Tag Archives: Reviews

Playing with Palladio

Just like a kid at a table, I was given some preformed clay and told to make some beautiful works.  Not having to do “the set up”, Palladio was relatively easy to get “into” network analysis and start messing around.   Palladio is a “general-purpose suite of visualization and analytical tools” that enables researchers to map and graph humanities data. (http://hdlab.stanford.edu/palladio/about/)  When we are discussing data here we mean “corpus” (techie term – compilations for the rest of us) of, in my case, the historian’s research (people, events, addresses, dates, contacts, documents, etc.).   The data can be vast amounts of material (text, photographs, tables, etc.) or relatively small collections.   The software in the platform through the use of algorithms (sets of directions) transforms our element (node) into a “plotable point on a map or graph.  The schema for assembling, disassembling and reassembling produces various kinds of maps, graphs, constellations all with the associated metadata accessible.  These manipulations draw (“edges” for the techies) “connections and patterns” (for the rest of us) that can be seen.   These “visualizations” foster enhanced understanding of the data itself and make obvious how elements within the data are connected or not and because of the ability to “play” (isolating “ALL” the variables and being able to test relationships or time series, in space or against a physical map) new questions are brought to the researchers mind, hypothesis can be verified and various problems or possibilities can be explored and addressed.  Our ‘Ideas’ become pictures that enable us to work with them, without losing track of them, from various perspectives.

The designers of Palladio built it for mapping the correspondence metadata of a project called “The Republic of Letters” which explores the connections of Enlightenment Intellectuals and  the transference of ideas through their letters.  (Visualize massive amounts of text in multiple languages).   Palladio understands the historian’s mind and methodology,

“It is an environment that supports thinking through data. Like so many historical sources, the (data) is incomplete in unpredictable ways. Historians work with fragments of information from the past, not complete data sets. ..tools need to support scholars in building an understanding of the historical material through working with it. To create Palladio, we had to externalize what is a very internal, individual, thought process. “  http://hdlab.stanford.edu/palladio/about/

My trial experience working with Palladio centered around a data set created by Prof. Robertson from the Works Progress Administration Slave Narratives. (https://www.loc.gov/collections/slave-narratives-from-the-federal-writers-project-1936-to-1938/about-this-collection/ ) Since I was able to upload ‘Palladio prepared data’, I was able to avoid a time consuming task of aligning my data for Palladio manipulation.

It was relatively fast and easy to create the primary table (main data set) against which other tables (elements of the data) could be manipulated.  For the Slave Data, the primary data set was the Alabama Slave Interviews and the subtables were identifications of the former slaves that were interviewed and data about the interviewers.  Once the tables are created, they can be analyzed with various tools including locating the slaves/interviews on a map, drawing connections between an interviewer and the slaves interviewed, creating network analysis of various types by the individual elements within the data sets.  The “visualizations” I made included maps, string and cloud diagrams (okay I admit– I got interested and played with time series and graphs as well).   It was fascinating and time consuming to try different arrangements that suggested unique relationships, impact of place and Slave occupation.  Also revealed were limits in the veracity of the data (not a reliable reflection of slave tasks or a true reflection of statewide representation), but also new issues to consider, such as how does the gender of the interviewer impact the questions used in an oral history interview?

Palladio describes itself as “a tool for reflective practice.”  Both Scott Weingart (“Networks Demystified” Blog December 5, 2013) and Ryan Cordell (“Reprinting, Circulation and the Network Author in Antebellum Newspapers”),  call to our attention that compiled data has its issues, in the same way normal archival research has gaps and biases and snags.  It is easy to see how visualizations could cause erroneous interpretations.  And truly the data is just a picture of the facts and still requires interpretation as to its meaning and significance.  So the mind and integrity of the historian is still crucial to good history…but new Playdough is always fun and creative!

CARTODB  The Power & Limits of Perspective!

In Women’s Studies, we examine concepts from different points of view.  Engaging in the idea that ‘it matters where you are standing’, because what you are experiencing shapes your interpretation of the problem or context.  Indulging in the examination of a variety of perspectives does not always lead to a conclusion or an answer, but it imparts a fuller and more complex understanding of the issues being addressed.

CARTODB opens the opportunity for novice geeks to play with data and visualize information from a different perspective.  The key word here is “visualize”.  Mapping allows everyone!  (if I were writing a grant I would say, ‘the general public as well as scholars and students’); to “see” human experience in new configurations.  Ideas are sometimes hard to follow, but evidence for an idea can be provided by demonstrating connections and patterns and “placing” the idea onto a map.   A created map is “a map” which displays information, but CARTO has widgets for interactive time sequences, pull ups for additional material or explanations for aspects of the map.  The process of building the map, plugging in ‘layers’ (multiple data sets) of data into a ‘corpus’ (total collection), is exciting for the researcher because it allows them to “play” with ideas!   For example, in analyzing the Slave Narratives using different map views (point identification, “heat” (concentration) or time sequencing) reveals different aspects of the Slave Narrative project – its limitations and biases as well as providing a great deal of information on the slaves and the interviewers.  This type of mass collation and presentation preparation would take years without the speed of computing.  But the computer cannot interpret the meaning of the data.

Mapping allows for the interpretation of large quantities of data, and the consultation of a wider scope of resources. (Tom Hitchcock “Historyonics”).  The caveat being that the data has to be in a digital format, this is a limiting factor and the limitations of whatever ‘data set’ is being used should be recognized.  Sharon Musher (in Oxford Handbook of the African American Slave Narratives) makes an excellent and pertinent reminder of how even a seemingly large and comprehensive set of information can be misleading in its content.  Great questions that mapping answers are locations, patterns and relationships (who is where and when and how does that change over time).  However mapping allows us to see the significance of these relationships in new ways.  As in Digital Harlem, where the placement of a patrol officer on a street corner and involvement in traffic accidents can now be understood as intersections of racial politics. (Robertson).

A bonus is that skeptics of the value of history (like Tom Hitchcock) will have something concrete, built on numerical manipulation that they can “see” as evidence, because ideas may seem too fuzzy for them to comprehend.  CARTODB is a fabulous tool for allowing the explorer of an event, a neighborhood, the spread of ideas globally, the impact of words, or as in the Slave Narratives…the impact of human actions, individually and communally, from more perspectives.

Make no mistake, working with CARTODB is interfacing with computing.  It requires patience for the tedious and repetitive steps of data entry, learning the “tools” and patterns of operations within the program and is never as ‘intuitive’ as the newbie wants it to be.  After my initial foray, I can see, as with my phone and Voyant, the more the platform is used, the easier, more fluid and of course faster the user will become.  I just keep praying that eventually the very act of learning this type of tool will become more fluid.  If you are a person that needs to understand the overall picture of the tool, some time spent in on-line helps and guides is worthwhile.  If you are a person who is a digital native or who doesn’t get frustrated by getting stuck and starting over, dive right in.

A review of the American History & Life Metadata Search for Popcorn

A search for related information about my Whirly Pop popcorn maker yielded:  Popped Culture: A Social History of Popcorn in America” (Book)

Bowl of popped corn
Wikimedia Commons

It is very important that the Metadata mentions after the title that this object is a book.  Since I searched for popcorn…it might have been anything.

The American History & Life Fields included the Author (Trudy Eden), the Source  (H-Net Reviews in the Humanities & Social Sciences. Jul2004, p1-6. 6p.); The Historical Period (1830 to 1999); The Document Type (Book Review) ; Subject Terms POPCORN, NONFICTION, SOCIAL change; Keywords (Andrew F. Smith important as he is the author of Popped Culture),  Reviews & Products (This took me to another review by Philip Hiscock in Ethnologies), Abstract, Notes (incl. Publication Information: Washington: Smithsonian Inst. Pr., 2001. 264 pp.), Author Affiliations (Department of History, University of Northern Iowa), ISSN (1538-0661), Accession Number (15099661)

This Metadata did not include a Description or Summary Field that would have given me an idea about the review.  Although the Period was identified, the context of the object was not.  A “Review” for social change is not the same thing as “Review” for ethnography (which only came from knowing the nature of the publications for the different reviews). The publication information did not let me know if the book was drawn from an exhibit or independent research on the topic – which might have been included as part of the exhibit).

I appreciated the embedded links made searching the related sites and information quick and easy.

The Author information and Reviews and Products information made it possible for me to “place” this review in some of the fields of history to which it belongs (ethnography and Social change).  It did not tell me if the reviewer is a significant person in the field.  The subject field was very limited as it did not lead me to any other potential resources or search terms for my Popcorn maker – like Cooking or any information about the location of the subject other than (America) or its connection to industries like theaters or circuses.  It did not identify related materials (if it was in an exhibit) or if this book covered the entire history of popcorn or just a period of popcorn or if this was the epitome of Popcorn and there has been a decline since.

My search of the metadata of the American History & Life reinforces my conclusions described in my Search Review.