Hyperdocumentation: what are the limits for documenting processes and practices @asist_ec #ist23

This is a catchup blog post from the Information Science Trends conference which took place in Uppsala, Sweden and online 20-21 June 2023. The final keynote was from Olivier Le Deuff on Hyperdocumentation: what are the limits for documenting processes and practices? I was chairing the session, which is why I couldn't liveblog it (see photo, talen by Isto Huvila), but these are mostly notes that I took during the talk, so as usual, apologies for any false interpretations. A slogan I would lift from this talk is  "Documentation is not dead".

Le Deuff talked about the Belgian bibliographer Paul Otlet, and in particular his concept of hyperdocumentation. Le Deuff has written a book about this. Paul Otlet (1868-1944) started as a lawyer, but found his strengths as a bibliography and went on to (amongst other things) create the Mundaneum ("a google of paper") which housed the index-card based attempt to document the knowledge of the world (finally comprising 15 million index cards). Otlet was also a pacifist, imagining a world of peace.
For Otlet there are 5 stages to hyperdocumentation. (1) Man sees the reality of the universe (2) man reasons about reality and interprets it (3) introduces the document (4) creates scientific instruments (5) connects instrument and document (a fusion). Then there is the ultimate stage where there is a recording instrumentation established for each sense - with documents able to encode and transmit sound, the visual, taste, fragrance and touch. "Hyper" (in hyperdocumentation) means several things: massification; extension (or augmentation); reduction (to better categorise and understand); document diversity; new methods (thinking about machines that could enable hyperdocumentation) and hyper-document.
Otlet connected this work with his pacifism, contrasting hyperdocumentationn (connecting humans) with hyperseperatism. Le Deuff presented a quotation from Otlet's Monde, which envisaged a future where everything is documented as it happens and man could see everything as it happened (together with past knowledge) so that "everyone in his chair could contemplate creation". Le Deuff felt that this was more than "the internet". The cosmographe is the instrument that records everything and the cosmoscope is what gives you access to everything. Le Deuff said that the idea of a "second brain", posited as being a result of AI, can also be seen as Otlet's dream. This vision included interlinking of the smallest and largest elements, and a process of categorising and organising the information. It was an interconnection covering all aspects of civic life. Thus another project was the world city - a "colossal book".
Le Deuff also thought Otlet could be seen as a transhumanist, with humans modified or augmented to improve their capacities for reasoning. Otlet envisioned being able to change the world and regulate society for good through this process. This included the idea of the fluid metahuman. 

To supplement my account, there is the HyperOtlet project (mostly in French) and a useful article in English is:
Le Deuff, O. & Perret, A. (2019). Paul Otlet and the Ultimate Prospect of Documentation, Proceedings from the Document Academy, 6(1), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.35492/docam/6/1/9

Approaching gameplay process documentation @asist_ec #ist23

My last liveblog from the Information Science Trends conference taking place in Uppsala, Sweden and online.The final paper was Approaching gameplay process documentation, presented by Olle Sköld. Sköld gave examples of initiatives about preserving videogames e.g. Library of Congress, Internet Arcade, Finnish Museum of Games, Swedish technology museum ("play beyond play" documenting activities around play), Embracer Games Archive. He categorised the initiatives as : conceptual work, cooperation, adaptation (including migration); collection & creation of "content material. He posed questions (1) what can paradata be? (2) how can it be useful in videogame documentation and preservation.

He drew on two studies of content production discussed on a reddit forum and a wiki, and the research approach included ethnographic methods . Some examples from his findings were that he identified paradata: on the purpose & scope of the community; on "epistemic and methodological characteristics" (e.g. how knowledge claims were evaluated); data selection procedures (e.g. how data is identified as relevant - such what was referenced - Youtube, the game etc)
A conclusion was that "paradata can facilitate talking and thinking about pertinent facts of videogame documentation and preservation". This work is relevant to GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums) activities and for videogame research.

There are paradata problems including: what paradata is useful? what paradata needs to be created by data nakers and videogame documenters? What paradta can be harnessed from existing resurces? How to collect paradata ethically? Sköld finished by questioning what paradate was in the context of videogame documentation (e.g. a methodological element; a literacy)
Photo by Sheila Webber: Uppsala castle roof, June 2023

Data papers as documentation of research processes and practices; Contexts of Data Discovery and Selection Criteria for Clinical Trials Data @asist_ec #ist23

My penultimate liveblog from the Information Science Trends conference taking place in Uppsala, Sweden and online (I'll do one or two non-live blog posts later). First in this session: Data papers as documentation of research processes and practices, presented by Isto Huvila(pictured), and coauthored with Dydimus Zengenene, Olle Sköld and Lisa Andersson. The abstract is at https://zenodo.org/record/8059285 
A data paper was defined "as peer-reviewed text describing a data set and published in a peer reviewed journal". In such a paper tere tends to be a context/summary; methods; data files; notes on validity of the data; notes about its potential use and reuse; notes on its reproducability and whether code (used with the data) is available: however, there is not a standard format. There are some journals which are specifically focused on this type of paper. It can be a way of encouraging people to publish their data, to encourage reuse and also to improve the staus of this kind of paper (as well as the usual thing of getting a publication and citations). What hasn't been examined so much on the extent to which these papers document the research process.  
Huvila went on to talk about how research processes and practices were described in 77 archaeology articles, identifying variation. He highlighted some huge differences in the amount of detail given  about data collection - from a senetence to dense paragraphs. What was relevant for the document would also vary. Another issue is that some matters might be documented in the article and some in the data set (e.g. survey questions as part of the data set).  In terms of authorship, it is not always made clear who did what in the research. There is evidence of disciplinary differences in terms of what is described and in what detail. There are further differences depending on whether primary or secondary data is involved. There is the issue of the kind of research behind the data. There may be differences between data from thesis data, project data and ongoing datasets. The original purpose of research - whether the data was central to the research or a by-product - ccould lead to difference.
Overall, it seemed like these papers were perhaps not paradata (providing data about processes).

Investigation of Contexts of Data Discovery and Selection Criteria for Clinical Trials Data, presented by Ying-Hsang Liu, and coauthored by Mingfang Wu and Megan Power. The abstract is here https://zenodo.org/record/7919508 
The aim of the project is to understand data discovery by clinical trial researchers, aiming to improve the experience. It involved interviewing 17 researchers and data specialists who had reused data (with also a pre-interview survey). This is sensitive data with strict processes for getting access. Research questions were: what criteria do researchers apply in assessing relevance and usability, and secondly the relationship between context of data discovery and the criteria. Thematic analysis was used. A few findings follow. Clinical trial designers looked at clinical trial registry data and conducted a meta analysis; Clinical/health guideline developers focused on definition of topic scope and topic mapping and aimed to identify gaps in existing guidelines; secondary study researchers undertook meta analysis through searching and consulting with experts and secondary data analysis (the latter with access to source data).

In terms of data attributes - there are specific data needs related to purpose and outcome of the study; to data quality and integrity; to metadata and documentation; and to access (e.g. contact information of data custodians). Selection criteria included scientific accuracy; completeness; currency - these were mapped to different contexts. Three standout observations were: providing consistent guides about data documentation and data dictionary; enhancing provenance and common license information; make metadata available together with datasets.

Demystification: how librarians can bring order to algorithmically driven transactions; Running practice; @asist_ec #ist23

This is today's first liveblog from the Information Science Trends conference taking place in Uppsala, Sweden and online. First I'll blog Demystification: how librarians can bring order to algorithmically driven transactions, presented by Maureen Henninger and Hilary Yerbury (who presented virtually with a 16 time difference between them - one having to stay up very late and the other get up very early). The abstract is at https://zenodo.org/record/7911991
Algorithms are often considered as "black boxes" and there are frequent calls for people to be algorithmically literate, and this research probed the understanding of librarians. 30 university librarians from aross Australia were interviewed using a practice-based approach. The presenters used as a key note one interviewee's reflection that they had an "official brain and unofficial brain" (indicating a split between their professional and everyday practice). 

In terms of developing students' information literacy, interviewees talked about taking students from naive to autonomous learner, there was an emphasis of structured searching and also an emphsasis on evaluating information and identifying authoritative information. The autonomous student was seen as one who could identify trustworthy sources (rather than the emphasis on being able to engage with content to judge for yourself). Critical thinking was talked about in an academic education context (for example - health information seen in terms of what was needed for a medical and health course rather than in the context of everyday health).

Participants hadn't necessarily connected algorithms and literacy, and were not sure how they would explain algorithms to a student. Their responses were more socio-cultural (aware of issues around alogrithms affecting social media) than socio-technical. The metaphorical language (e.g. talking about "magic") in relation to algorithms illustrated this. Interviewees were aware of the role of algorithms in everyday life, and there was a notable concern about privacy (rather than concern about misinformation, with few exceptions). This could be interpreted as a tussle between the official and unofficial brain - which I interpret as a disconnect between people's everyday experience and practice of information  and their official identity as professional practitioners, the latter with a focus on a structured and focused approach to information literacy. 

The presenters felt that the picture was not particularly optimistic for librarian practice: information literacy education needed to be changed (so it didn't cling to over-structured approaches which were limited in scope). They felt librarians were capable of this, but there were challenges. The proposed responses were grouped under "utilise expertise in processes without fear or favour" and "emphasise a critical and reflexive approach to all information". (see the slide, above) As an educator of LIS students, I can see the implications for LIS students developing their professional identity (and reflecting more on the relationship with their personal identity) as well as teaching IL and IL education.

More briefly: Lee Pretlove talked about A record of a run: documenting running through self-tracking data and personal (digital) archive practices. He focused on the methods used in his research into runners' use of self tracking data, and also the data the participants collected about themselves. The study's mobile data collection showed how the runner pressed their tracking device at teh start and finish of the run. The data was uploaded using apps, and this process was something of a black box for most runners, and it involved little effort on the part of a runner. The complex digital records and any print records (e.g. in a diary) were used and valued in different ways, and there could be a strong emotional attachment to the records as a history of their running (particularly from male runners).

Also in this session was An information framework for research on difficult heritage, memory and identity practices on social network sites, presented by Costis Dallas, also authored by Ingrida Kelpšienė, Rimvydas Laužikas and Justas Gribovskis https://zenodo.org/record/8056443, a qualitative work.

Can Argumentation Help Understand How Scientific Information Reaches the Public? @asist_ec #ist23

My third liveblog from the Information Science Trends conference taking place in Uppsala, Sweden and online. The photo was taken in the park next to the building where the conference takes place. This is Can Argumentation Help Understand How Scientific Information Reaches the Public? from Heng Zheng and Jodi Schneider. The abstract is at https://zenodo.org/record/8023747 Again, these are my impressions of the talk recorded on the spot. 

Zheng started wih a cake model of how infomation raches the public - the top layer the underlying science, the second policy and practice, the third are the news media and finally social media. He identified that there can be misunderstanding because of differing levels of expertise of different groups (e.g. scientist, journalist, layperson). Using the example of mask wearing during COVID, Zheng proposed argumentation as approach to map and understand the situation. He then explained their interpretation of argumentation and argumentation theory - with arguments containing premises and conclusions, and visualisations helping to enlighten controversy. He identified that different arguments were being presented in multiple places, with people defending their particular positions. He defined polylogue - with more than 2 players and more than two positions, and it was the polylogue aspect of the research was distinctive.

For the COVID example, the in-science layer in this research study focused on a Cochrane review on evidence about mask wearing, and the out of science layer focused on public discussion of this review. For the in-science layer, for an article,  the "players" were the authors, the "position" was the conclusion of the research, and the "place" was the country where the research took place, but also where it was published. Zheng highlighted that there were different "positions" - some concluding that masks did reduce transmission, and others that they did not, and others again saying that the evidence was not sufficient either way. The visualisations would map each aspect (player, position, place) and the relationships between them.

For the out of science picture, "Players" were journalist social media, "positions" were views on masks, "places" were different social media sites and newspapers. The researchers selected news articles using altmetrics, and then analysed them and visualised them considering the political position of the media. They intend to use a similar polylogue approach to research other issues (e.g. climate change) and conduct further research including creating information behaviour models

Assembling fragments: a two-layer knowledge management tool to explore algorithms and their social functions #IST23 @asist_ec

My second liveblog from the Information Science Trends conference taking place in Uppsala, Sweden and online. It is Assembling fragments: a two-layer knowledge management tool to explore algorithms and their social functions, from Rayya Roumanos and Olivier Le Deuff. The abstract is in this archive https://zenodo.org/communities/information_science_trends/?page=1&size=20 and also here Roumanos started by explaining the aims and scope of the ALGO-J research project - which arises from collaboration between journalist and other organisations with the researchers. The aim is to to provide journalists with the necessary resources to understand and critique algorithms.
Journalists are now dependent on algorithms for various aspects of their craft, including gathering and disseminating news - as well as reporting on stories to do with algorithms. However, journalists are not necessarily algorithm-literate. The fact that the code for algorithms is hidden does not help. However there is also a certain lack of knowledge, skill and curiosity about algorithms amongst journalists. Roumanos talked about the need to opt for taking a socio-technical (rather than just a technical) perspective - there are issues of power, bias etc. in algorithms.
In order to investigate algorithms, theere is a need to make the algorithms not just visible, but hypervisible. LeDeuff talked about the Cosma tool, which enables document graph visualisation and demonstrated https://cosma.graphlab.fr/ (see photo) - leDeuff mentioned influences from the documentalist Paul Otlet and also Ted Nelson The data within the system (the "index cards" are produced by the researcher (with definitions etc. based on the literature)  and also including articles about journalism and algorithms).
Algorithms are used to create the graph, and people will be able to play with it to see the impact of the algorithm and the effect of changes to the algorithm (via sliders that are on the tool's screen). Journalists will have input to how it is developed and how it can be used, which should help them be able to understand and investigate algorithms.
The project website is at https://algoj.hypotheses.org/

The Philosophy of History Meets Archival Practice @asist_ec #ist23

I will be doing some liveblogging from the Information Science Trends conference taking place in Uppsala, Sweden and online. I was a co-organiser for the conference, through my involvement with ASIS&T European Chapter, and the other co-organiser and host is the CAPTURE project. The first keynote is The Philosophy of History Meets Archival Practice, from Kirsten Walsh & Adrian Currie. The abstract and presenter bios are here.
The following is my own impression, as a non-historian/philosopher. I'll just forecast that I made a connection between the second part of the talk (on the Royal Society) and the origins of the Institute of Information Scientists (many of whose founders were Royal Society members)
Currie started by talking about substantive historical disagreement, using the example of Winston Churchill's request for a platypus - connecting together Churchill's love of animals, and what happened to the platypus (it was during the war: a depth charge went off near the ship transporting it from Australia and it died of shock). This can be formed into a chronology, connecting with the idea of  "History: a narrative structure lain atop a chronology". However, the history can be seen in a different way, with a different narrative - rather than it just being about Churchill's idiosyncracy, it was more about the tensions and diplomatic relationship between Australia and the UK. For example, the Australian law forbidding the export of the platypus was changed so Churchill could have one. Currie identified the way in which historical evidence would be pursued and investigated to underpin substantive historical disagreement. Currie identified an archive as a curated collection, which is gappy and incomplete, but also intentiona

Walsh took over to talk about the Royal Society (RS) archive. She identified that the RS's stated l.purpose in 1667 included making faithful records of all the works of science, nature and art. This would enable fellows of the RS to see what had been done and therefore what needed to be done, building on past knowledge. This meant recording its own activities and proceedings, in addition to keeping track of recorded knowledge to identify the facts necessary to advance.
There were practical difficulties, to do with: reliability, physical location (the information was initially scattered in people's homes etc.), ownership (because initially the information was in people's homes - when the person died the information might be lost), access (the collections were there to be used, but it was difficult to track down the right information), and manpower (people to record and manage the information). This led to an archive with missing pieces, and shaped by the RA's ideology.
The origins of the RS are contested. One story starts with Christopher Wren giving a talk at Gresham College. Another starts with discussions started by Robert Boyle to start an "invisible colllege" and a third starts with teh Oxford Experimental Philosophy Club. Walsh said it was interesting that it was the Wren narrative that the RA itself adopted. Walsh then mapped out the early names of the RS and the two Royal Charters it obtained.
The ideology adopted by the RA was Baconian: large scale collection of empirical data, with collaboration (needed because of the large scale) and aiming for completeness. This required collecting and record keeping, literally creating a storehouse of facts. In order to create the right sort of evidence, guidelines were set for those who were collecting the data in the field (and the sea!).
Walsh showed examples of record books, the kind of information they contained, and talked about the process of accessing them - that you would call them up one at a time. These give evidence of how the records were used and positioned (also there is information which reveals some of the processes - letters to be written etc.) She traced through the connection between different parts of the archive - for example a paper presented and (in another book) the minutes of the meeting where that paper was presented which might tell you how the paper was received. The records also were treated as historical documents that was reviewed and corrected.

Currie drew on Walsh's presentation to reurn to the idea of substantive historical disagreement - and how the archive and the official history of the RS craft their own version of history. You would need to do some additional digging to answer the question "who were the original members of the RS", resisting just accepting the RS's narrative. Currie said that substantive historical disagreement had to involve narrative rather than chronology, and the disagreement "turns on historical evidence".

Walsh finished the talk by talking about the advantages and limitations of digitisation, using the example of the Newton Project. The key limitation was loss of context when you engage just with the digital version, losing both historical context and material context. You also might get an erroneous idea of completeness of the archive. "You still need to do the history of the archive, no matter what".