industry partnerships are common in the sciences, and their format and processes are understood, this is less true in the humanities. She examines the example of the Implementing New Knowledge Environments: Networked Open Social Scholarship (INKE:NOSS) partnership. Communication is essential for this type and other types of collaboration, including to manage varying expectations, as well as commitment to the project and its goals on both sides. INKE:NOSS is working toward securing a Partnership Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, a program that requires collaboration with industry partners. For this study, Siemens interviewed existing partners. She found that industry partners saw the collaboration as an opportunity to pursue shared interests and work toward common goals. Some challenges included learning about each other’s perspectives and ways of working and the financial and time cost of travel. Since the work was still in progress at the time of writing, Siemens notes that outcomes and benefits have yet to be realized, but this is where disciplinary differences are evident in that they are challenging to quantify and measure. The experience has been positive to this point, however, suggesting that successful university–industry collaboration in the humanities can be achieved. New Media Engagements Balyasnikova, Natalia, and Kedrick James. 2020. “PhoneMe Poetry: Mapping Community in the Digital Age.” Engaged Scholars Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning 6 (2): 107–16. Balyasnikova and James introduce the PhoneMe initiative, a community-based research creation project designed by University of British Columbia researchers and centred in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (known as the DTES). The PhoneMe project facilitated the creation and sharing of place-based poetry using a blend of in-person and digital methods. The authors suggest that this project was a worthwhile undertaking as it supported and gave back to the community participants, in contrast to what is known as the parachute approach when researchers drop into a community to extract research findings and then leave. They also, however, acknowledge the PhoneMe project’s limitation in scope and diversity and outline how they are addressing these issues in subsequent phases. Booth, Paul J. 2015. “Fandom: The Classroom of the Future.” Transformative Works and Cultures 19 (June). https://doi.org/10.3983/twc.2015.0650. Booth explores the role fandom can play in the classroom, as it is one of the few places where people can think and write critically after their formal schooling. He argues that the educational system could benefit from more fandom enthusiasm on the part of scholars and students by engaging with fan works and fans themselves in classes, presenting at fan conventions, and writing for fan blogs. These activities are framed in the context of critical fandom, in which fans engage in civil discourse through thoughtful listening and conversation, which are needed for community engagement. Booth concludes that incorporating critical fandom into scholarship can foster collaboration, conversation, and creative thinking in both fan and scholar communities. Bryant, Brantley L. 2010. Geoffrey Chaucer Hath a Blog: Medieval Studies and New Media. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230109025. This edited volume includes a collection of blog posts written in the style of Geoffrey Chaucer that were previously posted online in the 2000s, as well as some reflective essays on the role of blogging in medieval studies. In the essays, the authors agree that blogging can be an informal medium for building community among scholars and the public, reducing the hierarchies of the academic world, and blending medieval scholarship to contemporary pop culture. Another common point is that medievalists are eager users of new digital technologies because scholars tend to humorize their field of study, and their experience with arcane languages such as Latin or Old English facilitates learning the languages used in new media. Given that the Geoffrey Chaucer Hath a Blog website received thousands of hits, Bryant notes that this suggests an interest in medieval scholarship among a diverse audience, a trend that is also reflected in the creation of medieval video games, both of which are a mix of medieval texts and new media. Cortés-Rico, Laura. 2021. ‘Hand in Hand: A Situated Reflection about Knowledge Mobilization between Textile and Digital’. Interactions 28 (2): 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449784. Cortés-Rico describes the Knowledge Dialogues project, an initiative in which Colombian engineering students engaged with local crafters to incorporate design and artisanal perspectives into human–computer interaction practices. These dialogues between students and crafters challenged gender and knowledge boundaries, as engineering is generally associated with the masculine and handmade textiles with the feminine, and scientific knowledge is considered by some as superior to traditional knowledge. The project also changed the traditional engineering approach because the students designed digital–textile interactions with, rather than for, women from their communities. These exchanges made students reflect on their practices by not trying to solve problems, but engaging in a reflective, critical practice that focused on the process instead of the product. Evans, Rebecca. 2017. “Fantastic Futures? Cli-Fi, Climate Justice, and Queer Futurity.” Resilience: A Journal of the Environmental Humanities 4 (2–3): 94–110. https://doi.org/10.5250/resilience.4.2-3.0094. Fong, Deanna, and Mattieu Aubin. 2021. “What Makes Oral Literary History Different?” SpokenWeBlog (blog). September 7, 2021. https://spokenweb.ca/what-makes-oral-literary-history-different/. Harte, Liam. 2017. “Transforming Research into Art: The Making and Staging of My English Tongue, My Irish Heart, a Research-Based Drama about the Irish in Britain.” Irish Studies Review 25 (1): 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670882.2016.1266733. Hoovestol, Katherine. 2022. “Exporting Shame: Competing Ownership Models in Pirated Transnational Media Flows.” IDEAH, December. https://doi.org/10.21428/f1f23564.f3d46956. Katherine Hoovestol centres her article on the Norwegian TV show Skam, a piece of media with a large fan base outside Norway, to explore transnational media piracy. Hoovestol argues that producers not only accepted the existence of Skam’s fan base but intentionally promoted fan piracy as a means of translation and promotion . While this made it very effective in reaching its target audience, Norwegian teenagers, the transnational fan base also garnered the interest needed to create a number of spin offs. The paper concludes with the suggestion the producers use of piracy as a method of promotion leads us to questions about affective ownership and the contributions of the fan community in promoting  and translating a media production that then provided profit to its producers without acknowledging the work of the fans themselves. Hurley, Andrew. 2016. “Chasing the Frontiers of Digital Technology: Public History Meets the Digital Divide.” The Public Historian 38 (1): 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2016.38.1.69. Hurley questions whether digital technologies have improved public history’s capacity to promote civic engagement in the context of the digital divide. He analyzes the outcomes of a community-engaged project in inner-city St. Louis, where scholars created 3D visualizations of the city from 1850 to 1950. Community engagement with this project was low because it failed to consider the digital divide in online behaviour. In response, the project team blended digital technologies with more traditional public history methods, such as having guided encounters of the visualizations. Hurley concludes that historians should be more cautious about implementing cutting-edge computer applications in public projects for marginalized communities, as they may alienate their intended audiences. Martin, Kim, Beth Compton, and Ryan Hunt. 2017. “Disrupting Dichotomies: Mobilizing Digital Humanities with the MakerBus.” In Making Things and Drawing Boundaries: Experiments in the Digital Humanities, edited by Jentery Sayers, 251–56. University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt1pwt6wq.32. Martin, Compton, and Hunt discuss the MakerBus that they manage as an example of a project that challenges perceived dichotomies between academics and the public, amateurs and experts. As an independent (not institutionally affiliated) mobile makerspace, the MakerBus brings maker technologies into the broader community, and it is distinct from other similar projects in its inclusion of the humanities, arts, and social sciences in its activities. The authors draw on their academic backgrounds and on their experiences as learners of makerspace techniques and technologies to help build connections with the communities they engage with. Petrarca, Diana, and Janette Hughes. 2014. “Mobilizing Knowledge via Documentary Filmmaking — Is the Academy Ready?” McGill Journal of Education / Revue Des Sciences de l’éducation de McGill 49 (3): 561–82. https://doi.org/10.7202/1033547ar. Research Impact. 2022. DOCTalks Connects Across Canada 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyquXeGbLVk. In this panel, four researchers share their experiences creating documentaries for knowledge mobilization as a way of engaging large audiences and creating an emotional connection between the researcher and the people who benefit from the scholarship. The panelists created documentaries on homelessness among older adults, an archaeology project in east Montreal, the creation of Hawaiian Indigenous video games, and the industry of family history and heritage. The speakers agreed that documentary film can be a powerful medium for knowledge mobilization, community building, and advocacy. However, they also warned of the high costs associated with producing a documentary, as it requires hiring professional editors and filmmakers, costs that are challenging to include in traditional grant applications. Rice, Carla, Susan D. Dion, Hannah Fowlie, and Ingrid Mündel. 2022. “Re/Turning the Gaze: Unsettling Settler Logics through Multimedia Storytelling.” Feminist Media Studies 22 (3): 638–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2019.1707256. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. 2023. “The Storytellers.” Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. January 31, 2023. https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/society-societe/storytellers-jai_une_histoire_a_raconter/index-eng.aspx. Van Biljon, Judy. 2020. “Knowledge Mobilization of Human–Computer Interaction for Development Research: Core Issues and Domain Questions.” Information Technology for Development 26 (3): 551–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2020.1767022. Vannini, Phillip. 2013. “Popularizing Ethnography: Reflections on Writing for Popular Audiences in Magazines and Blogs.” Qualitative Research 13 (4): 442–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113481795. Vannini describes the process of writing about ethnography in blogs and magazines and offers practical advice for writing pieces for these media. He notes that writing for magazines provides opportunities to communicate a message to a specific audience, to focus more on the informants, and to use multimodal ethnographic data. This type of writing also allows ethnographers to participate in public education, increase the potential of ethnography to produce social change, and give more visibility to fieldwork. Despite these benefits, Vannini warns that writing for popular audiences can lead to misunderstandings and unwarranted criticism from the general public, increase the potential for harm to informants, and cause writers to sensationalize a story to make it more interesting. Virani, Shafique N. 2011. ‘Dissemination and the Digital: The Creation of an Academic Book Trailer’. Review of Middle East Studies 45 (2): 192–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2151348100002421. Virani proposes the application of digital humanities techniques, especially multimedia, to create academic book trailers that promote scholarly works among the general public. Drawing on his experience creating a trailer for his own monograph in Islamic studies, he argues that creating a book trailer can be less time-consuming than other tasks such as proofreading and the thousands of views his trailer received show that the general public is interested in academic research, especially in formats other than text. Drawing on digital humanities literature that promotes the inclusion of multimedia technologies in research, Virani explains that digital technologies provide new methods for knowledge mobilization, but researchers have been reluctant to use them. This may lead to a gap in the dissemination of knowledge that is usually filled with inaccurate sources of information. Pedagogy Baker, Geoff, and Andrew Fisher. 2013. Arts and Humanities Academics in Schools: Mapping the Pedagogical Interface. London, UNITED KINGDOM: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uvic/detail.action?docID=674914. Balleisen, Edward, and Rita Chin. 2022. “The Case for Bringing Experiential Learning into the Humanities.” Daedalus. https://www.amacad.org/publication/case-bringing-experiential-learning-humanities. Edward Balleisen and Rita Chin respond to concerns about job prospects for humanists and the inward turn of humanists in the United States, pointing out that humanities scholars do more than teach, research, and think: they also exercise soft skills such as communication, leadership, and collaboration. The article draws on initiatives at the University of Michigan and Duke University to explore experiential learning as a method of teaching these skills to satisfy a growing demand to provide preparation for the academic and non-academic job market. Balleison and Chin conclude by calling for increased efforts in curriculum and program evaluation and data collection to support the effectiveness of experiential learning. Clark, Penney, and Ruth Sandwell. 2020. ‘The History Education Network: An Experiment in Knowledge Mobilization’. In The Palgrave Handbook of History and Social Studies Education, edited by Christopher W. Berg and Theodore M. Christou, 253–93. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37210-1_11. Clark and Sandwell describe the development and main outcomes of the History Education Network, a Canadian national organization that supported and disseminated research in history education. The goal of the organization was to foster discussions and promote research-informed practice and practice-informed research to history education. For this endeavour, the network obtained funding to build community and mobilize knowledge through conferences, a website, events, and small grant-funded projects. The network, which reached 40 partner organizations, was able to succeed in the long-term because of their strong group of scholars and graduate students committed to the goals of the network, strong communication across disciplines and the country, and strong leadership, factors that other large knowledge mobilization initiatives can replicate if they want to maintain connections among their partners. Effinger, Elizabeth. 2022. “Embracing the ‘Workshop of Filthy Creation’: Frankenstein, Failure, and the Public Humanities.” Pedagogy 22 (2): 229–52. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-9576415. Effinger describes and reflects upon a public humanities project called Erasing Frankenstein, which brought together women incarcerated in an Ontario prison and undergraduate and graduate students from the University of New Brunswick to create a collaborative exhibit of erasure poetry based on Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein. The project’s knowledge mobilization strategies included co-written presentations at creative writing and academic conferences, a folio of erasure poetry published in a literary journal, three public exhibitions, Effinger’s article and a project website and social media activity. Effinger focuses on the project’s failures in order to model how discussion of failure in the public humanities can be generative. These included challenges to the collaborative authorship model due to institutional structures, lack of adequate time to build community across the incarcerated and non-incarcerated members of the collective, and friction among members. Throughout, Effinger draws connections between the novel’s themes of monstrosity and incarceration and the project, and she concludes by relating the material messiness of the finished poems with the “monstrosity” of the project itself. Estill, Laura. 2017. “Collaborative Knowledge Creation and Student-Led Assignment Design: Wikipedia in the University Literature Class.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 11 (3). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/11/3/000320/000320.html Estill details a case study in which undergraduate students in a third-year Renaissance Drama class use Wikipedia in a literature class. She argues that using Wikipedia can enable students to carry out research using primary and secondary sources, as well as to consider the role of editions and to practice their writing and communication skills—all while working on hypertexts and ontologies. Students also consider the stakes of writing for a real audience that is looking for information, instead of just for the professor who already knows the material. According to Estill, by completing an assignment in this class, students developed a sense of intellectual ownership and learned about collaborative authorship. She also asserts that learning about and analyzing Wikipedia in the classroom can promote digital civic engagement by making digital spaces more inclusive and representative. Jay, Gregory. 2010. “The Engaged Humanities: Principles and Practices of Public Scholarship and Teaching.” Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship 3 (1): 51–63. https://doi.org/10.54656/ROWM8434 Jay considers the concept of engaged or community scholarship in relation to the humanities. He argues that if the humanities took up such practices, as well as integrated new media tools and techniques more fully, the discipline might gain relevance and public value in an era of funding cuts. The author explains why engaged scholarship has not been as prominent in the humanities as it has in other disciplines: namely, for Jay, the humanities are based on extrapolative, written critique, and this does not translate well to project-based community engagement in the same way that initiatives in the social or medical sciences might. Regardless, Jay sees the rise of social media, digital humanities, and multimodal communication as a promising opportunity for the humanities to increase community engagement around the texts and topics traditionally at the heart of humanistic inquiry. Throughout, Jay is careful to underline the necessity of accountability when it comes to academic / community partnerships, and the importance of avoiding a missionary style of public engagement that the university has often taken on in the past. Jenstad, Janelle, Kim McLean-Fiander, and Kathryn R. McPherseon. 2017. ‘The MoEML Pedagogical Partnership Program’. Digital Humanities Quarterly 11 (3). https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/handle/1828/9730. Jenstad et al. present the pedagogical model for building partnerships between the Map of Early Modern London (MoEML) and digital humanities courses around the world by having students draft content for the project. This model helps ensure the sustainability of digital humanities projects, and provides an opportunity for faculty to meet knowledge mobilization requirements by engaging students in research projects. The model is based on research-based learning, a pedagogical approach where students and instructors address together an unanswered research question. Partnering with an existing project such as the MoEML promotes research-based learning outside of R1 institutions, allows students to contribute to scholarship and share it beyond the scholarly community. The authors conclude that partnership programs such as the MoEML are successful if other projects replicate it to engage students in improving digital resources. Lee, Mia. 2022. “Student-Led Research and Outreach in the Humanities: A Case of Experiential Learning.” International Journal of Studies in Education and Science 3 (1): 75–84. https://www.ijses.net/index.php/ijses/article/view/20. Lee describes the creation of a teaching platform based on non-professional history writing that linked student-led university research with secondary school students. In this initiative (developed in partnership with the Singapore Ministry of Education), university students first produced analytical papers on the bicentenary of the 1819 British landing in Singapore and how this related to past issues of migration, resources, and defense and revenue. The students then engaged in experiential learning by synthesizing and digesting their themes and arguments to 13-year-old students in the form of a 40-minute workshop. As another part of the project, the university students mentored groups of 16- and 17-year-old high school students in locating archives, using catalogs, and reading sources. These activities promoted a collaborative, bottom-up approach to history that engaged diverse audiences, inspired an engagement with the past, and broadened the voices typically found in the public school curriculum. Macknish, Cynthia, Tiffany Johnson, and Michael McLelland. 2018. Reflecting on Academic Service-Learning Research in a University Intensive English Program. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004392472_010. Padrós, Carlos. 2013. Teaching Law to Laymen: The Case of the Subject “Law & Culture” in Humanities Studies. Universitat de Girona. Institut de Ciències de l’Educació Josep Pallach. https://dugi-doc.udg.edu/handle/10256/8309. Rogers, Katina. 2020. Putting the Humanities PhD to Work: Theory, Practice, and Models for Thriving Beyond the Classroom. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://www.dukeupress.edu/putting-the-humanities-phd-to-work With graduate education reform as her mission, Rogers argues that current graduate training is not fit for purpose: it primarily trains PhDs to become tenure track faculty members when there are very few tenure track faculty jobs available, and most PhDs end up working in other roles or industries altogether. In doing so, Rogers suggests, academia replicates inequalities since a very small (generally moneyed) sliver of the population is willing to take the risk of such an investment without guaranteed employment upon graduation. She recommends that diversifying academic production modes and outputs would encourage a more diverse graduate student population, and she embraces public engagement activities to this end. Sichani, Anna-Maria, James Baker, Maria José Afanador Llach, and Brandon Walsh. 2019. “Diversity and Inclusion in Digital Scholarship and Pedagogy: The Case of The Programming Historian.” Insights 32 (1): 16. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.465. Sichiani et al. discuss efforts to internationalize The Programming Historian, which began in 2008 as a hub for open, peer-reviewed tutorials on a variety of digital tools and in 2012 relaunched as an open access, peer reviewed methodology journal of digital history. They discuss efforts to improve its editorial and linguistic diversity and the procedural, technical, and infrastructural challenges involved, including the challenge of working across and embracing cultural differences. The project also emphasizes openness, transparency, and collaboration, such as through open peer review. The authors conclude by noting that, while openness is a key element of The Programming Historian, it does not by itself ensure diversity and inclusion; instead, concerted and ongoing efforts in this direction are needed. Taylor, Laurie N., Poushali Bhadury, Elizabeth Dale, Randi K. Gill-Sadler, Leah Rosenberg, Brian W. Keith, and Prea Persaud. 2018. “Digital Humanities as Public Humanities: Transformative Collaboration in Graduate Education.” In Digital Humanities, Libraries, and Partnerships: A Critical Examination of Labor, Networks, and Community, edited by Robin Kear and Kate Joranson, 31–44. Cambridge, MA: Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102023-4.00003-3 Taylor et al. present the University of Florida’s perspective on digital humanities programs and practices, which conceptualises them as public humanities. The authors frame the Digital Humanities Graduate Certificate and the Graduate Internship Program as models for both transformative collaboration and engagement of students. They mention case studies of interns who have worked on publishing, sustaining, and translating digital humanities work to emphasize the creative and collaborative aspect of the initiative, as well as the important support it gives to all involved, including students, librarians, and faculty members. They add that as experienced professionals, librarians who work in collaborative practices and with communities are essential partners in their “digital humanities as public humanities” concept. Podcasting Cuffe, Honae H. 2019. “Lend Me Your Ears: The Rise of the History Podcast in Australia.” History Australia 16 (3): 553–69. Cuffe examines the role of the history podcast in the Australian context. She glosses a selection of Australian history podcasts—some overtly academic, some not—and concludes that this is an important mechanism for translating historical work (and even historiography) to broader publics. Cuffe acknowledges the challenges of history podcasts in the academic context, namely that there is pushback from those who do not consider knowledge translation worthwhile or intellectually robust, and recognizes that it is difficult to have such work counted in the current metrics-obsessed academic world. Regardless, she still suggests that there is significant value to podcasting, since it both centres a scholarly expert’s voice and invites listeners into the academic process. Johnston, Sonja. 2023. “Bringing Your Humanities Research to Life with Podcasting.” University of Toronto Faculty of Arts & Science. March 9, 2023. https://www.humanities.utoronto.ca/news/bringing-your-humanities-research-life-podcasting. Kimbro, Devori, Michael Noschka, and Geoffrey Way. 2019. “Lend Us Your Earbuds: Shakespeare/Podcasting/Poesis.” Humanities 8 (67): 1–12. Kimbro, Noschka, and Way ruminate on the relation between podcasts and Shakespeare studies. Not only do the authors suggest that Shakespeare scholars should create podcasts in order to engage with broader publics, but they also consider how the podcast is akin to other emergent, popularizing communication technologies from Shakespeare’s time (like printing) as well as where Shakespeare shows up in current, well-trafficked podcasts. For Kimbro, Noschka, and Way, the connection between Shakespeare and podcasts makes sense from historical, literary, academic, and public engagement perspectives. McGregor, Hannah. 2019. “Yer A Reader, Harry: HP Reread Podcasts as Digital Reading Communities.” Journal of Audience and Reception Studies 16 (1): 366–89. https://summit.sfu.ca/item/19608 Hannah McGregor explores reread podcasts—a genre of podcast in which the podcasters invite their listeners to reread a favourite book or series with them—as a method of examining space created by new digital fandom environments. McGregor conducted a study of reread podcast listeners, collecting data on their values and experiences. Based on this study, she argues that these podcasts teach audiences to learn to read in a self-reflective manner within their fandom community, potentially teaching the middle-brow virtues of empathy and care and creating a space for analytical exploration of texts outside of the traditional academic landscape. McGregor concludes by calling for further research into these podcasts and fan communities. McGregor, Hannah. 2022. “My Harry Potter Podcast Made Me a Better Scholar.” The Walrus, October 11, 2022. https://thewalrus.ca/my-harry-potter-podcast-made-me-a-better-scholar/. In this excerpt from A Sentimental Education, Hannah McGregor describes how podcasting taught her the value of bringing her own feelings into her work. Podcasting, she explains, allowed her to explore intimacy and vulnerability in her work in a way traditional scholarship does not support. She looks to scholars Lisa Ruddick and Eve Sedgwick, to examine how academics are taught to suppress their feelings when participating in literary criticism. McGregor describes how the Witch, Please podcast provided her a space to practise critical feminist methods of literary critique that did not require her to suppress the sadness, joy, and enthusiasm she felt when reading Harry Potter. She describes her own personal growth in response to the community surrounding her podcast and concludes with the suggestion that feminist methods of critique make room for difference in which it is not necessary to understand someone in order to make space for them. Salvati, Andrew. 2015. “Podcasting the Past: Hardcore History, Fandom, and DIY Histories”, Journal of Radio & Audio Media, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 231-239, https://doi.org/10.1080/19376529.2015.1083375. Although non-academics do not always engage with academic history, many do engage with history on their own terms as what Roy Rosenzweig has called “popular historymakers.” One such popular historymaker is Dan Carlin, creator of the Hardcore History podcast. Andrew Salvati compares Carlin’s podcast to long-form documentary and suggests that it is part of a renaissance in long-form nonfiction audio programming. Salvati suggests that the podcast’s popularity is due to Carlin’s willingness to ask more human ‘what if’ questions that draw in what Carlin himself describes as “fans” of history. Furthermore, these fans are supported in their activity by digital technologies, in this case the podcast and its online forums, which have opened new spaces for them to pursue history on their own terms. Thiessen, Janis. 2021. “Canadian History Podcasts.” Acadiensis: Journal of the History of the Atlantic Region / Revue d’histoire de La Region Atlantique 50 (2): 236–47. https://doi.org/10.1353/aca.2021.0026. Janis Thiessen's review essay considers 14 history podcasts on Canadian history topics. These podcasts are created by media production companies, organisations and associations, and independent producers. Thiessen draws on analyses by Ira Glass and John Barber to discuss the importance of aural elements and narrative in keeping audience attention. Thiessen emphasizes that most of the 14 podcasts in the article do not use sufficient narrative techniques or use aural elements available to the podcasting medium. Nonetheless Thiessen believes Canadian history podcasts can play a role both as course readings, and as an avenue to reach non-academic audiences, and suggests that podcasts can also be used as assignments in the classroom. Social Knowledge Creation Allison-Cassin, Stacy, and Dan Scott. 2018. “Wikidata: A Platform for Your Library’s Linked Open Data.” The Code4Lib Journal 40 (May). https://journal.code4lib.org/articles/13424 Allison-Cassin and Scott discuss the possibilities that Wikidata offers in terms of linked open data (LOD) for GLAM institutions (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums), noting that, although the value of linked open data for libraries has long been recognized, technical and infrastructural barriers have stood in the way of widespread engagement. Wikidata, a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, removes many of these barriers as an open platform for creating and using linked open data. The authors provide an overview of how Wikidata works, drawing on their experiences using it, and discuss its applications for community outreach and library systems. They conclude by pointing out that, because Wikidata’s linked open data is created by the community, using it can help address some of the systemic biases built into existing description and metadata structures. Berson, Amber, Monika-Sengul Jones, and Melissa Tamani. 2021. Unreliable Guidelines: Reliable Sources and Marginalized Communities in French, English and Spanish Wikipedias. Art + Feminism. Berson, Jones, and Tamani present a report on reliability guidelines for content creation in three Wikipedias: English, French, and Spanish. The authors argue that current reliability guidelines are Western-centric and exclusionary. Moreover, the authors suggest that these guidelines are used to police the boundaries around what is and is not acceptable to include on Wikipedia, to the detriment of marginalized Wikipedia editors. They provide a set of recommendations for reconstruing reliability guidelines in a way that does not replicate colonial and/or exclusionary knowledge creation and authority structures. Bordini, Alessandra, and John Maxwell. 2019. “Breaking SFU Aldines out of the Vaults: Aldus Manutius and Open Social Scholarship in the Sixteenth Century.” Pop! Public. Open. Participatory, no. 1 (October). https://popjournal.ca/issue01/Bordini Bordini and Maxwell describe Aldus@SFU, a collaborative digitization and open scholarship project commemorating the 500th anniversary of the death of Aldus Manutius (c. 1451–1515), a printer whose innovative efforts to publish and distribute Greek texts continue to inform printing and scholarly practices today. Emphasizing the open and social nature of Manutius’ Aldine Press, the authors draw connections between the challenges he faced and those faced by their own and other digital humanities projects. These include challenges related to collaboration, technology standards, metadata, and preservation. The authors conclude by calling for a re-definition of what makes special collections special: a shift from equating specialness with inaccessibility and exclusivity to equating it with openness and online accessibility. Brown, Susan. 2014. “Scaling Up Collaboration Online: Toward a Collaboratory for Research on Canadian Writing.” International Journal of Canadian Studies 48 (January): 233–51. https://doi.org/10.3138/ijcs.48.233. There is a gap in Canada’s infrastructure when it comes to the digital, especially for scholars in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Susan Brownhighlights the lack of national leadership, guidance, and collaboration for the creation of national digital infrastructure. It is difficult, Brown explains, even to find records related to discontinued Canadian government projects except through third party American websites like Google and the Wayback Machine. In the absence of a national plan, Brown puts forward the Canadian Writing Research Collaboratory as a model for the kind of collaborative digital partnership-based infrastructure initiatives that she would like to see. She does not, she says, intend for the Collaboratory to be the only solution to the problem but believes that a number of such initiatives could address the concerningly broad lack of infrastructure facilitating Canadian Humanities and Social Science scholarship. Carletti, Laura, Derek McAuley, Dominic Price, Gabriella Giannachi, and Steve Benford. 2013a. “Digital Humanities and Crowdsourcing: An Exploration.” In Museums and the Web 2013, edited by N. Proctor and R. Cherry. Portland: Museums and the Web. http://hdl.handle.net/10871/17763 Carletti, McAuley, Price, Giannachi, and Benford survey and identify emerging practices in current crowdsourcing projects in the digital humanities. Carletti et al. base their understanding of crowdsourcing on an earlier definition of crowdsourcing as an online, voluntary activity that connects individuals to an initiative via an open call (Estelles-Arolas and Gonzalez-Ladron-de-Guevara 2012). This definition was used to select the case studies for the current research. The researchers found two major trends in the 36 initiatives included in the study: crowdsourcing projects either use the crowd to (a) integrate/enrich/configure existing resources or (b) create/contribute new resources. Generally, crowdsourcing projects asked volunteers to contribute in terms of curating, revising, locating, sharing, documenting, or enriching materials. The 36 initiatives surveyed were divided into three categories in terms of project aims: public engagement, enriching resources, and building resources. Causer, Tim, and Melissa Terras. 2014. “Crowdsourcing Bentham: Beyond the Traditional Boundaries of Academic History.” International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 8 (1): 46–64. https://doi.org/10.3366/ijhac.2014.0119 Causer and Terras reflect on some of the key discoveries that were made in the Transcribe Bentham crowdsourced initiative. Transcribe Bentham was launched with the intention of demonstrating that crowdsourcing can be used successfully for both scholarly work and public engagement by allowing all types of participants to access and explore cultural material. Causer and Terras note that the majority of the work on Transcribe Bentham was undertaken by a small percentage of users, or “super transcribers.” Only 15% of the users have completed any transcription and approximately 66% of those users have transcribed only a single document—leaving a very select number of individuals responsible for the core of the project’s production. The authors illustrate how some of the user transcription has contributed to our understanding of some of Jeremy Bentham’s central values: animal rights, politics, and prison conditions. Overall, Causer and Terras demonstrate how scholarly transcription undertaken by a wide, online audience can uncover essential material. Causer, Tim, Justin Tonra, and Valerie Wallace. 2012. “Transcription Maximized; Expense Minimized? Crowdsourcing and Editing ‘The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham.’” Literary and Linguistic Computing 27 (2): 119–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqs004 Causer, Tonra, and Wallace discuss the advantages and disadvantages of user-generated manuscript transcription using the Transcribe Bentham project as a case study. The intention of the project is to engage the public with the thoughts and works of Jeremy Bentham through creating a digital, searchable repository of his manuscript writings. Causer, Tonra, and Wallace preface this article by setting out five key factors the team hoped to assess in terms of the potential benefits of crowdsourcing: cost effectiveness, exploitation, quality control, sustainability, and success. Evidence from the project showcases the great potential for open access TEI-XML transcriptions in creating a long-term, sustainable archive. Additionally, users reported that they were motivated by a sense of contributing to a greater good and/or recognition. In the experience of Transcribe Bentham, crowdsourcing transcription may not have been the cheapest, quickest, or easiest route; the authors argue, however, that projects with a longer time-scale may find this method both self-sufficient and cost-effective. Causer, Tim, and Valerie Wallace. 2012. “Building a Volunteer Community: Results and Findings from ‘Transcribe Bentham.’” Digital Humanities Quarterly 6 (2). http://digitalhumanities.org:8081/dhq/vol/6/2/000125/000125.html Causer and Wallace reflect on the experience of generating users and materials for the crowdsourced Transcribe Bentham project. The purpose of the Transcribe Bentham project is to create an open source repository of Jeremy Bentham’s papers that relies on volunteers transcribing the manuscripts. Causer and Wallace argue that crowdsourcing is a viable and effective strategy only if it is well facilitated and gathers a group of willing volunteers. They found that retaining users was just as integral to the success of the project as was recruiting. It was important, therefore, that they build a sense of community through outreach, social media, and reward systems. The number of active users involved in Transcribe Bentham was greatly affected by media publicity. Users reported that friendly competition motivated them to participate, but that an overall lack of time limited their contributions. Crompton, Constance, Lori Antranikian, Ruth Truong, and Paige Maskell. 2020. “Familiar Wikidata: The Case for Building a Data Source We Can Trust.” Pop! Public. Open. Participatory 2 (October). https://popjournal.ca/issue02/crompton Crompton, Antranikian, Truon, and Maskell introduce Wikidata as a source of structured humanities data and discuss a case study of its application. They make a case for the value of Wikidata and for humanities researchers to get involved in its development, noting that their expertise is needed to add data about entities as well as the ontological relationships among them. The authors describe their method for extracting biographical data from Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations and contributing it to Wikidata as part of the Linked Familiarity project. They conclude that working with Wikidata is not without its challenges, but that it offers a low-barrier opportunity for humanities researchers to use and create linked open data through open social scholarship. Estellés-Arolas, Enrique, and Fernando González-Ladrón-de-Guevara. 2012. “Towards an Integrated Crowdsourcing Definition.” Journal of Information Science 38 (2): 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551512437638 Estellés-Arolas and González-Ladrón-de-Guevara present an encompassing definition of crowdsourcing, arguing that the flexibility of crowdsourcing is what makes it challenging to define. They demonstrate that, depending on perspective, researchers can have vastly divergent understandings of crowdsourcing. By conducting a detailed study of current understandings of the practice, Estellés-Arolas and González-Ladrón de-Guevara form a global definition that facilitates the distinguishing and formalizing of crowdsourcing activities. Using textual analysis, the authors identify crowdsourcing’s three key elements: the crowd, the initiator, and the process. They advance a comprehensive definition that highlights the individuals, tasks, roles, and returns associated with crowdsourcing. They present a verification table, with nine categories, that can be used to determine whether or not an initiative falls into the classification of crowdsourcing. Estellés-Arolas and González-Ladrón-de-Guevara suggest that further research should be done to understand the relationship between crowdsourcing and other associated concepts, such as outsourcing. Hendery, Rachel, and Jason Gibson. 2019. “Crowdsourcing Downunder.” KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies 3 (February): 22. https://doi.org/10.5334/kula.52 Rachel Hendery and Jason Gibson discuss the strengths and weaknesses of crowdsourcing projects in the GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums) sector, taking as their case studies two Australian crowdsourcing projects: the Mapping Print, Charting Enlightenment (MPCE) project and the Howitt and Fison’s Archive (Howitt & Fison) project. They compare Howitt & Fison to the pioneering crowdsourcing project, Transcribe Bentham, and note that in both cases paid transcription labour could have produced a greater output due to the large time investment required for volunteer recruitment, training, and support. The MPCE, however, did target paid academic scholars, but it was found that alternatives, such as automation through machine learning, were more efficient. This is likely because crowdsourcing is not yet seen as legitimate academic labour. Hendry and Gibson argue that, even if most regular contributions are made by a small number of active volunteers, crowdsourcing is a viable method of non-traditional scholarship because Australian funding institutions see it as a means for public impact and engagement. Hiebert, Matthew, William R. Bowen, and Raymond Siemens. 2015. “Implementing a Social Knowledge Creation Environment.” Scholarly and Research Communication 6 (3). https://doi.org/10.22230/src.2015v6n3a223 Hiebert, Bowen, and Siemens introduce Iter Community, a public-facing web-based platform prototyped by the Electronic Textual Cultures Lab and Iter: Gateway to the Middle Ages and Renaissance, with a specific focus on how this platform is geared toward facilitating social knowledge creation. The authors argue that the emerging area of research known as social knowledge creation promotes critical interventions into the more conventional processes of academic knowledge productions. This type of research is increasingly made more convenient by emerging technologies that allow research groups to more actively participate in and contribute to the dissemination of their work and communication with other partners. The Iter Community page is meant as a critical intervention into modes of scholarly production and publication, and models how the implementation of functionalities that support social knowledge creation can facilitate novel research opportunities and invite scholars and members of the community to participate in the creation of knowledge. The platform facilitates online knowledge production and dissemination in ways that ultimately enhance research practices and community outreach. Jemielniak, Dariusz, and Eduard Aibar. 2016. “Bridging the Gap between Wikipedia and Academia.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67 (7): 1773–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23691 Jemielniak and Aibar consider the relationship between the professoriate and Wikipedia. They recommend that professors become more involved with the open, online encyclopedia. Jemielniak and Aibar cover earlier academic objections to Wikipedia and suggest that many professors do not use the site since they do not see their colleagues use the site. For the authors, engaging with Wikipedia provides a valid and beneficial pedagogical exercise, benefits broader society by improving the quality of information available, and helps to spread one’s research more widely. Manzo, Christina, Geoff Kaufman, Sukdith Punjashitkul, and Mary Flanagan. 2015. “‘By the People, For the People’: Assessing the Value of Crowdsourced, User-Generated Metadata.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 9 (1): n.p. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/9/1/000204/000204.html Manzo, Kaufman, Punjashitkul, and Flanagan make a case for the usefulness of folksonomy tagging when combined with categorical tagging in crowdsourced projects. The authors open with a defense of categorization by arguing that classification systems reflect collection qualities while allowing for efficient retrieval of materials. However, they admit that these positive effects are often diminished by the use of folksonomy tagging, which promotes self-referential and personal task organizing labels. The authors suggest that a mixed system of folksonomic and controlled vocabularies be put into play in order to maximize the benefits of both approaches while minimizing their challenges. This is demonstrated through an empirical experiment in labeling images from the Leslie Jones Collection of the Boston Public Library, followed by evaluating the helpfulness of the tags. Moyle, Martin, Justin Tonra, and Valerie Wallace. 2011. “Manuscript Transcription by Crowdsourcing: Transcribe Bentham.” Liber Quarterly 20 (3/4): 347–56. https://liberquarterly.eu/article/view/10594/11337 Moyle, Tonra, and Wallace outline the objectives of the Transcribe Bentham project from its initial stages. Transcribe Bentham hopes to harness the power of crowdsourcing to develop an open source repository of Jeremy Bentham’s manuscripts. Beyond digitizing and transcribing the manuscripts, the project aims to create a transcription interface, promote community volunteerism, and roll out a text encoding initiative (TEI) transcription tool, among other things. The authors work through the design concept for the transcription interface and the TEI toolbar, both of which are meant to mask the complexity of the markup. The project team hopes that this initiative will stimulate further public engagement in scholarly archives and that it will introduce Bentham’s work to new audiences. Rockwell, Geoffrey. 2012b. “Crowdsourcing the Humanities: Social Research and Collaboration.” In Collaborative Research in the Digital Humanities, edited by Marilyn Deegan and Willard McCarty, 135–55. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing. Rockwell suggests that crowdsourcing and other community-involved projects offer a path for engaging publics more readily and reasserting the value of the humanities. He argues that regardless of one’s opinion on the role of collaboration in the humanities, scholars need to reconsider the prevalence and value of distributed knowledge, and of projects that purposefully facilitate social knowledge creation. To illustrate his claims, Rockwell provides examples of social knowledge creation projects he has been involved with, including the “Dictionary of Words in the Wild” and the “Day in the Life of the Digital Humanities” (now simply known as “Day of DH”). He nods to other commonly cited crowdsourcing projects like Wikipedia and Transcribe Bentham. Based on his experience, Rockwell offers advice for others undertaking crowdsourcing or social knowledge-based projects. Rosenzweig, Roy. 2006. “Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past.” The Journal of American History 93 (1): 117–46. https://rrchnm.org/essays/can-history-be-open-source-wikipedia-and-the-future-of-the-past/ Rosenzweig claims that the field of open source software development is notoriously individualistic. He notes that only 6% of over 32,000 scholarly works indexed since 2000 have more than one author, and less than 2% have three or more authors. Rosenzweig argues that the cooperation and freedom of Wikipedia have transformed it into the most important demonstration of the principles of free and open source software movement. He discusses Wikipedia as both a tool for historiography as well as how it can be understood as an expression of history itself. According to the author, professional historians should pay attention to Wikipedia because students do. Wikipedia and Linux demonstrate that there are alternative models to produce encyclopedias and software other than the hierarchical, commercial model represented by Microsoft. Ross, Stephen, Alex Christie, and Jentery Sayers. 2014. “Expert/Crowd-Sourcing for the Linked Modernisms Project.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (4). http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/viewFile/186/368 Ross, Christie, and Sayers discuss the creation and evolution of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)-funded Linked Modernisms Project. The authors demonstrate how the project negotiates the productive study of both individual works and the larger field of cultural modernism through the use of digital, visual, and networked methods. Linked Modernisms employs a four-tier information matrix to accumulate user-generated survey data about modernist materials. The authors argue that the resulting information allows serendipitous encounters with data, and emphasizes discoverability. Linked Modernisms is focused on developing modes of scholarly publication that line up with the dynamic nature of the data and comply with the principles of open access. Saklofske, Jon. 2012. “Fluid Layering: Reimagining Digital Literary Archives Through Dynamic, User-Generated Content.” Scholarly and Research Communication 3 (4): n.p. https://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/186 Saklofske argues that while the majority of print and digital editions exist as isolated collections of information, changing practices in textual scholarship are moving toward a new model of production. He uses the example of NewRadial, a prototype information visualization application, to showcase the potential of a more active public archive. Specifically, Saklofske focuses on making room for user-generated data that transforms the edition from a static repository into a dynamic and co-developed space. He champions the argument that the digital archive should place user-generated content in a more prominent position through reimagining the archive as a site of critical engagement, dialogue, argument, commentary, and response. In closing, Saklofske poses five open-ended questions to the community at large as a way of kickstarting a conversation regarding the challenges of redesigning the digital archive. Terras, Melissa. 2017. “Crowdsourcing in the Digital Humanities.” In A New Companion to Digital Humanities, edited by Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens, and John Unsworth, 420–39. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Terras explains the role of digital crowdsourcing as a methodology for research on history, culture, heritage, and the humanities in general. She argues that scholars who work in digital humanities should support students who want to become a part of crowdsourcing and create a project in the field of humanities. Moreover, she believes that by encouraging more people to participate in projects related to the humanities we can create a better society that will be more aware of its cultural and social inheritance. Finally, Terras concludes that the development of crowdsourcing in this area can contribute to better access to information about heritage, history, and culture, and that this can, in turn, encourage a wider audience. Vandendorpe, Christian. 2015. “Wikipedia and the Ecosystem of Knowledge.” Scholarly and Research Communication 6 (3). http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/201 Vandendorpe argues for the broad uptake of Wikipedia across the academy, contending that researchers need to edit on Wikipedia and to share their specialized knowledge with the rest of the world. In this way, Vandendorpe argues, scholars can easily share their findings broadly and publicly. He emphasizes online, popular, and open access environments in the growing media ecology that supports scholarly communication. Vandendorpe champions the opportunities afforded by serious academic engagement with Wikipedia. Vandendorpe, Christian. 2012. “Wikisource and the Scholarly Book.” Scholarly and Research Communication 3 (4). https://doi.org/10.22230/src.2012v3n4a58 Vandendorpe contemplates Wikisource, a project of the Wikimedia foundation, as a potential platform for reading and editing scholarly books. He comes to this conclusion after considering what the ideal e-book or digital knowledge environment should look like. For Vandendorpe, this artifact must be available on the web; reflect the metaphor of a forest of knowledge, rather than a container; situate the reader at the centre of the experience; and be open, reliable, robust, and expandable. Wikisource, the author concludes, has the potential to meet these criteria. Vandendorpe highlights that Wikisource enables quality editing and robust versioning, and has various display options. He also outlines areas of development for Wikisource to become an ideal candidate for hosting the aforementioned type of knowledge creation. Walsh, Brandon, Claire Maiers, Gwen Nelly, Jeremy Boggs, and Praxis Program Team. 2014. “Crowdsourcing Individual Interpretations: Between Microtasking and Multitasking.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 29 (3): 379–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqu030 Walsh, Maiers, Nally, Boggs, et al. track the creation of Prism, an individual text markup tool developed by the Praxis Program at the University of Virginia. Prism was conceived in response to Jerome McGann’s call for textual markup tools that foreground subjectivity, as the tool illustrates how different groups of readers engage with a text. Prism is designed to assist with projects that blend two approaches to crowdsourcing: microtasking and macrotasking. A compelling quality of Prism is that it balances the constraint necessary for generating productive metadata with the flexibility necessary for facilitating social, negotiable interactions with the textual object. In that way, Prism is poised to redefine crowdsourcing in the digital humanities. Social Media Facca, Danica, Arun Jacob, junoh kimm, J. P. King, Mujgan Ozceylan, and Sara M. Grimes. 2022. “Academic TikTok Report.” https://hdl.handle.net/1807/124170. This report describes the findings of a pilot study to evaluate the use of TikTok as a pedagogical tool for engaging students and as a knowledge mobilization tool for sharing research findings. In order to propose a set of best practices for academics interested in using TikTok for knowledge mobilization, the authors provide background and contextual information about the app, the aesthetics of its content, and information about its user base. They suggest ensuring that the knowledge being mobilized is a good fit for the platform and its user base; keeping videos short, casual and simple; making content accessible through storytelling techniques; and encouraging audience participation. Given that 62% of TikTok users are under the age of 30 and the platform is central to their everyday lives, the authors state that the app can be a tool for educators to connect with students and young stakeholders. Gilbert, Sarah A. 2020. “‘I Run the World’s Largest Historical Outreach Project and It’s on a Cesspool of a Website.’ Moderating a Public Scholarship Site on Reddit: A Case Study of r/AskHistorians.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4 (CSCW1): 19:1-19.27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392822. Gilbert presents findings of an ethnographic study of r/AskHistorians, a public history initiative in the form of a subreddit on the social media platform Reddit. The subreddit is a place for users to ask questions about history that are answered by experts within the community, and it is more actively moderated than most spaces on the platform, which generally bans illegal or spam content only. Through a case study of a particular question, the responses it received, and the moderation employed to manage the thread, Gilbert shows that, although this moderation is labour intensive and involves some risk to the moderators, applying moderation principles adapted from the academic study of history has made r/AskHistorians an effective venue for public history, not only because it provides reliable answers to users’ questions but also because it models the work of history as well as productive debate. In this way, Gilbert concludes, the work of the subreddit’s volunteer moderators helps to improve users’ information literacy and resist the spread of misinformation. Ross, Claire. 2012. “Social Media for Digital Humanities and Community Engagement.” In Digital Humanities in Practice, edited by Claire Warwick, Melissa Terras, and Julianne Nyhan, 23–46. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781856049054.003 Ross explores the current uses of social media—which she defines as web-based tools that allow community participation, collaboration, and sharing—for digital humanities research. She also reviews the opportunities and challenges of utilizing social media in academia for community engagement, and suggests that the main applications of social media in digital humanities are crowdsourcing, enhancing a community of practice, and co-creating knowledge. The author points out that there is still much to learn about the impact these technologies have on teaching and researching, based on case studies of the University College London, including a project for transcribing Jeremy Bentham’s works by crowdsourcing; the use of Twitter during three digital humanities conferences; and the QRator Project, which allows researchers and visitors of a museum to view and share thoughts and interpretations of each object using QR codes. Ross remarks that to better understand the impact of social media in the academy, universities need to incorporate social media into their approaches to engage communities in scholarly debate and knowledge sharing. Definitions and Foundations Knowledge Mobilization Resources, Tools, and Guides