- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

CfP2 'The Politics of Metadata' - J. of Digital Culture & Society
by Karin Hansson 25 May '20

25 May '20

Second call for Papers: The Politics of Metadata Issue 1/2021, Digital Culture & Society, http://digicults.org Edited by: Anna Dahlgren, Karin Hansson, Rámon Reichert and Amanda Wasielewski Abstract submission: June 28, 2020 Author submission: July 1, 2020 Full paper submission: October 1, 2020 Final version: December 30, 2020 This special issue of the Digital Culture & Society journal invites theoretical and methodological contributions discussing the politics of metadata. The transformation of image collections from files and boxes to digital interfaces has had implications for the way images are annotated and ordered. In particular, new issues arise in relation to the practices of and policies for creating descriptive metadata. The first generation of digitization in the 1990s sparked a lively debate around images and their credibility, which played out in the news media, political circles, and in relation to history writing (Mitchell, 1994; Ritchin, 1990). Despite the fact that photographic manipulation is as old as the medium itself, the ease and availability of software that allowed consumers to “photoshop” images on their personal computers ushered in an era of digital distrust. Yet, as pointed out by Rubinstein and Sluis, “In the past, concerns about manipulation of pixels caused people to doubt the veracity of the digital image; however, manipulation of metadata can have much more dramatic and far-reaching consequences and they indicate that the construction and design of metadata inflicts archiving and classification practices yet also the conditions of use“ (Rubinstein and Sluis, 2013). In other words, while many people worry about the consequences of digital image manipulation, the data we collect on our data, which is used to order and recall a vast array of digital material, can also be subject to biases and manipulations that are just as insidious and often more difficult to detect. The design and use of metadata is therefore always culturally, socially and ideologically inflected (Baylis, 2014; Bunnik et al., 2016; Loukissas, 2017; Pollen, 2016). Indeed all metadata situate the images they furnish historically, geographically, politically and organizationally. The actors and their agendas and interest, whether these are institutions (museums, archives, libraries, corporate image suppliers) or individuals (image producers, social media agents, researchers) affect the character of metadata (Schwartz, 1995; Schwartz and Cook, 2002). If, for example, nationality is an important founding rationale for a museum their images will be tagged with national origin which in itself is a historical construct and sometimes quite problematic (Rodini, 2018). Such interest may also vary over time. While the gender of the image producer is of vital concern in memory institutions today the issue whether an image or art work is produced by a woman or a man has not always historically been of interest for collections managers (Pierce, 2019). Thus the available metadata is the result, and also part of, negotiations between conflicting interests accumulated and transformed over time (Baca, 2016). In sum these are examples of the politics of metadata. When it comes to big data and data-driven research, we have to pay particular attention to the effects of the interfaces we use. Metadata and the archiving practices that produce it are increasingly important for collecting institutions—and for visual culture at large—as a means to navigate the rapidly growing volume of data, situating them historically, socially, and locally (Baylis, 2014; Bunnik et al., 2016; Loukissas, 2017; Pollen, 2016). The fact that images today are copied and redistributed in infinite numbers as well as modified, manipulated, and placed in new contexts raises question about how images are furnished with descriptive metadata and by whom. Metadata not only affects the searchability and visibility of images but, by extension, how they are used and interpreted. Image collections today create descriptive metadata in three major ways: by employing professional cataloguers within the institution that governs the collection, by enlisting the help of the general public via online interfaces, or by automation using algorithm based tools and machine learning, like pattern recognition. In this special issue we seek to address the ideological and political aspects of metadata practices within image collections from an interdisciplinary perspective. The overall aim is to consider the implications, tensions, and challenges involved in the creation of metadata in terms of content, structure, searchability, and diversity. We invite proposals including, but not limited to, the following topics: • The relationship and systemic tensions between professional and amateur taggers, between metadata standards and folksonomies. What are the decisive differences between descriptive metadata produced by professional cataloguers and amateurs through crowdsourcing in terms of content, structure, and usability? What are the differences between private and public metadata? The numerous metadata standards, which govern much of the professional‘s metadata production display a heterogenous field (Margulies, 2017; Mayernik, 2020; Riley, 2017, 2009). Simultaneously many institutions are not using any of the established standards (Waldron et al., 2017). Folksonomies, in turn, have been studied and implemented as ways to bridge between expert and non-expert vocabularies (Cairns, 2013), and potentially to feed into the creation of formal taxonomies or ontologies (Gil et al. 2017). • The issue of anonymity and social identity in relation to metadata production. What are the implications of anonymity for metadata producers within cultural heritage institutions, corporate image suppliers, or public crowdsourcing platforms? How can this be understood and/or challenged in the context of social media practices where a particular user’s reputation and output history is often the determining factor in gauging the trustworthiness of the information produced? (Esteve, 2019) • The challenge in creating metadata that is coherent and reflects diverse perspectives In order for images to be searchable, reliable, and usable, collections need to create metadata standards for accuracy and uniformity (Zhang et al., 2019). Simultaneously, there is an increasing demand for descriptive metadata to be inclusive, i.e. encouraging participation and heterogeneity in representation. Given that these two objectives might contradict or come into conflict with one another, how can cultural heritage institutions strike a balance between them? • Issues of standards, centrality, and networks in relation to metadata production For example, what is the relationship between metadata standards and their institutional, geographical settings? Who are the major agents in the field of metadata production and what are the implications of this? How might we develop more horizontal systems for the production of descriptive metadata?(Piotrowski, 2009) Paper proposals may relate to, but are not limited to, the following questions concerning the metadata paradigm. Interdisciplinary contributions, such as those from science and technology studies or the digital humanities, are particularly encouraged. When submitting an abstract, authors should make explicit to which of the following categories they would like to submit their paper: 1. Field Research and Case Studies (full paper: 6000-8000 words) We invite articles that discuss empirical findings from studies that approach the relationships between data science, digital humanities, digital histories, computational intelligence, cultural studies, art history, gender studies, science and technology studies. These may include practices of circulating or collecting data as well processes of production and evaluation. 2. Methodological Reflection (full paper: 6000-8000 words) We invite contributions that reflect on the methodologies employed when researching the practices of the new tendencies of metadata production. These may include, for example, the specificities of methodological reflection of scientific fieldwork in online/offline environments; challenges and opportunities faced when qualitatively researching quantifiable data and vice versa; approaches using mixed methods; discussions of mobile and circulative methods; and reflections of experimental forms of research. 3. Conceptual/Theoretical Reflection (full paper: 6000-8000 words) We encourage contributions that reflect on the conceptual and/or theoretical dimension of the metadata paradigm, and discuss or question how the data-driven research on metadata can be defined, what it can describe, and how it can be differentiated. 4. Entering the Field (2000-3000 words; experimental formats welcome) This experimental section presents initial and ongoing empirical work in digital media studies. The editors have created this section to provide a platform for researchers who would like to initiate a discussion concerning their emerging (yet perhaps incomplete) research material and plans as well as methodological insights. Deadlines and contact information • Initial abstracts (max. 300 words) and a short biographical note (max. 100 words) are due on: June 28, 2020. • Authors will be notified by July 10, 2020, whether they are invited to submit a full paper. • Full papers are due on: October 01, 2020. • Notifications to authors of referee decisions: November 20, 2020 • Final versions due: December 30, 2020 • Please send your abstract and short biographical note to: anna.dahlgren(a)arthistory.su.se<mailto:anna.dahlgren@arthistory.su.se>, khansson(a)dsv.su.se<mailto:khansson@dsv.su.se>, ramon.reichert(a)univie.ac.at<mailto:ramon.reichert@univie.ac.at>

1 0

WEBCAST TODAY: ‘Internet Governance post Crisis – A new normal?’
by Joly MacFie 25 May '20

25 May '20

Major themes in Nigel Hickson's presentation were, on the one hand, there are new efforts by governments to multilaterally impose their will on the Internet, multistakeholders should not sit idly by, while on the other, COVID has served to adjust the narrative in the Internet's favor, it is no longer the bete noire flogging horse it was a year ago. Multistakeholders should take up the opportunity to "talk up" the Internet, and build on last year's High Level Panel report that reinforced the Internet model. ISOC Live posted: "Today, Monday May 25 2020 at 14:00 UTC (3pm BST) the Internet Society Livestream Channel will webcast a recording of the Internet Society UK England webinar 'Internet Governance post Crisis – A new normal?' held on May 21 2020. Kicking off a series of Web" [image: livestream] <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/netgov>Today, *Monday May 25 2020* at *14:00 UTC* (3pm BST) the* Internet Society Livestream Channel <https://isoc.live>* will webcast a recording of the *Internet Society UK England <https://isoc-e.org/>* webinar '*Internet Governance post Crisis – A new normal? <https://isoc-e.org/ig-post-crisis-a-new-normal/>*' held on May 21 2020. Kicking off a series of Webinars about the topic, *Nigel Hickson <https://linkedin.com/in/nigel-hickson-9899545>* (ISOC UK Chapter) who is a participant of the *2020 Chapter Training Programme <https://www.internetsociety.org/tutorials/shaping-the-internet/>*, as part of the Programme hosted this session. He addressed the current impasse of views on the governance of the Internet, and how the current reliance on Internet services during the Covid-19 crisis may have affected this. The Session was interactive in nature and thought provoking. Feel free to add your own comments in the chat. *LIVESTREAM https://livestream.com/internetsociety/netgov <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/netgov> (open captions)* *TRANSCRIPT https://bit.ly/3c1YA0O <https://bit.ly/3c1YA0O>* *INFO: https://isoc-e.org/ig-post-crisis-a-new-normal/ <https://isoc-e.org/ig-post-crisis-a-new-normal/>* *TWITTER: @ISOCUKEngland + #netgov <https://bit.ly/2LXd3AU> * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/12097/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +2185659365 -------------------------------------- -

1 0

Announcement: EJC, Vol 29 (3 & 4), Special Issue on Digital Interactions in Social Spaces
by Harrison, Teresa M 24 May '20

24 May '20

Digital Interactions in Social Spaces: Proxemics, Digital Media, and Human-Machine Communication Editor's Introduction: Digital Interactions in Social Spaces: Proxemics, Digital Media, and Human-Machine Communication <http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v29n34toc.htm#introduction> / John A. McArthur Furman University Proxemics, Social Media, and Structural Transformations in the Private Sphere Bolanle A. Olaniran Texas Tech University Abstract: This paper explores the transformations occurring in the private sphere as a result of increased use of information communication technologies (ICT), in particular, mobile phones and social media. Specifically, the paper addresses the dissipation of boundaries between public and private spheres—especially in communication interactions, which characterize relationships. Communication media (such as emails, instant messaging, network forums, and videoconferencing) are viewed as tools for transformations; thus the implications on social, cultural, and economic levels will be addressed throughout this paper. Furthermore, this paper argues the presence of social media has eroded—and is constantly eroding—distinctions between the two spheres to the degree that what counts, as either public or private, is difficult to distinguish. Place and Discourse in Virtual Environments Lynnette G. Leonard American University in Bulgaria Lesley A. Withers Central Michigan University Abstract: In the fervor over new technologies, we often fail to see connections to the past, to recognize the similar characteristics among various communication media, and to value the knowledge gleaned from previous experiences and familiar places. Places such as coffee shops, pubs, churches, statehouses, townhalls, and even classrooms have certain characteristics that stimulate discourse in part because they establish expectations for appropriate communication. Do these preferences for place and the expectations for appropriate communication that attend them change as we meet others in virtual environments? The characteristics of the virtual environment allow for many different options for communication places; the sky and sea are no limit. This article explores groups’ choices for place as they collaborated in virtual space, demonstrating that our offline preferences and expectations for appropriate rhetorical places are reflected in our online choices. Proxemics of Screen Mediation: Engagement With Reading on Screen Manifests as Diminished Variation due to Self-Control, Rather Than Diminished Mean Distance From Screen Harry J. Witchel Carlos P. Santos James K. Ackah Brighton and Sussex Medical School University of Sussex Nachiappan Chockalingam CSHER, Staffordshire University Carina E. I. Westling Bournemouth University Abstract: Objective: Burgoon's theory of conversational involvement suggests that when people engage with a person, they will move slightly closer to them, often subtly and subconsciously. However, some studies have failed to extend this to human-computer interaction. Our hypothesis is that during online reading, engagement is associated with an expenditure of effort to hold the head upright, still and centrally. Method: We presented to 27 participants (ages 21.00 ± 2.89, 15 female) seated in front of 47.5x27 cm monitor two reading stimuli in a counterbalanced order, one (interesting) based on a best selling novel and the other (boring) based on European Union banking regulations. The participants were video-recorded during their reading while they wore reflective motion tracking markers. The markers were video-tracked off-line using Kinovea 0.8. Results: Subjective VAS ratings showed that the stimuli elicited the bored and interested states as expected. Video tracking showed that the boring stimulus (compared to the interesting reading) elicited a greater head-to-screen velocity, a greater head-to-screen distance range, a greater head-to-screen distance standard deviation, but not a further away head-to-screen mean distance. Conclusions: The more interesting reading led to efforts to control the head to a more central viewing position while suppressing head fidgeting. What is Violence Now?: A Grounded Theory Approach to Conceptualizing Technology-Mediated Abuse (TMA) as Spatial and Participatory Jessica J. Eckstein Western Connecticut State University Abstract: Intimate partner violence (IPV) continues to evolve in technological and legal/political ways. The currently sparse scholarship examining how digital technologies and spaces facilitate abusive, coercive, and/or intrusive behaviors among adults in romantic relationships tends to focus on digital abuse methods as mere enhancements or facilitators of abuse – this, despite any clear study of how current digital-users actually utilize and understand technology-mediated abuse (TMA). This study fills that foundational void by probing the full nature/content of TMA possibilities as understood by a U.S. community-based social network sample (N = 551). Participants’ M = 7.43 unique examples (SD = 4.00, range = 1 to 30) resulted in N = 4,092 distinct data units examined via hierarchical qualitative analyses. Grounded-theory results suggest TMA is a unique cultural and spatial phenomenon in which inanimate objects or programs (through human-assigned “agency”) serve to perpetrate a new, modified form of IPV, rather than a mere augmentation of existing abuser-tactics. Themes are discussed for future IPV theory and measurement implications and practitioner and policy applications. We’ll do it Live! Unpacking the Community-Building Labor of Twitch Streamers Accounts Brandon C. Harris University of Oregon Abstract: Twitch.tv’s meteoric popularity demonstrates live streaming’s increasing importance to the contemporary media landscape. This paper examines how Twitch streamers perform various types of aspirational, emotional, and entrepreneurial labor in order to construct communities of like-minded individuals. This research presents a case study that shows how Twitch streamers simultaneously perform various types of community-building labor during their live streams, highlighting their uniqueness from influencers on static social networks like Instagram or Facebook. Finally, this paper outlines how Twitch’s casual viewing aesthetic can hide the types of labor that Twitch streamers perform while building community, permitting a cycle of precarious and aspirational labor to continue. ________________________________ Original Research Article Fact or Fiction: Believability of News Content From Opposing Media Outlets Robin Blom Ball State University Abstract: A news headline about an alleged population increase of polar bears was evaluated by 1,329 U.S. adults in an online experiment. Participants were told that the headline was originally obtained from either CNN or Fox News, or was presented without source identification. The results demonstrated that believability of a headline was predicted by an interaction between news source trust and the extent to which participants were surprised that the headline was attributed to that particular news source. The data indicated that distrusted sources could be highly believable when presenting unanticipated content, and vice versa. This has important implications for understanding cognitive bias in processing news coverage of public affairs.

1 0

The Journal of Community Informatics is accepting new submissions
by Colin Rhinesmith 23 May '20

23 May '20

Dear colleagues, After a brief pause and transition in editorial leadership, the open access Journal of Community Informatics is accepting new submissions here: http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/information/authors <http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/information/authors> It is my honor to lead the journal as its third Editior-In-Chief, since the journal’s launch by Michael Gurstein in 2004. I want to thank Eduardo Villanueva-Mansilla for his leadership over these past years. I also want to thank Tom Denison who has joined Eduardo as the journal’s Associate Editors. The Editorial Board includes both new and returning members: http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/editorialBoard We are preparing our next issue for publication in Sept/Oct 2020. We look forward to receiving your submissions in the months and years ahead. Warm regards, Colin — Colin Rhinesmith (pronouns: he/him) Associate Professor and Director Community Informatics Lab School of Library and Information Science Simmons University phone: 617-521-2881 web: http://crhinesmith.com Editor-In-Chief Journal of Community Informatics http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej

1 0

Livestreaming and the Christchurch massacre
by Yasmin Ibrahim 23 May '20

23 May '20

This may be of interest to those working in the intersections of critical race theory and digital economy/culture, Livestreaming the ‘wretched of the Earth’: The Christchurch massacre and the ‘death-bound subject’, in Ethnicities, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1468796820926746 best, yasmin Yasmin Ibrahim, PhD (LSE), FRSA, SFHEA Professor of Digital Economy and Culture (2019) The Politics of Gaze; The Image Economy Online, https://www.routledge.com/Politics-of-Gaze-The-Image-Economy-Online-1st-Edi… (2020) Fake News in an Era of Social Media, Tracking Viral Contagion, https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781786614216/Fake-News-in-an-Era-of-Social-Media-T… (2020) Digital Icons; Memes, Martyrs and Avatars, Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Digital-Icons-Memes-Martyrs-and-Avatars/Ibrahim/p…

1 0

changes at INC, central list to discuss critical internet cultures
by Geert Lovink 23 May '20

23 May '20

Dear AoIR community, while we’re publishing a lot, here at the Institute of Network Cultures, trying to facilitate critical reflection on the corona with diaries and essays from around the world, we’re also planning a restart of INC. Digital publishing research and output will continue, as will the MoneyLab network that just got a board. The board can be rearched here: moneylab-board(a)networkcultures.org <mailto:moneclab-board@networkcultures.org>. As MoneyLab #8 Ljubjana was cancelled because of the corona crisis it turned into a weekly online lecture series, which just hosted Evgene Morozov. However, with a considerable legacy of projects, networks, publications (we started in 2004) and a heavy website aka archive, we noticed that we had to spend more and more time just on maintainance. It became harder to start new things (also due to changes in the Dutch cultural funding structures). Finally we’re about to do something about this. As a start, five mailinglists (MoneyLab, Video Vortex, re-search, Unlike Us and CPOV) have been discontinued and have been replaced by one INC list (also responding to the widespread idea of email being a ‘dead medium’). If you want, please subscribe here: http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/inc-synthesis_listcultures.org <http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/inc-synthesis_listcultures.org> The synthesis list has three objectives: 1. To inform the wider net community about INC projects and activities. 2. To foster debates about net criticism, tactical media, hacktivism and research into critical network cultures from multiple perspectives such as design and the arts, activism and research. 3. To create links between different INC research fields that were previous running as different projects about online video, crypto currencies, search, social media, future of art criticism etc. The name 'synthesis' expresses a desire to overcome different disciplines, fields and scenes in order to strengthen the critical forces in arts, tech and society. Soon we will see what other new channels will work to debate, maintain communities, inform and support each other. Please approach us if you have ideas and suggestions, also for common projects, grants, publications, campaigns and other forms of poetry. Keep on questioning, Geert and the INC team — Two recent publications: Here and Now? Explorations in Urgent Publishing https://networkcultures.org/makingpublic/urgentpublishing/ <https://networkcultures.org/makingpublic/urgentpublishing/> Listening into Others: An Ethnographic Exploration in Govindpuri by Tripta Chandola https://networkcultures.org/blog/publication/tod36-listening-into-others-an… <https://networkcultures.org/blog/publication/tod36-listening-into-others-an…>

1 0

HICSS G&G CfP Updated
by Nathaniel Poor 22 May '20

22 May '20

HICSS CfP: Game Scholars and Hawaii in January? Submission deadline extended to July 15. Games & Gaming (Social and Digital Media) 54th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) January 5-8, 2021, at the Grand Hyatt, Kauai UPDATE from the Conference Organizers, who live in Hawaii: We recognize that present circumstances are difficult for many and that uncertainty about the evolving situation demands flexibility. Together with the Grand Hyatt Kauai and the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau, we are constantly monitoring the outbreak situation with the goal to safely welcome you to HICSS. As we get closer to the conference date, we will provide you on our website with more details about the conference arrangements, and advise you when and how to prepare for your trip to Hawaii. And if it becomes evident that convening in Kauai is not advisable, we will timely propose an alternate solution to preserve as much as possible the HICSS experience. G&G CfP: For the fifth straight year, the Games & Gaming minitrack at HICSS is looking for research on the social aspects of digital gaming. We feature work DATES April 20: Submission site opens (see http://hicss.hawaii.edu/authors/ ) NEW July 15: Submission deadline (changed from June 15) NEW August 23: Decision notification (changed from August 17) September 22: Camera ready version due October 1: Registration deadline January 5-8: Conference? TOPICS Esports Fantasy sports leagues Streaming gameplay (e.g., Twitch) Game curation via sites like Steam Fans and fan communities Community management Social affordances of games Network analysis of groups and communities in games Social practices (in-game, out-game, both) Player communities Toxicity online Multiplayer games Cooperative and competitive play Multigenerational play Intercultural play URLS HICSS: http://hicss.hawaii.edu/ Author Instructions: http://hicss.hawaii.edu/authors/ Digital and Social Media track: https://hicss.hawaii.edu/tracks-54/digital-and-social-media/ CO-CHAIRS Nathaniel Poor (Primary Contact Co-Chair) Underwood Institute natpoor(a)gmail.com Kelly Bergstrom University of Hawai’i at Mānoa kelly.bergstrom(a)hawaii.edu Kishonna Gray University of Illinois, Chicago unicorn(a)uic.edu ------------------------------- Nathaniel Poor, Ph.D. (he/him/his) http://github.com/natpoor http://natpoor.blogspot.com/ http://sites.google.com/site/natpoor/ http://www.underwood-institute.org/

1 0

Book Series: Palgrave Studies in Mediating Kinship, Representation, and Difference
by Schultermandl, Silvia (silvia.schultermandl＠uni-graz.at) 22 May '20

22 May '20

SERIES TITLE: Palgrave Studies in Mediating Kinship, Representation, and Difference SERIES EDITOR/S: May Friedman, Ryerson University (Canada); Silvia Schultermandl, University of Graz (Austria) This book series brings together analyses of familial and kin relationships with emerging and new technologies which allow for the creation, maintenance and expansion of family. We use the term “family” as a working truth with a wide range of meanings in an attempt to address the feelings of family belonging across all aspects of social location: ability, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, gender identity, body size, social class and beyond. This book series aims to explore phenomena located at the intersection of technologies including those which allow for family creation, migration, communication, reunion and the family as a site of difference. The individual volumes in this series will offer insightful analyses of the representations of these phenomena in media, social media, literature, popular culture and corporeal settings. Possible book topics include: • the use of technology and migration and family composition and disjunction; the ways that technologies may both push and pull kin together/apart • the range of technology use across literal and figurative space including intersections of geography, age, poverty, gender and beyond • the impact of technological absence: the ways that technologies may be taken for granted in particular environments (privileged nations; privileged subject positions) and may be denied or inaccessible in other spaces or places • technologies of family creation and maintenance: the use of alternate reproductive technologies; the use of communication technologies to share information; • queer family creation and representation through technology; making queer family visible through traditional, popular and social media; alternate family connections including nonnormative parenting arrangements (more than two parents, multiple different shades of parenting); “new” family through donor sibling relationships; • technologies of class mobility, including the impact of smartphone technology on mediating/curtailing aspects of the digital divide; shifting family relationships through generational moves in class status • fat family: the ways that narratives of obesity have had impacts on the creation and representation of family (for example: obese women who are denied reproductive technologies or access to international adoption); the ways these rhetorics have shifted differently in different jurisdictions; representation of fat family; intersection of fat and working class identities in popular culture • trans families: both in terms of gender identity but also in terms of other families that “confound”—families that do not “match” one another, or that otherwise transgress normative models • technologies of disability: the use of technology to enhance or bolster independence, the ways that disabled people are seen as incapable of parenting; on the other hand, the technologies which come into play around parenting children with disability, both prenatally and once children are born; representation of disability and family (fetishization and the perceived martyrdom of parents) Please send inquiries to may.friedman(a)ryerson.ca AND silvia.schultermandl(a)uni-graz.at

1 0

Registration now open for ‘Disrupting Digital Monolingualism’ workshop
by Naomi Wells 22 May '20

22 May '20

Dear colleagues, Registration is now open for an online workshop on the theme of ‘Disrupting Digital Monolingualism’ on 16th and 17th June 2020 (https://languageacts.org/digital-mediations/event/disrupting-digital-monoli…<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flanguagea…>). This two-day virtual workshop will bring together leading researchers, educators, digital practitioners, language-focused professionals, policy makers and other interested parties to address the challenges of multilingualism in digital spaces and to collectively present new models and solutions. The workshop will combine both conceptual (strategy, policy and theory) and practical perspectives (digital ecosystems, methods and tools with a focus on language). It is hosted by the AHRC-funded ‘Language Acts & Worldmaking’ project with the support of the ‘Cross-Language Dynamics: Reshaping Community’ project. The workshop will include a combination of lightning talks, demos, posters, panels and a mini-workshop, and we encourage participation on social channels. You can register here: https://languageacts.org/digital-mediations/event/disrupting-digital-monoli…<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flanguagea…> Further information about the workshop is available here: https://languageacts.org/digital-mediations/event/disrupting-digital-monoli…<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flanguagea…> Attendance is free but registration is essential. Book your place and you will be sent an access link to attend the workshop online, along with the event programme (including abstracts, speaker bios and panel details) a few days prior to the event. Kind regards Paul Spence, Renata Brandão and Naomi Wells (on behalf of the organising committee) Dr Naomi Wells Early Career Researcher in Italian and Spanish with Digital Humanities Institute of Modern Languages Research School of Advanced Study | University of London Room 238 | Senate House | Malet Street | London WC1E 7HU | UK Email: naomi.wells(a)sas.ac.uk http://modernlanguages.sas.ac.uk/ https://digitalmodernlanguages.wordpress.com/

1 0

Participations: Latest issue out now!
by Judith Rosenbaum-Andre 22 May '20

22 May '20

Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies has just released its latest issue! This open-access journal features three special sections. The first is aimed at understanding readers, reading, and digital media, the second looks at interviews as a research method, and the third section features nine essays from the University of Wales at Aberystwyth conference on "Researching past cinema audiences: Archives, Memories and Methods". With an editorial introduction by Martin Barker and a series of articles that provide innovative theoretical, methodological, as well as empirical insights, including the audience reception of professional wrestling stars, the circulation of film and cultural capital, and the understanding of resistance as observed in online discussions, this issue is packed with relevant and contemporary insight into audience research in 2019. The issue can be found here: http://www.participations.org/Volume%2016/Issue%201/contents.htm -- Judith E. Rosenbaum, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Communication and Journalism University of Maine 414 Dunn Hall Orono, ME 04469 www.juditherosenbaum.com/ @JudithRBaum

1 1