The end of another semester means another update to my map!

This semester I focused closely on the first 30 locations in the text, ten from each category of location I determined, visited locations (gray), mentioned in poetry (blue), and mentioned in prose (yellow) . This covers chapters 1-9 for visited locations, 1-10 for places mentioned in poetry, and 1-12 for places mentioned in text. I spent my time building off of the work I had completed over the summer.

I expanded the information about the locations to include passages from the other main versions of the text–the Dennis Washburn translation into English, the Shinpen Nihon koten bungaku zenshū and Shinpen Nihon koten bungaku taikei. I also included more detailed research notes and even tried my hand at translating the waka poems. One of the reasons I wanted to include the four main different versions of the text was because of differences between not only the translations, but also the two versions of the Japanese text.

 

(The passages from the four texts regarding Miyagi Moor)

While I have done a lot of text analysis regarding the text because of this project, I want to keep my map and the information on it fairly objective, so it can be used as a resource for text analysis by other researchers and students. For that reason, I will also be creating a location index which has my own analysis and more detailed information about the places. 

I spent a lot of time this semester refining my categories, and in addition to the three main categories listed above, I also decided to include a tagging system to further clarify the types of locations present in the text. On the map they take the form of check marks to denote real, extant locations (i.e. Kiyomizu-Dera), x marks for real, non-extant locations (i.e. Suzaku Palace), circles for a region or non-single point locations (i.e. Miyagino), a book for fictional, Genji specific locations (i.e. Genji’s Nijō Estate), and, last but not least, ? marks for fictional or poetic place names that I took an educated guess at locating (i.e. Okinaga River). 

I also played around with the format the map was going to take. I had been using Google MyMaps for a while but wanted to look at my other options. The very first version of the map was made using QGIS, which was a fun challenge to learn but is lacking in key interactive features and a challenge to embed on a website. I also considered using OpenStreetMap but that lacked the personalization I was looking for, and the last option I was looking at, Mapbox, required knowledge of coding that I am not interested in acquiring at this moment. In the end I stuck with MyMaps and it’s worked out very well. It was easy to upload my .csv data files, the icons are easy to change and set for each different location, and I was able to upload data to get the old provinces of Japan to show up (shapefiles from CHGIS which I changed into a kml file). Using Google also allowed for the map to easily be embedded on my website, Genjipedia, which has the full interactive map. 

This project has been a long process, and it’s changed a lot from what I first created, but this semester I’ve done a lot of work to make it a legitimate and useful resource for other people. Next semester, I will continue working through the locations past chapter 12, though at a slower pace than this semester. I will also be going back and amending some data to make the information that pops up when a location is clicked less cluttered and more user friendly. While I have about 82 more locations to complete, it sure has come a long way from the first version!

(Initial version of the map-created in QGIS)

-Mac

Yesterday, I attended the Public Digital Humanities (DH) Capstone Symposium. The symposium represented the final step towards completing the Public Digital Humanities certificate. At the event, my colleagues discussed the digital projects they had worked on during the semester, as part of the capstone. Later, the audience, which consisted of members of the Digital Scholarship & Publishing Studio, the university, and the wider community, either offered comments, questions, or reflections on our digital work. For me, the experience was exciting. The symposium provided me with the opportunity to hear about the impressive digital projects of my colleagues who came from a range of disciplines, including History, Classics, Literary Translation, and Religious Studies. Moreover, because of the audience’s thoughtful and provoking questions to the panelists, I gained a better understanding of the challenges and advancements my colleagues had with their project during the semester, and I was able to reflect on my work and the overall direction I envision it going.

At the symposium, two important questions stood out, “What would you tell others about the capstone/certificate?” and “What did your digital work allow you to see that your research and writing did not?” As a student in the Education Policy and Leadership Department, with a particular disciplinary focus on the History of American Education, I found out about the certificate by chance. My involvement with the Colored Conventions Project – Iowa Satellite, a project that broadly examines the lives of African Americans in Iowa during the 19th century, exposed me to the important connection between digital tools and scholarship. After taking the course Digital Humanities Theory and Practice, which examined the intellectual landscape of digital humanities, along with the various tools and concepts associated with the field and meeting with individuals in the Studio about what the certificate entailed, I decided to complete the certificate. 

The certificate and the completion of my capstone project have offered me a new lens through which I can explore my research and writing. When researching and writing, I become preoccupied with outlines, structure, sources, and arguments, all geared towards an academic audience. By using digital tools that support text-analysis, digital mapping, and visualization, my understanding of my research and writing becomes more nuanced. More specifically, my use of digital tools supports my interpretation, analysis, and presentation of scholarship in a manner that captivates me differently and can further engage groups of individuals outside of academia. Moreover, by completing the certificate and project which allowed me to choose from a range of courses, interact with individuals from the Studio, explore digital and scholarly conversations about digital humanities in academia, I feel better positioned to become a digital humanities scholar.

I am excited about my future work in digital humanities. I think the field pushes you, similar to other areas in academia, to want to know more and learn more about scholars in the field, new digital tools, and the intersections between your research and digital humanities. My capstone project has afforded me the time and support to begin to envision how I want digital humanities to function as part of my research and writing. As I move forward, I can say that the foundation that I have in this area has taught, challenged, and inspired me to continue to move forward. 

-Dellyssa Edinboro

 

 

My research broadly examines Black women who traveled abroad for their education motives, either teaching, researching, or studying, during the 20th century. With the Digital Humanities (DH) Capstone Project, I wanted to utilize digital tools to explore, present, and interpret my research. My overall aim was to engage a wider audience with my research, solidify my understanding of digital tools (those I have used in prior classes and those that were new), and to gain a better understanding of my research topic. 

At our first meeting for the Capstone Project, we discussed our overall aims for the semester. I pointed out what I wanted my project to entail — a website that included blogs, podcasts, and story maps that addressed various aspects of my broad research interest. Based on the nature of my project, I became paired with a member of the Digital Scholarship & Publishing Studio who would help me think through my project: Ethan DeGross, a research developer. Ethan was able to provide me with advice to help me get started on my project. He offered me advice on how to get a Google domain name for my research, how to organize my website, what platform would best host my project (while responding to my needs and budget), and what digital tools would best support work. Our meetings were helpful because it helped me to recognize the technical aspect of my project as I moved forward. 

After these meetings, I got to work. I got my Google domain, set up my website with WordPress, an open-source publishing platform, and started to work on my podcast. Completing a podcast represented an exciting step for me, but I had limited experience in creating one. For my Introduction to Digital Humanities course, I participated in a group podcast on the intellectual landscape of digital humanities. However, for this project, I did not tape or edit the podcast. For my Capstone Project, however, I would be taking on the responsibility of deciding the content I wanted to talk about, being the only person on the podcast, and editing the podcast after I completed it. Despite some initial challenges, in figuring out what software to use, I chose, Audacity, a free, open-source digital audio-editor, things moved smoothly. Before doing the podcast entitled, “Musing on the Connections between Black Women’s Global Travels and their Education” (tentative title), I wrote down notes on some key points I wanted to address in the podcast and briefly practiced how I would approach these points. After, I used an audio recorder to record the podcast, which lasted for approximately forty minutes. Then, I used Audacity to make slights edits to the podcast. Overall, I was happy with the quality of the podcast. It was based on the first chapter of my dissertation research and provided me with the opportunity to focus on specific aspects of my research in an informed, yet informal manner.

With this project, there is much more work to be done. For instance, I have started using other digital tools such as ESRI StoryMaps, a platform that combines authoritative maps with narrative text, images, and multimedia content, to explore and digitally map the academic and professional pathways, both domestic and international, of various Black women. I am excited about the future of this project. Ultimately, working on this project has rejuvenated my enthusiasm for my dissertation research. I want my research to exist outside of the walls of academic, in a manner that is accessible to wider audiences. The time with this capstone and my continuing efforts with my project after the capstone will make this possible.

-Dellyssa Edinboro

With the semester coming to a close, my Saving Susiana digital project is off to a great start. While I began the semester with grand idealism, practical constraints relating both to my associated qualifying paper and issues of audience of the project forced me time and time again to shift gears and re-evaluate what I wanted and needed to do with this project both short-term and long-term as this project will be a component of my PhD dissertation. 

I did accomplish (some) of my initial goals, albeit these were ultimately pared down significantly from what I had hoped to accomplish early in the project. The catalog aspect was shortened to only that of the British museum, and more specifically objects relating to the time from prehistory to the end of Darius I, who died in 522 B.C. This is largely because my current iteration of the project, as part of my departmental qualifying paper, focuses exclusively on the objects that Darius would have likely had access to during his reign. The majority of the finds from the British museum turned out to be coins from a much later period, and not relevant for this current project. Of course all finds will eventually be recorded in the Omeka site, and broken down by object type and period. With this cataloging system, I also seriously debated and researched the type of information I wanted to be included in order to choose the best metadata organization tools. I debated for some time between using Darwin Core, used largely for the sciences, and Dublin Core which is used for the humanities. Because my project is so interdisciplinary, both metadata organization types have their benefits. My goal in the future is to find some happy medium, since the project ultimately involves both the technical data as well as the humanistic and social scientific analysis of the objects, individuals, art and architecture of Susa.

As far as the model building goes, there have been some interesting developments. I utilized my maps to build the floor plan of the palace and attached Apadana. In researching, and discussing with my advisor how to proceed, the realization came that little is known about the remains of the site since the published archaeological reports are inconsistent and fragmentary. The current models reveal roman influence, rather than something either Darius or his Elamite predecessors would have erected. To accurately reconstruct the building it is therefore necessary to do more research into both Elamite, Neo-Elamite architecture, neither subject of which I have any experience or knowledge with. I certainly hope this is resolved so that I can implement a realistic 3D model and mapping elements to my project, as it would not only enhance my project, but ultimately lead to the audience, or audiences since it appears now I will have to negotiate a broader range since less was known about Susa and the happenings there than I had initially anticipated. Something I could not have known until I presented the research and Qualifying paper to my advisor and committee.

I had a really great experience working on this project and discussing the project direction with my supervisors in the Studio, and cannot thank them enough for all their help and support. They were not just helpful in choosing programs for my project, and working with me to figure out what I needed to make this a successful project, but they were great non-expert soundboards in relation to how to potentially convey my thoughts, ideas, and research to different audiences. I would really recommend that anyone working on a digital project of any sort work with the Studio. They are incredibly kind and really know how to make the best use out of not only our currently available programs and platforms here at Iowa, but about their specific specialties in general which go beyond what we have here to make for well-rounded projects and more accessible digital projects. 

-Rachael Maxon

Google Docs and Microsoft Office365 offer a variety of tools and features for collaborative writing and revision. However, my experience with them has felt lacking. I’ve found they fall short of the goal of inviting robust conversation around a piece of writing, where multiple reviewers can interact with the text, the writer, and each other. An in-person writing conference engages all three elements. So does an activity following the Workshop model. If the major online word processors don’t offer the engagement I want, are there digital tools that do?

Most digital tools I found in my research were geared towards assessing writing. Tools like Peerceptive, Calibrated Peer Review (CPR), and Turnitin all have response elements, but focus more on a summative response at the “final draft” stage of writing. I was interested in earlier interventions, in helping student-writers refine and revise writing over time. These programs were not what I was looking for. So I did some research, had some conversations, and found four tools that seemed viable to allow for all three conversations to happen: Slack, Github, Quip, and Eli Review.

Each tool was reviewed under four guiding questions:

1. How does this tool make communicating between reviewers, authors, and text easier or more robust than Office465 or Google Docs?
2. What is the learning curve? Would instructors need to spend significant time teaching their students to use the tool?
3. What features stand out as exceptionally useful, different, better or worse than other tools?
4. Is it worth the cost? Is there “bang for your buck?”

The Outsiders

Slack and Github are not necessarily designed for revision of documents. Github is designed to work on coding, but has developed a system for multiple users to edit and comment on a single code. Slack calls itself a “collaboration software” and operates primarily as a workflow organizer and team communication center. Both products, however, hold potential in the sort of revision and response I desire.

 

Github

The strength of Github, as related to my needs, is in version control. Users can track nearly every edit made to an original document, revert back to the original, or start new branches of revision from nearly anywhere in the timeline. Version control is important in revision, allowing for the author to have final authority over changes and seeing the progress across time. While there’s no direct conversation tool within Github to allow persons to talk, conversations of a sort can happen within the text mark-up.

Because Github is built for coding, there are certain elements that have a steep learning curve. Figuring out how to adapt elements such as the text box and standard comment features to address blocks of text rather than code is my foremost concern. The instructor would have to spend significant time setting up procedures to translate Github’s interface into a useful one for peer review, and spend another chunk of time teaching those procedures to her students. Given the other shortcomings, I am unconvinced that this would be a worthy expenditure of time. However, the price is right. The free version of Github is perfectly usable in the classroom context.

Overall, Github could have use as a tool for response to writing. However, because it’s not built for that kind of work, the amount of effort an instructor would put forth shaping the tool to the purpose makes Github an unlikely choice.

 

Slack

Like Github, Slack is a tool that would have to be repurposed to do the kind of response I’m hoping for. Its strength is in communication between users, and flexibility to build from their base platform. Slack users have the ability to incorporate multiple apps, including Office365 or Google Docs, which allows for a very flexible set of uses. However, Slack itself is primarily a communication and task-assignment tool. Any text editing or revisions would happen through the app in Office365 or Google Docs.

Using the Slack communication interface is relatively simple, but the process of integrating apps and crafting response can become complicated as multiple windows and tools pop up. An instructor can set up the apps for students, then create and teach the procedure. However, in my use, the app interfaces were glitchy, at times unresponsive. I don’t know that Slack adds anything essential to Office365 or Google Docs in terms of responding to writing. While the free version is robust, the limited amount of communications and apps likely limits use to one project per month.

While Slack provides a good platform for communication across working groups, any communication with the text demands a second platform. Because of this, I am unconvinced that Slack adds anything to the response process.

 

The Contenders

Quip and Eli Review are two tools created for document revision. Though primarily a “productivity tool,” Quip has document integration tools. Eli Review was built expressly as a tool for teaching writing. With some steep prices, the primary question for both products is: are they worth it?

 

Quip

Quip can be a useful platform for engaging with a text and a team of reviewers. There are comments, tools to draw attention to certain parts, and a tracker of changes made. The markup tools in Quip are very similar to most word processing software, and the additional commentary sidebar is a useful way for both reviewers and the original author to see the whole conversation around the text.

The main drawback is a lack of version control. While there’s an easily accessible Document History to see various versions, and changes can be tracked in the commentary sidebar, there’s no easy way to compare across versions or maintain an unblemished original. Further, Quip is expensive. A full classroom, divided into teams of no more than five, would cost at least $120 per month. This is a steep price tag for a document editor. Were it to be used for more tasks, the price may be worth it. However, there are few tasks in a classroom for which Quip would be useful.

As a productivity tool in a workplace environment, Quip is undoubtedly powerful. As a tool for responding to writing, Quip has a lot to offer. It’s easy to use and provides avenues to talk to the text and the reviewers. However, the price makes it difficult to advocate for in a classroom environment.

 

Eli Review

Eli Review is designed by and for educators as a platform for responding to and revising text as well as giving opportunities for peer review. Purpose built for the task, Eli Review is full of useful tools. The steepest learning curve is for instructors, who have to carefully design many implements of an assignment. Instructors can align writing tasks to each step of review, give instructions to writers and reviewers, and track progress of drafts as well as how much a reviewer is interacting with a text. Students will also need some practice with the platform, but one “practice assignment” is likely sufficient. Eli Review has very clear support documents.

Reviewers have a variety of tools at their disposal. In-text markup tools are available if the document is submitted in the preferred in-browser text editor, and there are fields for overall commentary aligned with the instructor’s assigned task. A variety of methods are available, including rubrics and Likert scales, along with open-entry text boxes. One drawback is the lack of rigorous version control. The user may have to rely on their own locally-saved document to maintain a true ‘original.’ However, with the robust level of feedback, I would call the impact of that drawback minimal.

Eli Review costs $25 per semester, with discounts for full-year subscriptions and institution-level contracts. Given the power of the platform, the ability for instructors to shape tasks towards specific outcomes, I believe that for a course focused on writing and revision, this cost is a worthy investment. The highest learning curve is for an instructor, but the learning happens once. When the instructor has the assignments shaped to her liking, the assignments can be recycled and revised as necessary.

Conclusion

Of the four tools I investigated, Eli Review seems to be the most potentially impactful platform for responding to writing. While Quip provides a useful set of tools for responding to writing, the cost feels too substantial for the return. Slack is a more affordable option, but works only as an extension to platforms like Office365 and Google Docs. The extension may be helpful, but the impact is not significant enough to warrant the extra time setting up the program or teaching it. Github has some potential for collaboration in building documents, but would need significant work to adapt the coding-oriented structures to writing. Eli Review, though costly, provides the most well-rounded suite of tools for both instructors and students to shape response, engage in dialogue with the text and with other reviewers, and provide substantive guidance to the writer.

-Michael Goldberg