Group 1: Disadvantages

Researchers:

    • Struggles with getting credited for the nature of participatory engagement work – to be recognized as scholarly output
    • Lack of training to organize a participatory engagement project, managing and mediating focus groups
    • Experts and Specialists feel threatened by being placed at the same level as the “non-academic”; undermining of authority, quality of competencies (i.e Wikipedia → expert participation was low at the beginning. Not the case so much today)

Cultural Institutions:

    • Curators, Experts, and Specialists feel threatened by being placed at the same level as the “non-academic”; undermining of authority, quality of competencies

Web:

  • Role: a carrier of knowledge and communication; the medium in which we work
    • Example: Letters 1916 – interactive visualizations for a large corpus. Difficult to do the visualizations in real time. The visualizations takes time (90 second lag), resource heavy. Ideal goal: Use the visualization for discovery
    • Vandalism/Abuse/Desecration within the project (considerable risk factor) → contributing users writing malicious content, hacking with nefarious intentions. Question of management and project design. Natural Language Processing to combat internet trolls  

Research Infrastructures:

  • How does the RI get accredited for the participatory work they do (i.e. bringing people together and facilitating knowledge exchange)?
  • If there is no participation how can RI exist and survive?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.