Ahhh yes group work and project management, the bane of my existence in the past. There is always different perspectives being juggled in the group and the question arises, how does one balance that and keep the group efficient? Well this class and knowing someone in video game development has taught me a lot of valuable tools. Trello, Basecamp, etc are great tools to divide the workload and make sure everyone is held accountable for the work that they are assigned.
“The naming of the next cycle as “innovate” rather than “develop” cycle is also appropriate for a DH project as a scholarly project. The process of reevaluation, defined as a series of learning iteration, is even more crucial for a DH project.” -Edin Tabak
The quote from above, from A Hybrid Model for Managing DH Projects by Edin Tabak, discusses how the process of DH work or other projects is constantly evolving to fit the needs of the team and the goal of the project. I think this is a central point of the article as well as project management, understanding that things will change at anytime. You and the team need to be ready to readjust when things arise. Finding out a teams’ strengths and weaknesses of the team can exponentially aid the project development and create less friction with the members. In class we discussed whether we think a good team is also an ethical one.
We also discussed ethics more broad way, in the field itself and in data management. Should historians be required to share data, the way scientists are required to? If so, at what point in the project? I have come to the belief that, yes historians should be required to. I say this because, first and foremost, we are a community with common goals. So to expand our research and findings requires a lot of communication. Second is that historians are held to the same standards of accuracy that scientists if it can be peer reviewed and picked apart. These are important to field progression and growth in intradisciplinary research. This is all to say that digital history is a developing career, and as such, we should be molding the along the way
Emily, I enjoyed your comments on managing DH projects. I’ve never participated in a digital project before and I also have questions about balancing skills vs objectives. For instance, how does one assess another persons skills when you’ve never even met? How does the group choose who is to be the manager? I guess these are things that we’re about to find out.
The best way I have found to handle that “assessment of skill” is to admit when you know you are overwhelmed or if you do not know what you are doing. If one of my team members tells me that they can work on our website, I have to trust them. I will do what I can to keep them on track and help them in anyway I can, but it is up to them and our trust. As far as a “manager,” it depends on the group needs. Some groups don’t need a manager. Some groups pick a manager based on the person that can focus on managing people and project needs at the same time. Communication is your key to success.
Hello! I have to agree! Most of my reservations about group work come from past experiences. The distribution of work was never really fair but I think that software programs like BaseCamp, it will definitely make collaborative work much easier. It is important to remind ourselves of the goal of the project as the primary focus in case issues arise with collaborative work. You also point out that identifying the group’s strengths and weaknesses is significant in having a successful outcome and I could not agree more!
I agree with you about the issues related to sharing data. Historians should indeed be held to the same high standards that scientists are, and so the data they’ve compiled should be shared with the public, except in a few cases, typically due to privacy concerns. One of the reasons why I think it’s so important is because other historians could possibly use that same data for their own research, and so it’s a good idea wo have that available for others to use. Of course, the other reason why it’s important is simply for the sake of transparency.
I am in the camp to believe that data should be shared once a historian gives it a finalized summary of what it contains and possible uses for it! While quality control varies between different people and their interpretations, I believe that the collaborative framework of a network of historians this size would greatly improve the research pool overall.
I agree that taking the time to discuss your team’s strengths and weaknesses is so important and should help to ensure that each person’s responsibilities are a good fit. I think talking about this early on also helps shape the project’s desired outcome, aesthetic, medium, software used, etc.
I’m also in favor of sharing data *most* of the time, but also recognize that there are some good reasons for not sharing certain data/content. An example might include if you’re working on a sensitive topic and need to protect the identity/privacy of someone who was willing to share information about a subject involving people that are still living or the location of an archaeological site that needs to be documented/excavated/preserved, etc. (potential looting is a real concern for archaeologists). I’m also in the camp that is in favor of *not sharing* if you’ve done the legwork for a forthcoming publication and are still working with the data and its interpretation. However, this is such a good topic of discussion about the nuance and ethics that can go into data sharing.
The fact that historians are peer reviewed is so important!! On a related tangent, I saw a recent video about a research side-quest to determine the origin of when the name “Tiffany” was first used. While on a winding research path, the author stumbles on an 18th century ‘historian’ war between Alexander Pope and Thomas Hearne that’s *intense.* The feud goes both ways, and I’m oversimplifying, but part of Pope’s complaints are associated with Hearne’s improper source material and chronological discrepancies, part of which the author was encountering with their research. Here, a 300-year-old error was still causing some research roadblocks. All of this is to say, that if there had been better standards of peer review and source methodology earlier on, some source materials might be more viable and trustworthy *and* we might not have an over-the-top, vicious 18th century feud with tea still a-brewin for us to sip on now. As it is, I’m grateful that the field has progressed, and that reputable publications and research are generally vetted through peer-review before being released into the world. (The video link for those that are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEV9qoup2mQ ) I was amused. 😊