just a quick note that my last name is Vandegrift, without an "R" in the middle there. Excited to see Ann so well-documented and keeping up progress!

Is it really, though?

An ebook is being compiled here

Are all refugees asylum seekers? Or is that just one way that you are investigating this topic?

This is a really interesting thread of the project for me, and I would be interested to see how you think it might apply across different religious groups in different socio/national contexts. For example, if the Pope established a work program in Texas with the Department of Agriculture for Central American refugees, would American Texan Baptists approach them differently?

Would you say that local governments have more power in defining integration to the employment market than national government?

is this a particular type of social capital that would be familiar to sociologists?

so, less female Bosnians in Austria are employed than female Austrians?

This whole section sounds really social sciency and exciting and I'm not sure what all the techniques will do. I know these sections, the "how", are necessary and common in academic literature... do we know if readers outside higher ed are concerned with the "how" or just want to hear the "what we discovered through this study was..." part?

I know this is a convenience sample for you, but wondering... if you had the time and money to do this at scale, who would be the exact perfect subject group? Are they in Vienna, or elsewhere?

I don't know this term.

I'd like to know, if you were to make these recommendations today, at the beginning of the study, what would they be?

This immediately made me think of this New Yorker article I'm reading. Growing up in Florida migrant workers were part of my social fabric, though on the outskirts.

brilliant. Really looking forward to what you discover here.

I've never seen this term, but assume it means finding work by associating with the same/similar ethnic communities already in Austria?

Is this similar to what we Americans would call "welfare"?

I'd love to see a reference or citation for this. Had never heard of it.

Fascinating. So integration an happen from both sides simultaneously. I'd always assumed the burden of labor was on the individual looking to integrate, but it makes sense that society would ease that process and adapt it over time.

sidenote - i'm not sure I could state the difference between a migrant, an immigrant, a refugee, an asylum-seeker, and a "foreign national" if that's a term we even use anymore. These are thrown around a lot in the media, but not sure there's consensus on them? Might be worth some clarification somewhere in here.

just trying a summary; so, integration is a two-way process between host society and migrant group adapting to one another, with assimilation as the goal. But assimilation doesn't just mean THEY become like US, but that a new stasis is defined through social connections. Right?

I assume you have an opinion on this! Would love to see it stated plainly near the front, activating your experience and expertise in this research from the get-go.

emerged in scholarly literature or in popular/policy consensus?

This sounds like a really helpful thing. Are these established national programs, or the concept of a "civil society"?

This is a loaded sentence. Are you talking about social services, or some other kind? Also, wondering if the longer term goals of the host society and refugees are often different, or similar?

Are you saying that if its difficult for some to get a job, and/or they get stuck in the political red tape that it negatively affects the host societies view of that entire group?

So these are the two ways you are conducting this research - are there any others that might be useful or that someone else might follow or contribute?

I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I know very little about this conflict. If this piece were to be adapted for a broader audience, it might be helpful to either offer an explanatory sentence or two, or link out to the wikipedia page.

I'd love to know more about what these systems are, in your estimation. The close of this paragraph seems to imply that employment is a key factor in integration. Would you argue that employment also indicates reception?

From the library world, these kinds of activites have often been in Acquisitions or Technical Services departments, which haven't been included often in conversations about open. This seems like a real opportunity, if library directors are willing to begin transferring more human resources to the open agenda.

echoing also in the "community-owned infrastructure' discussions.

harkening to the 'data trust' concept being discussed from U.S. Mellon-funded projects, also co-authored by the authors of this paper.

I'd argue that this is the next challenge for the open community to figure out.

I wonder if this challenge has been taken up anywhere yet...

Unless, for example, annotation was baked into the platforms, and offered any reader the opportunity to collaboratively discuss.

So academic libraries are part of the problem. Could our particular position in this workflow be modified to provide better analytics? How would we balance that with ethical imperatives?

Eric Hellman has just written a short blog post about this from the U.S. context.

https://operas.hypotheses.org/projects/operas-d

Are there other kinds of scholarly books?

This underlines a concept I've been saying for a little while now... discovery is the future of open.

I think this underlines the need for re-imagining what repositories are and do. Reminds me ever always of the COAR Report on Future of Repositories.

which comes first - the infrastructure or the policy? Is it always policy first?

The continued conflation of OA to read/access and publish is interesting. I don't know yet if that alignment is happening in the US consciously.

alignment is the future of open policy.

is there anyway to advance an agenda with the implementation details already addressed? does this ever happen in policy?

I think this is the reason that open science gets bound up in public policy - b/c its about efficient use of public funding.

this is a powerful phrasing that I hope is true.

question I return to in my research - who holds what position in the future of research?

I wonder how it compares with the OSTP mandate from a few years back, although that lost some teeth after the administration changed over.

or we should advocate for it to be adopted and enshrined therein!

yes, but why? money? prestige? what created or enforces the distance between people and the university? Collar color? Sense of valuable (practical) labor vs. invaluable (theoretical) labor? The Renaissance? High vs. Low Culture? Industry vs. Enlightenment?

I'm asking a similar question in my current research - why are we assuming or why has policy historically been the domain through which academic work is shared/valued? what is the ideal osmosis mechanism for the university as an "open knowledge institution"?

i want to wholeheartedly agree with this, and i think we pay lipservice to it often, but wonder how true it really is. many researchers I know do their work because they are good at it, and enjoy it, and the 'public good' can be a useful byproduct of that.

need to look up the incentive/punishment details for this...

speed of science, entrepreneurial/innovation, and community engagement. Wondering if there are other things we should be arguing that open is good for. And, I'd still like to see a solid model for community engagement around open scholarship.

I'd be interested to see the data behind this. Wondering what disciplines are represented and how they compare to common OA in disciplines in the US.

1000 times yes!

How do we agree or contest this assertion of what the humanities does?

Kathleen Fitzpatrick echoes this sentiment and opines that is is necessary for the humanities to make a first change here.

This is a useful distillation of some activities that publishers carry out for academic work.

innnnteressssting.

I wonder if this is echoed in/of/from the job market in the humanities also?

Does it? DOES IT?!?!

I strongly believe that in the humanities some of these challenges can be overcome by simple means of awareness-raising and contradicting falsely-held opinions about how things work.

licensing is an under-explored mechanism for exerting control on the scholcomm system. my experience is that in the humanities folks get burned out on copyright/fair use by being forced through the ringer for permissions in classrooms or thesis/dissertations.

The economy of prestige is a topic of great concern across academia, especially as we move into the brave new world of digital scholarship.

This point of where labour sits in the scholarly communication system is inextricably tied to economics, both of which are often obscured for the author and reader. How does a thing go from your computer to a publication? Actually, thinking it through now, some of those steps might actually be more visible in the humanities than the sciences.

What we are seeing is that the removal of these barriers is uncovering new barriers - like access to technological tools necessary to get to this research. And we're also seeing new barriers erected - like the major publishing companies investing in acquiring more pieces of the pipeline between the author and the reader.

Agreed. However, in practice it has mostly been applied to scholarly research published in journals.

This cross-references nicely with Shiela Brennen's Public, First piece.

Is this the character of a public humanities that we still sense?

are we in a third epoch now? how might it be characterized?

knowing this complicated history of moralizing that produced an early public humanities, how can we be socially engaged, embrace openness, but resist the potential prying of eyes that would seek to diminish or upset the goals of a modern open humanities?

Do we agree? What cultural or societal indicators can we point out that show otherwise, or affirm this claim? I think part of what I am interested in is making this seem less true.

ooof. Seems to me like this divide has continued and deepened over time, with the exception of the digital humanities which is purposeful about translation of academic humanities work to/across an open internet to whomever is on the other side of the tube.

And I think we still have a common conception of a "public intellectual" that may be a humanist, or someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Is it useful to claim and apply a term that has baggage to describe working with the public in mind as an audience?

For me this sounds more like a definition of cultural heritage, which often present humanistic work to the public, but what do we lose when PH is owned by organizations?

Are these the goals of all public humanities work? If not, what would we like to claim that the goals should be?

Broadly defined accessibility, and as mentioned above, discoverability, are other key characteristics. Again, as a librarian, I know that both of those things are accomplished through well-structured data, extensive project pre-planning and development, descriptive metadata, and some level of technical knowledge and/or infrastructure. Does that mean that a future-oriented public humanities must include enriched data with an information scientist co-constructing the layers underneath the "scholarship"?

This and next paragraph sound a lot like the design thinking user experience buzz that is present in tech culture these days. Empathy as a core principle in humanistic scholarship. Would it be too strong to claim empathy as another key characteristic of a new public/open humanities?

Would it be too backwards to work with our communities/audiences to define our research agendas and projects? What are the needs of your neighborhood, apartment complex, or city commission district and how can your scholarship connect and inform? That seems like an impossible task for a university to be that local/outward facing. But what if?

Yes, good! So, we must teach our colleagues to do specialized work for a dissertation committee, and then a tenure committee in a specific department, and then a small group of co-specialists, and all the while identifying an audience outside the academy. Of course we couldn't explore this topic very deeply without questioning the systems that disallow this very thing to be possible. I am cautiously optimistic... but wholly appreciate Brennan putting this in writing so we can hearken to it as a precept.

This raises a really hard question for me, a librarian: what does it mean that libraries, archives and museums are often the playplaces of academics, and how does that nullify the possibility of a true public orientation? I think its possible to argue that humanities projects can often become isolated within the network of libraries, archives, and museums. What other cultural or social organizations could be the emergent vehicle for humanities scholarship to flow into the world?

interesting. So, the field adapted to new forms of public engagement, but didn't take the opportunity to evolve/transform the "scholarly communication" processes and methods of the time. What opportunity do we have now then, to respond to labor movements, socio-political chances, AND challenge the scholarly communication system as we know it?

The applied, service-driven nature of this kind of labor, in my opinion, is perhaps why it has been devalued in the academy. In the Research Enterprise University, this work looks like the gray category of "Service" that is hard to quantify, and thus hard to count in a matrix of prestige. Is this taught into, or out of graduate programs?

How do we avoid othering "the public" in a more open humanities scholarship? Attaching the work directly to a community seems to be part of the solution. Personalizing and humanizing the subjects of our work... I wonder if much of this impulse happens in classrooms, and so is not readily 'public', but is part of a core value for many humanists.

Ok, so, Brennan is arguing that an essential characteristic of public humanities is invitating in, rather than promoting to a particular community. I like that as a core value.

I appreciate how public fits and works well in history, due to the connection with museums, historical societies, etc. How would one practice Public American Literature, or Public Asian Religions? The connection is a little less clear in non-history disciplines.

Having a website for your research does not a public humanist make. What I read here is that the academic and applied discipline of public history is focused on community engagement (think museum education program for example.) Whats the opposite of that? Are regular historians not necessarily focused on the community/public audience?

I'd be interested to ask this question again these days... have ALL academics lost their publics, or is this more of a humanities issue? I think the sciences in recent years have done lots to regain/create a public audience for their work. I think we could even say that the data-focused social sciences are having a heyday.

or, a solutuon that could fold into others over time? How do we produce that kind of system?

yes, how?

good examples of long-standing disciplinary data repositories

are these the same reasons we are interested in taking this on?

I like this as a goal.

Is this a reasonable time frame to expect?

does this mean we should shift away from discovery and toward access? what would that look like?

So we need to feed the machine. right?

so the true value of an IR is its feed outward to google scholar

the invisible library realized...

Libraries are for undergrads to study in.

TOC alerts are on the outs?

Google scholar is a top source in the US.

so the focus on library resources/databases is constricting...?

as trying to be a representative study, I get this. But I think the methodology might be more interesting if they researchers worked for balance.

key questions that we could be asking our faculty too.

searching is digital breathing. interesting to think about how that might change information work that focuses on search.

there are ECRs that are non-scientists too...

i like this characterization. Feels like we should have this posted on the front of the library.

Small sample size

Go Lonnie! Making the case for Library Publishing!

seconded.

Never heard of this, but looks like a great resource. Could probably be integrated into many scholcomm outreach programs, especially to international grad students.

This is an interesting point from my perspective as a librarian that managed an open access fund for a while. There may be no one-size-fits-all fee, but organizations like OASPA COULD help solidify a best practice, or reasonable standard. Maybe?

So does OASPA consider itself a whitelisting body?

and high standards in publishing in general, I assume. What I'm wondering is, will it continue to be helpful to focus standards and principles on OA journals/publishers, which makes it seem like there's a problem in just that sector of publishing that needs addressing.

How can folks report such failings, if discovered?

I'd love to see some stats on what the most common reasons for rejection are. Show me the data!

Would be interesting to see someone from the Library Publishing/Library ScholComm universe on this committee, or the larger OASPA board. Would Springer Nature still meet the criteria if a librarian were arguing our fields interests in the room? hmmmm...

sp. organizations? Kidding, again. One of those mornings.

Is there a list of standards for non-OA journals? Perhaps SSP has a publishing ethics checklist or somesuch?

Rick Anderson, a regular voice in scholcomm, has some thoughts on this on the Scholarly Kitchen.

sp. behavior? Kidding.

scale of the survey here

Definition of how they are using the term/concept maturity

These three points feel like key points to address in our maturity model

I think this is the thread that we'd be picking up on for our article.

Definitely true of FSU

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4792175/

This is something to pay attention to.

And I'd argue to make those fellowships more readily available to post-MLIS grads.

Will be interesting, and hope the report susses out, how and where this infrastructure should be built. I'd argue that Publishers are already assuming it'll be their role.

are they asking for grant proposals on training for data curation for cultural heritage?

hmmm... first time I've seen that mentioned. Is that a thing?

very glad to see this here. defining open vs. public is important.

is this how they're defining digital curation?

which fits with what we've already been heading toward with DH training institutes, Science Librarian bootcamps, and DIY data management courses. The question we're grappling with: how do we formalize training from the library that is valuable outside the library, that will be credited by departments and disciplines to make it actually useful for people to attend?

I wonder how this hearkens back to the report I can't recall the name of... something about shared cyberinfrastrcture in the humanities? Is that something we should update, or actually try to enact now for the "technical capacity" side of this need?

this is the storage question everyone always goes to 1st when we use the word "data" in libraries. Is there possibly another question we should ask first?

https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1372041.v5

are there non-digital data?

how do they chose these folks?

This will sting for most folks. For some time we might be paying both subscriptions and APCs until the boat rights itself.

I heard a story about SCOAP3 that seems to contradict this. Where productivity increased with a developing country after SCOAP3 was initiated, the following year their bill for SCOAP3 was tripled because APC costs are based on research production. So, if there is more open research, productivity worldwide increases, so depending on the model of how APCs are calculated developing countries may even out, but may not.

Is there a possible world where Funding for publication does not come through the library at all? That funders pay publishers directly? I proposed an idea like this in our OSI2016 group, and folks thought I was crazy. What would the library be if not a money funnel? Well... ANYTHING ELSE!

I need some more clarity on this. To my understanding, and in my specific institutional context, research funding $$ do not play any part in our subscriptions. Unless you mean in the greater "funding feeds the whole university system" thing. Our research office does not kick any overhead to the library, which I know is different at many places.

I wonder if this is the first step toward engaging authors in understanding and valuing their intellectual property.

This, explored below, makes so much sense.

First time I've ever heard this sentiment expressed, that Gold OA might actually prove to be the catalyst for change in the system. From the ScholComm Librarian world, Green OA is like our bread and butter. I think we're in the middle of a significant shift where we can and should start talking about spending the money differently rather than trying to change researchers behavior.

I wonder if some of this comes from inherent misconceptions about how Gold OA would work here in the States. I had a twitter conversation with Cameron Neylon about The Programming Historian being considered a "gold OA journal" that helped clear up some of my misperceptions.

This might matter less then the issue at hand, but I'd be very interested to know where credentialed librarians, especially underrepresented groups, are going to. What professional space is more open or more engaged with diversity?

I'd love to see how Library Schools are targeting recruitment and how that could be an avenue for change.

How can we in the library world assume responsibility to be a catalyst for change in higher ed? I tend to hope or think that we represent a broader spectrum of ideas and opinions than higher ed as a whole, but looks here like the data says that's not so.

I was hoping that this discussion would come around to leadership too. It looks to me (white, hetero, male) that a lot of discussion is happening at the working librarian level, but I'm not seeing much at the Administration and Director level, other than Chris Bourg.

This is about where I stop comprehending what Bryan is talking about. But it looks really great/smart!

hear, hear!

I think this takes a lot of guts to say, and I think lots of LIS/DH-curious students should take heed.

see more at DigiNole.lib.fsu.edu

We tried to spring Jekyll on Bryan a month of so ago. Realized that wasnt a great idea. ;)

This has been a difficult reality for us (me) to come to terms with, but I totally understand it now. Maybe it isnt good for us to jump at every new shiny DH thing if it doesnt make sense for our folks and our strengths.

different than sustainability, which is where my mind always goes. But maintaining a spectrum of different sites is something I'd never considered when we started to get into this work.

We tend to think this way, because what good DH project doesnt have its own site? Wondering if maybe there is a different way to think about how we present the labor of DH to the world. Is there still value in spinning up new sites for every "project"?

We have a list of about 9 active projects that will be on our website in the near future. Each of these is in various stages of completion.

When we talk about infrastructure, we mean the whole, broad view; technologies, tools, people, monies, space, etc.