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