17.11.08

[webology and folksonomy]

The latest issue of webology is guest edited by Louise Spiteri at the School of Information Management at Dalhousie University, Canada. This entire issue is devoted to folksonomy. We all know that folksonomy was coined by Thomas Vander Wal: "Folksonomy is the result of personal free tagging of information and objects (anything with a URL) for one's own retrieval. The tagging is done in a social environment (usually shared and open to others). Folksonomy is created from the act of tagging by the person consuming the information." From the editorial: "The papers in this special issue reflect the diversity of approaches taken to create Web resources that reflect better the needs of end users. Particular emphasis is placed on the need to manage the increasing volumes of tags and information available on the Web, particularly as more people are becoming engaged with numerous social applications. As is discussed in some of the papers in this special edition, there is certainly scope to consider ways in which to combine the more traditional controlled vocabularies with the free-flowing nature of tagging." Bruce's report on the A Million Penguins wiki-novel fits in well with this issue of webology especially when read alongside Isabella Peters and Katrin Weller's article on wiki gardening as Bruce told us about "gardners" who tend the wiki novel, rather unlike vandels who go in to mess it up. However, Peters and Weller go a step further to suggest a way to weed out mess. They suggest introducing a tag garden that matches synonyms together. Any of you who have search on flickr or delicious (just two examples) will know that search for blog doesn't always turn up results that are tagged with blogger or blogging. But, more literate users realise this and begin to craft their own vocab. controls. I know I don't tag things with blogging or blogger anymore, I just use the term blog. "For our garden this means, that we have some plants that look alike, but are not the same (homonyms), some plants which can be found in different variations and are sometimes difficult to recognize as one species (synonyms) and others which are somehow related or should be combined. Thus, we have to apply some garden design or landscape architecture to turn our savage garden. We may use labels for the homonyms, and establish flower beds as well as paths between them and pointers or sign posts to show us the way along the synonyms, hierarchies and other semantic interrelations (see Figure 2). We need some additional structure and direct accessibility to provide additional forms of (semantic) navigation (besides tag clouds, most popular tags and combinations of tags-user-document co-occurences)."

Peters, Isabella & Weller, Katrin (2008). "Tag gardening for folksonomy enrichment and maintenance." Webology, 5(3), Article 58. Available at: http://www.webology.ir/2008/v5n3/a58.html.

Labels: , , , , , ,

19.7.08

[my rss + wordle = tag cloud 2.0]



You can make your own text cloud at Wordle by uploading a link to any site with an rss feed, linking to a delicious feed or pasting in text manually. This application seems to have quite a bit of potential in the classroom...perhaps as a way to help students summarise important aspects from their reading or as a way of offering a visual interpretation of data.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

2.4.08

[knowledge representation: tagging, folksonomy, content, information, literacy]

Claudia Cragg was going to interview me about tagging for her Creative Writing and New Media Master's project...sadly (and super annoyingly) my mic. didn't seem to work for skype today. So, we're going to go all social media with this interview and I'm going to post Claudia's questions here, with my answers, for any of you who might be interested in my views on tagging and folksonomy and digital literacy and and and...

So, here goes (caveat - my personal opinions!):


Who came up with the term Folksonomy and how is it defined?

Thomas Vander Wal came up with it during an e-mail list conversation in 2004.

As the name suggests, it's a taxonomy made by the folks – user generated definitions and information structures. But folksonomy is just a part of a larger idea: tagging. Tagging is the tying of words to objects. I think Vander Wall explains that this method of tagging has less "cognitive load" for users because it’s about key words rather than some kind of overlying systemic planning. I see it more of a free–form way of categorising information – personalising it.

Folksonomy is a subset of tagging – identifying/categorising for personal use, “re–finding” information

Has it caught on as a term?

Yes! Just do a google search for folksonomy; there are 1,620,000 hits (at 15:07 GMT). But then, I suppose just because it has "caught on" doesn't make it any less fractious. I'm thinking of "web 2.0" and how it is bandied around...still lots of problematising. I'm remembering Cory Doctorow's "
metacrap" and I think a lot of people still don't quite "trust" the folks...that's why users concerned with retrieving the "right" kind of information might trust certain folks whose ideas they value...a kind of filtering through the (*wisdom* of the) masses.

What, in your academic opinion, makes a good or bad Tag Cloud? (i.e. your thoughts on Anatomy of a Tag Cloud vocalized)

Hrm...good question. Firstly, a caveat: there can be no *exact* laws or rules about good/bad tag clouds because the tags/vocab and value are constantly changing - a punctuated equilibrium.

For me, a good tag cloud makes information accessible to those who are interested in it. Tag clouds with a gazillion different terms look "messy" to me. A pet peeve is the inclusion of spam in tag clouds - that just changes the whole positive participatory idea behind folksonomy. Also, if taggers use a lot of similar words (as I did when I first started tagging) like: blogger, blog, blogging, blogs - that just adds to the mess. I guess rules are necessary, figure out if you're going to stick to uppercase or lowercase and whether you'll use singular or plural terms (blog or blogs? FirstName or firstname?)

Look at TechCrunch's tag cloud courtesy of technorati:



Most of the terms are of a similar size which makes spotting information trickier (at least for me) and there is some html included which shouldn't be there...so it seems messy.

A good tag cloud is "tidy" with (seemingly) transparent access to information. I don't want to be left wondering how the "blogger" and "blogging" tags are different and whether I should bother clicking both tags...I want the story (or most of it anyway) there in the cloud. I just want the general overview (I always look first for the tags that are weighed heaviest and then move to those tags least used), it's up to each tagger to make things more precise/personal to them. It's a vocabulary that's constantly evolving.


By the way,
there are loads of tools out there to create tag clouds of your site (rather than of your delicious - or similar - bookmarks).

I've just used
TagCrowd to make a cloud of my current blog which lists my last 10 posts:



How can Tag Clouds be used to drive traffic to a site?

In terms of general business use – there is huge potential here especially for smaller to medium size companies.

I think tagging can help with “findability” of company information although perhaps not so great with emergent vocab. which keeps changing. Also, I guess there might be a need to compare internal tags (tagged by employees) with external tags (tagged by customers) as each might have different words for the same or similar ideas.

But, as with peppering content with keywords, you can make sure you tag specific blog posts etc...with key words that you know your customers will search for.

Plus, the easier it is for customers to navigate a site, the more chance they’ll come back and using a tag cloud is, I think, a good way of making visible an overview of company info.


Tagging can also be a chance for any company (or organisation or university group etc...) to popularise their key word/s (or coin one) while simultaneously making data cohesive. Before we started using delicious there was no "nlab" as a bookmark, but now it is there and it means conference-goers and other interested parties can follow what
NLab has been up to for the last 2.5 years. Shirky suggests that a refined approach to this kind of group classification is the next "big frontier."




I wonder how many tags there were for "longtail" before Shirky's article or for "web2.0" before frames of reference changed and people took to O'Reilly's coinage? (See Michael Wexler's 3 part series "I Hate Tags")


"In reality, our understanding of things changes and so do the terms we use to
describe them. How do I solve that in this open system? Do I have to go back and
change all my tags? What about other people’s tags? Do I have to keep in mind
all the variations on tags that reflect people’s different understanding of the
topics?"

If tagging is about naming/defining/narrativising content, then tag clouds aggregate content. Businesses can use this information in numerous ways, a few initial thoughts: establish a new market/audience, create a (new?) community interested in the same (or similar) things, get to know (on a deeper level) the needs of your customers and by having "tidy" tag cloud businesses are able to provide that much-called-for "transparency."

For example, a company can get an rss feed of a certain term and then track its usage (there are 190,688 photos tagged with "ipod" on flickr).

How are they best structured as 'jumping off points for dialogue'?

I think it's more about it's use-value. There isn't a "best structure" for dialogue but perhaps there are rules/strategies for certain kinds of dialogues. Two key words: tag clouds can refine conversations: they are "specialised" and can become (I'm optimistic) more "sophisticated."

As for jumping off points - tag clouds always already offer serendipity not structure (other than in the most general and probably ephemeral sense). I think when Will Richardson quotes Bruce Sterling who quotes Stowe Boyd (structure? what structure?) what he is saying can also apply to the role of tag clouds in dialogue:


"Basically, conversation is moving from a very static and slow form of
conversation — the comments thread on blog posts — to a more dynamic and fast
form of conversation: into the flow in Twitter, Friendfeed, and others. I think
this directionality may be like a law of the universe: conversation moves to
where is is most social…The way I am getting tugged to blog posts is
increasingly as a mention within a conversational bite in Twitter or Friendfeed.
I then click out of the flow to see the larger post, and offer my view in the
flow — not on the blog — and then I return to the flow, where I will be spending
most of my time. This makes sense: I want to talk about the blog post with the
person who brought it to my attention, more so that with some group of strangers
at the blog, or even the author, who I may not know at all. I also don’t think
we can expect the fragmentation of the social experience to slow down: it will
get a lot worse before it gets better."

Yes, tag clouds are dynamic and (should) reflect changing ideas and changing communication and people are probably drawn to tag clouds/taggers who offer valuable information but, in the end, it IS about communication.

What can be learned from their early use in Flickr for those wishing to use them in a more strictly narrative context - should there be distinctions between the types of clouds for predominantly textual content?

At the outset when tagging was new and etiquette hadn't yet entered the scene, I think people used as many tags as they could to classify something, trying to be as open as possible. but as the use has focused so have the terms and we see people (look at delicious) using a handful of tags to describe their bookmarks instead of trying to be all encompassing

I think clouds evolve according to the information so they’re kind self–aggregating or self–describing as the info changes so I don’t think you really need a distinction between types of clouds – i think that’ll be apparent to users.

Look at the flickr tag cloud from Jan. 2007 that I included in my "Anatomy of a Tag Cloud" post and look at the current flickr tag cloud (these are both for the "all time most popular tags"):

key tags for '07 were: wedding, party, japan, friends, family, travel, london


but today look how "France" has appeared as a tag and "band". Also, both flickr tag clouds have the term "girl" but neither have "boy."

However, both clouds have the tag "me." Isn't that an answer there - tagging isn't about structure; it's all about "me"!

Do Tag Clouds in any way alter the reception of text by a reader and if so how?

I think there is an interesting difference between people who tag for themselves and those who tag for others – when there’s a clearer idea of the subject the tagging is much more concise. Readers of tag clouds might judge a site by it's cloud (judge a book by its cover?)...and come to the site with the knowledge of the value of a site or of a tag (depending on weight and size of font etc...).

I wonder whether the tags imbue readers with a certain kind of passivity or...gee, not quite sure of the word...some kind of awareness of their role as reader rather than creator? I'm wondering this because the flickr tags seem to be mostly descriptors...where are the verbs? If readers were guided by tag clouds/tags that were active (running, reading, creating, see, listen, looking) that must surely change the perception/reception of any ensuing text/story/media? I think it's about different kinds of readers and contexts (what are you searching for and why) as well as different literacies.

See Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach's tactical or strategic view:


In what other ways have Tag Clouds evolved and how do you think they might evolve in the future?



Have a look at Philipp Keller's tag history:



and read Vander Wall's own rationalising of the state of tagging.

My thoughts on the future of tagging...hrm...I think there is going to be a visual tagging service. I’m thinking of the new visual search engine that I’m beta testing (searchme.com) and I think we’ll start seeing visual tags and maybe sonic tags. Besides the richer interfaces and applications

As an educator, I'd like to see tag clouds used as a mode of assessment. I'm thinking of Janet Harris's use of Tag Crowd to analyse the MSNBC Democratic debate:






(aside: isn't there loads of interesting stuff here...note who is the only person to mention women...hrm...also note the use of "America" but one candidate chooses only to say American, keeping it more personal?)

We could generate tag clouds (of work that is handed in electronically) of the student's most-used words. Wouldn't that be a good way of showing students why it's necessary to avoid repetition if they can actually *see* the repetition? We could also use tag clouds for our lecture notes or powerpoint presentations etc...to help students get an overview of the key points we're trying to share with them. What about generating tag clouds of 18th C. lit. and current lit. to see how vocabulary changes? When I taught a
media module last term we looked at the supposed *neutrality* of reporters...but we could generate tag clouds for each reporter and compare how they write about different news items as well as compare what reporter A and report B say on news item C. hrm...seems lots of possibilities here. But, that age-old question arises... critical/digital/transliteracy: how do we *teach* students how to adequately *read* tag clouds.






buttons found at haveyouseenthisgirl on flickr.



Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

19.9.07

[folksonomy and thomas vander wal]

Yesterday I had the great pleasure of listening to Thomas Vander Wal share with us his charting of folksonomy, from its beginnings to future possibilities. He began with his definition of folksonomy (which funnily enough, Vander Wal noted, Wikipedia gets wrong):




When Vander Wal spoke about the important aspect of folksonomy, that it is a "social" activity, he reminded us that in a pre-networked world, networking was walking your floppy across the office!

The "f-word" (as Vander Wal puts it) allows "regular" folks to categorise or structure information in a way that is pertinent to them (i.e. personalised).




This aspect of personalisation has important impacts for the business sector in that it allows businesses a view of their product from the customers' point of view. Again, Vander Wal gave us a funny example of how tagging can affect your product by showing us cd available on amazon.com (see
here) and how it was tagged:



You wouldn't want your product labelled as "talentless" would you...?

So, with the help of folksonomy, businesses can move from their "top down" approach to a more open and realistic understanding of their product (or at least how it is perceived).

Vander Wal concluded his talk with an excellent visual representation of what he sees happening in certain social networking arenas:




People/users/taggers are moving from employing tags as descriptors for solely personal use to, the other end of the spectrum, where tags seem to be jumping off points for dialogues and stories (that's the bit I'm personally interested in. Especially after noticing on flickr how some photos start
so many stories).






As Vander Wal says:
"The people using the tools, including enterprise need to grasp what is possible beyond that is offered and start asking for it. We are back to where we were in 2003 when del.icio.us arrived on the scene, we need new and improved tools that understand what we need and provide usable tools for those solutions. We are developing tag islands and silos that desperately need interoperability and portability to get real value out of these stranded tag silos around or digital life."





NB apologies for the not so great photos! Annoyingly I forgot my camera (such was the excitement to attend the presentation) and to hand was only my blackberry...




Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

18.9.07

[Folksonomy: A look at a Hated Word But a Loved Resource]

2:00-3:30PM, September 18, 2007. Free and open to the public.

Room 0.01, Clephan Building, De Montfort University, Leicester UK. LE1 9BH


"Folksonomy" was recently voted one of the new terms most likely to make you "wince, shudder or want to bang your head on the keyboard." This talk by the inventor of the term – Thomas Vander Wal – will offer you a chance to make your own judgment. The talk is open to all and will not require any specialist knowledge on behalf of the audience.


A Folksonomy can be created when users of "web2.0" sites such as YouTube, Flickr, LastFM and Del.icio.us add keywords ("tags") to the items they view in order to add information about these items. As more and more users tags such items more information is created about the the items. Unlike library catalogues which are created by experts, folksonomies are like catalogues created by everyday people. For some, this heralds a brave new era of democratic information management, for others it heralds the death of expertise.


Thomas Vander Wal lives in Bethesda, Maryland, and this is a rare opportunity to hear him in the UK. He coined the term "folksonomy" in 2004 and is a popular speaker on tagging/folksonomy, social web, and web applications around well structured information. He is principal, and senior consultant at InfoCloud Solutions, a social web consulting firm. Thomas has been working professionally on the web since 1995 (with a professional IT background beginning in 1988) and has breadth and depth across many roles and disciplines around web design, social web development & research and general web development. He is a member of the Web Standards Project Steering Committee and helped found the Information Architecture Institute and Boxes & Arrows web magazine. See his web site to find out more: http://www.vanderwal.net/

The lecture is presented as part of the AHRC-funded research project Tags Networks Narratives, examining the interdisciplinary application of experimental social software to the study of narrative in digital contexts. It is a unique speculative project assessing the potential for collaborative social-software techniques such as folksonomy in narrative research. The project explores:

* What kinds of collaborative social network tools are available for the gathering and classification of information?

* Which researchers are making online narratives the focus of study, and how are those projects categorised by discipline?

* How can these researchers make effective use of social network tools to share knowledge and develop interdisciplinary collaborations?

The project is based in the Institute of Creative Technologies (IOCT) at De Montfort University, Leicester UK and is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Board from October 2006-September 2007. The project team consists of Professor Sue Thomas, Bruce Mason and Simon Mills.

The talk is organised in partnership with Production and Research in Transliteracy group http://www.transliteracy.com


For more information and directions to the venue visit http://www.ioct.dmu.ac.uk/tnn/vanderwal07.htm

See also the project site.

Labels: , , , , , ,

30.6.07

[tagging folksonomies]


Working on my presentation for the Reading Revolution seminar due to be given at Penguin headquarters on Tuesday (soooo soon!) has relight my thinking on tagging. As I was leafing through Facebook and contemplating how this site illustrates the community and collaborative spirit of contemporary literacies (i.e. transliteracy) I began to visit people's "stories" (well, feeds of their stories) rather than linking directly to people and noticed how they are tagging their status. I say "tagging" rather than narrating because the stories are more like bits of information which the reader pieces together to create a story or profile of the person/organisation. As an example, friend a "is loving his anonymous gifts" and friend b "is a pirate. Aaaarrrggghhh." These two phrases, seem to me, to work as identity or status tags, giving the reader an idea of what's going on rather than the *whole* (I mean in an entirely problematic postmodern critical kind of way) story. Does the (over)use of the copula "to be" signify anything about people's states; in perpetuum?

Facebook has the new tagging application so users can tag (describe) friends...I've started describing myself (is that ego-tagging?). What I'd like to know: is Facebook tagging evolving in ways similar to delicious (using oft' cited tags rather than creating new ones, working with the community, etc...). In other words, are there "standards" for Facebooking? I wonder if tagging is moving from user-centric preferences to community-centric?





xposted at Frontline Books

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

3.4.07

[AI Meets Web 2.0: Building the Web of Tomorrow, Today]



Imagine an Internet-scale knowledge system where people and intelligent agents can collaborate on solving complex problems in business, engineering, science, medicine, and other endeavors. Its resources include semantically tagged websites, wikis, and blogs, as well as social networks, vertical search engines, and a vast array of web services from business processes to AI planners and domain models. Research prototypes of decentralized knowledge systems have been demonstrated for years, but now, thanks to the web and Moore’s law, they appear ready for prime time. This article introduces the architectural concepts for incrementally growing an Internet-scale knowledge system and illustrates them with scenarios drawn from e-commerce, e-science, and e-life.

Jay M. Tenenbaum

From AI Magazine, Winter Issue (Volume 27 Number 4)

Labels: , , , , ,

14.2.07

[literacy 2.0: born digital?]

This was originally posted over at Frontline Books.

literacy_final
I have spent the past week mulling over the thought-provoking comments to last week’s blog post. I’ve also been pondering the various responses (online and e-mail) to the “Web 2.0: The Machine is Us/ing Us” video. Ranging from a tangible enthusiasm, to a general malaise towards all things with the suffix two point oh, to wary placations that “we still have day jobs,” I’m left wondering why there are such divided reactions. The “us” and the “them?” Marc Prensky says “digital natives” are born into technology and thus are “’native speakers’ of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet.” Prensky also has a term for those of the Luddite persuasion; “digital immigrants” might adopt “most aspects” of the techy environment but will always retain their “accent.” So, no matter how fluent one might get in technospeak, it’ll never sound like its “natural.” Hrm…I would have to disagree with both the idea and the terminology employed (are we back in the dark ages?!). As an aside, to what conclusions might one leap when noticing that Prensky’s blog hasn’t been updated since early Sept. 2006.

bloom_taxonomy2Previously, my ideological position has been that literacy *must* be taught. The idea that there is a graspable notion of what literacy is and armed with plenty of teaching supplies, even the most reticent student will *learn* to appreciate the pleasure of the printed page. Not to sound too dogmatic... What about transliteracy? How can it be taught, explained, fathomed, when we’re still attempting to understand it as it unfolds?


literacy_blossomsBut times and technologies change and so must we. And so, this week I’ve relived my own first forays into the technologically designed world. I remember the curiosity the glowing green screen provoked and the initial one-to-one sessions (between the computer and I) I experienced as more of a devoir rather than a pleasure. How times, and I, have changed. I now adoringly caress the slight indentations I’ve created on my oft’ used keys. I smile at the thought of the measureless hours I’ve spent at the computer, the smudged stickers and worn sheen as evidence. The computer now is much more than a device that allows me to follow academic guidelines (no handwritten essays accepted) but has become a mode of communication.


look out for the blackberry about 3mins in - yay Canada!


time_mag_cover




The point of this interlude into my consciousness is to highlight the necessity of time and collaboration inherent in most learning. I do not think that transliteracy can simply be *taught.* From the comments and responses to the web 2.0 video that are flowing online, I’m beginning to see transliteracy as more of an evolution between collaborators (person-to-person, person-to-computer, person-mode), a testimony to the level of comfort one might have with the various modes available. Perhaps certain examples can be given (Chris Joseph and I are currently working on this) to help elaborate the different modes at work (as mentioned in last week’s post: visual, aural, kinaesthetic, textual) but like any literacy, transliteracy will come with time, experience, and comfort. Additionally, transliteracy suggests a sense of a wider world. While you might only see your reflection in the screen, there are millions of others online with you. In this sense, transliteracy engenders a collaborative and participatory ethos (such as commenting on a blog post or folksonomy). We can read across modes, but we can also interact and communicate in various ways and in/at different times. Literacy might have an “i”, emphasising the subjective process, however, the “i” is not solitary.

Perhaps one point of agreement: transliteracy is distributed and participatory. How do you, born digital or not, read, write, and think across networks and modes? What are you earliest memories of digitalis? Have your initial feelings given way to others? Do you have an accent?

trackback

Labels: , , , , , , ,

24.1.07

[anatomy of a tag cloud]

We all know what tag clouds are, usually text of varying sizes indicating importance and frequence of said idea. Wikipedia (the ever trusty resource) notes that tag clouds were first used by flickr (yay web 2.0) and:




can be used as a visual depiction of content tags used on a website. Often, more frequently used tags are depicted in a larger font or otherwise emphasized, while the displayed order is generally alphabetical. Thus both finding a tag by alphabet and by popularity is possible. Selecting a single tag within a tag cloud will generally lead to a collection of items that are associated with that tag.

Just have a look at flickr's "all time most popular tags":

However, I wonder if tagging today has evolved into something more than just words. Does tagging have links with the way people tag and how they represent knowledge? Recently I read about tagging people (not sure I would want to see tags people associate with me!), a del.icio.us for people. Melanie Swann has an interesting approach to this next generation of tagging here. According to Melanie, tagging people would include "tagging people with words; annotating their interest areas, likes and dislikes, how you know them, where you met them and probably many other aspects of meta data." Hrm...good idea but only if you can edit the tags!

Rashmi Sinha presents a social analysis view of the way people use information through tagging. If "
our concepts and languages are constantly in flux. If tagging systems allow a loose coordination of terms across people, then the question arises: "What role do tagging systems play in ebb and flow of concepts." Exactly. An fun project might conduct an analysis of tag clouds and attempt to track the changes in descriptions, tags, and consistency that occur over time and with users. Also, one could look at the anatomy of trackbacks and how that might play into folksonomy.

Just look at how these tag clouds seem to embody the sites/ideas to which they are related.

The Felixstowe Scribblers, a "writers circle" based in Felixstowe:


PaRT: Production and Research in Transliteracy, a new research group of which I am a member:






The IoCT tag cloud:









Importantly, if you have thoughts on folksonomy or tagging in general, why not contribute to current research based at the IoCT? Here is the call for participants:


TAGS NETWORKS NARRATIVE
Exploring the use of tagging and folksonomy in digital narrative research.
* Tagging as a form of communication.
* Folksonomy as an emergent knowledge network.
* Narrative as a common ground.

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
We are interested in the ways in which academic researchers studying narratives might develop people-to-people models of knowledge-sharing across disciplines. To that end, we are seeking researchers working in any type of narrative in any discipline to include in our database of projects and individuals. We would also welcome your suggestions for other researchers who might like to hear from us.

REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION
We are especially interested in researchers who are willing to participate in our tagging experiments, due to take place Spring 2007. For more information please contact Bruce Mason as soon as possible at bmason01@dmu.ac.uk.

THE PROJECT
Tags Networks Narrative is a unique speculative project exploring the potential for collaborative keyword tagging (folksonomy) in narrative research. We want to know:
- What kinds of collaborative social network tools are available for the gathering and classification of information?
- Which researchers are making online narratives the focus of study, and how are those projects categorised by discipline?
- How can these researchers make effective use of social network tools to share knowledge and develop interdisciplinary collaborations?

The project is based in the
Institute of Creative Technologies (IOCT) at DeMontfort University and funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Boardfrom October 2006-September 2007. The Project Team comprises Professor Sue Thomas, Simon Mills and Bruce Mason.

If you'd like to be involved in the research, add your information to our database, or just be kept informed, please contact Bruce Mason at bmason01@dmu.ac.uk.


Labels: , , , , ,