Zack's Log

After a long week with little sleep, followed by a night out with friends, I decided that today would be a sleep day. I didn’t set an alarm, I got up late, and I took my time.

Throughout the day I received no emails, no text messages, no spammy newsletters, and no other kinds of notifications. It’s amazing that I find this strange. I never realized how much stress is caused by those little red bubbles telling me that something needs my attention, or that I have to respond to whoever is on the other end. Don’t get me wrong, I want to interact with friends and be up to date on various activities, but it’s important to tune all of that out once in a while.

I’m glad that my sleep day went beyond just turning off my alarm. It’s funny how things work out that way.

As an avid sci-fi fanatic I’m extremely interested in the ways that different kinds of people perceive the future. Recently I’ve been exchanging letters with my 102 year-old great aunt who, despite her age, is not lacking any curiosity about the world around her. I’m always interested in her opinions about the future, because she has lived through so much and has remarkable experiences to base her visions on. Lately we’ve been talking a lot about space exploration and the things that humankind has accomplished, and what we have yet to achieve. I’ve been trying to find some books to send her and I found a document published in 1958 called Introduction to Outer Space (I collated a PDF and mirrored it on this blog, in case anyone’s interested in reading it). This pamphlet was published by U.S. President Eisenhower’s Science Advisory Committee that explains some of the details that are faced when launching satellites, rockets, and other kinds of vehicles and equipment into space.  This pamphlet was originally addressed to the former president himself and was therefore written in a way that a layman (or even a politician) could understand.

It’s a very interesting read, highlighting the general attitude towards space exploration during the late 1950s, 11 years before humans stepped foot on the moon. It also includes a general timeline of research objectives and potential feats that scientists of the time believed would be accomplished soon. Among the items on this list, only one is still incomplete.

For this sixth blog post for Writing the Field, I will review a very strong conference presentation. My aim is to examine the structure of the presentation and other aspects relating to form and mode of communication. I chose to watch a recording of Tom Brughmans’ presentation entitled Networks of networks: a critical review of formal network methods in archaeology through citation network analysis and close reading, which he gave at Digital Humanities 2012 at the University of Hamburg in July 2012. Brughmans conducted a citation analysis centered on archaeological publications that utilized network analysis. The research that Brughmans presents is very well suited for this conference, as he utilized network analysis to examine how others in his field have used these tools, which are often encompassed under the umbrella of digital humanities.

Notably, Brughmans does not use slide-based presentation software such as Microsoft Powerpoint or Apple Keynote, but instead uses Prezi. Prezi allows you to present your work as if it is all laid out on a canvas, and enables you to zoom and pan along as you focus in on finer details or depict a broader scheme. It is a highly visual teaching aid that allows a viewer to gain a clear conceptual picture of the content, akin to a map composed of many scales. Prezi is especially useful to present research composed of various embedded components, such as Brughmans’ work. He examined how a set of 70 initial publications cited each other, and also looked at other ‘degrees’ of citations that extend from these initial works (the interrelations between all citations of these 70 publications, and all citations of these citations in turn).

Interestingly, I noticed that I focused less on the physicality of Brughmans, as I was so engaged with the visual aspect of the presentation. However, he still maintained a presence as a narrator, guiding the viewer through the introduction, the data and methods, the various degrees of analysis, and the conclusions. It’s reminiscent of Khan Academy videos, wherein you only see the depictions of the concepts on a multi-scalar black background, drawn as you go along with the course, but you never Salman Khan’s face. One flaw I noticed, however, is that there were many long sentences used throughout, which Brughmans read almost verbatim. Instead, I think it would be better to keep these points abbreviated, elaborating on them based on more detailed notes kept behind the podium.

Also interesting, is that Brughmans presented his work as a narrative, pointing out how his analyses either confirmed his expectations or surprised him. When his results were unexpected, he explained his thought processes that led him to take the next step of his analyses. Brughmans was also sure to point out the amount of work that he put in, especially regarding manual data entry. This helped illustrate some of the limitations that he faced and how it would be difficult for anyone to overcome them, considering the size of the dataset. In spite of this, it’s a good way of showing to the audience that he was directly involved in collecting, mining, analyzing, and interpreting the data, and that this research was entirely dependant on his efforts.

Overall, I think that this presentation was very good. I look forward to seeing him present in person sometime in the near future.

This 5th blog post for Writing the Field takes looks at what I consider a great article and a poor one. I will primarily examine writing style and form, and other aspects relating to structure. Read more »

For this week’s Writing the Field blog post, I annotated 3 articles that are relevant to my own research.  Read more »

One of my interests is the utilization of software and hardware to effectively get things done. Beyond formulating my own workflows, I am interested in discovering novel ways that others arrange their digital desktops. After discussing digital workflows in my writing class a couple weeks ago, I started using Sente, a reference management application. I’ve used Zotero before for similar purposes, but I found it difficult to navigate around the interface comfortably and I ended up abandoning it. Sente on the other hand, has a more familiar user interface, conforming to the style of the other apps that I use on a regular basis. However, it is lacking some of the functionality that other refernece management apps have. After looking into other options I found that no software has everything that I’m looking for in one neat package.

So I began imagining the ultimate reference management application. I sometimes come up with visions of an app I wish someone would make, but they tend to simply remain as visions. I’ve posted one great idea on this blog back in October, about how I would design an ideal library app.¹ Writing about it on my blog really helped me develop my ideas, so below is a rough brainstorm of some ways I’d like it to work if faced with no obstacles.

Read more »

1. After bouncing my ideas off friends and colleagues, and discovering that this solution is actually useful, novel, and in demand, I’m hoping to team up with some of the librarians at McMaster to develop it. There is interest in it, but I must wait for administrative shuffles to be made before proceeding. [↩]

This third blog post for Writing the Field is a review of an Annual Reviews of Anthropology article. The article I chose to examine is titled Aspects of Regional Analysis in Archaeology by Gregory A. Johnson, published in 1977. Although it is not so recent, this article covers some fundamental developments regarding regional analysis in archaeology.

This article is very well laid out, starting with an overview of the broader assumptions archaeologists make regarding human decision making, and how these variables translate to our ideas regarding spatial interaction. Johnson then goes on to evaluate how these variables are applied, choosing to examine gravity models in greater detail. By discussing some of the key concepts that underlie this kind of model, Johnson prepares to engage the reader in discussions about how regional systems of interaction develop and operate.

The way that Johnson wrote this paper is well-thought out. He starts off by pointing towards some basic concepts that underlie the study of regional interaction. This allows non-specialized readers to engage with the language and the modes of thought that are commonly utilized when discussing such topics. Then he utilizes the gravity model to show how these fundamental principles can be fitted together in order to examine regional interaction, and also describes some deficiencies of this concept. By pointing out flaws associated with use of the gravity model, Johnson actually enhances the reader’s understanding of how the fundamental variables discussed earlier should be properly utilized. Johnson recognizes this and even goes on to say that “if gravity models provide nothing else, they do encourage archaeologists to consider more systematically the variables involved in interaction” (Johnson 1977:487).

Once the reader grasps how to properly understand and interpret ideas relating to regional interaction, Johnson goes on to discuss more complex issues that have been tackled using such a perspective. This portion of the article provides a more in depth look at the development of systems of interaction, which is embedded in discussions on the adoption of sedentary lifestyles and agricultural practices. These topics could not have been discussed through a lens of regional interaction without a prior understanding of the concepts relating to this sub-specialty.

As much as this article is a review of contemporary discussions concerning the development of systems of interaction, it also acts as an explanatory piece that shows how to properly formulate and interpret ideas relating to this sub-specialty. In addition to reviewing some basic principles of the study of regional interaction, Johnson highlights some novel ways of thinking about state formation, the growth of certain sites over others, and the development of hierarchies. These ideas all fit within the framework that he develops throughout the article, building upon examples that were mentioned earlier.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Johnson, G.A. 1977 Aspects of Regional Analysis in Archaeology. Annual Reviews of Anthropology (6):479-508.

The second blog post for Writing the Field is meant to outline a piece of writing that I hope to complete this semester. I decided that I will work on an introduction to my MA thesis, explaining my research goals and defining the paramaters of my inquiries. Admittedly, I have had a hard time defining my research question, and I really need to solidify my research objectives.

My MA research will utilize social network analysis to gain a better understanding of regional interactions from the Epi-Palaeolithic to the Chalcolithic in SW Asia and Mesopotamia. Using obsidian sourcing data I will construct a network of interaction in order to document the growing complexity of regional exchange that was occurring during this broad period. During the Pre-Pottery Neolithic obsidian begins to be traded more widely, and objects are often found very distant from their volcanic sources. It is my intention to document and explain the growing complexity of interaction in this region, similarly to how Golitko et al. (2012) examined the obsidian exchange from the Mayan Classic to Postclassic periods. Certain ‘groupings’ of sites that consumed obsidian in a similar manner (either by source, typology, use or context of deposition) will become more evident through SNA methods, and I hope to compare these groupings to the occurrence of other archaeological materials (pottery styles, architectural motifs, burial customs, etc).

At the moment my thoughts are scattered, and I need to pick up the pieces and arrange them nicely. My research question is not very well-thought out, and I’m having a hard time coming up with an brief ‘elevator pitch’ that accurately describes what I am working on. By collecting my thoughts and writing them out I will be able to solidify my ideas and come up with a concrete research objective. Essentially I will describe how obsidian was used throughout prehistory in SW Asia and Mesopotamia, and how archaeologists have made use of the obsidian data. These are the benefits of introducing my thesis in this way:

• By outlining how obsidian was procured, manufactured and consumed, I provide a glimpse of the assumptions I’m making.
• It goes over the history of the examination of obsidian, describing past interpretations by archaeologists. Of course, emphasis will be placed on studies of regional interaction. This also gives me an opportunity to reflect on ideas developed by archaeologists who do not specialize in this region.
• It sets my research within broader archaeological debates.
• It allows me to segway into the benefits of using SNA methods.
• Most importantly, it allows me to set up the necessary ‘foundations’ that need to be explained before I get to my research objective. I find it difficult to just talk about what I am researching without situating my work within broader discussions. I find that all of the above is necessary to evoke before introducing my work.

This introductory chapter will probably exceed the 20-25 pages expected for this class. However, I do find it necessary to complete this chapter before the summer, when I will be compiling a database of obsidian artefacts. Having a proper understanding of your objectives is necessary in order to collect relevant data.

I will divide this piece of writing into components, and assign due dates for each one. The final piece is due April 12. The component outlining the production and consumption of obsidian will be due February 24. The part examining past archaeological interpretations of obsidian will be due March 15. A finished draft will be due March 20 and a second draft will be due March 27, as is stated in the course syllabus.

I’ll also post the outlines for each component, listing all the aspects I will cover. Maybe I’ll make a google doc, and I’ll write in a different colour every time I add contrent or change things around. This will make me think critically about how I write since it is being shown to a wider audience, and it will allow me to see my train of thought once this is all finished. Also, if any of my peers in this class have any suggestions they can comment on the google doc. But perhaps this is taking things too far, I don’t want to write in fear of constant criticism. On the other hand, this kind of pressure can act as a great motivator. I like the idea of writing in non-isolation, and I was even thinking about regularly writing in this wordpress text editor  because I somehow feel more comfortable blogging. I think that it has to do with the public exposure and the relative informality that I associate with blogging. I feel that it would be beneficial to apply the way I blog to my academic writing, so maybe this is the way to go? Dr. Roddick talks about how we need to make writing more social, but does this also imply complete transparency? Perhaps I’ll try this out, and if it doesn’t work I’ll call it quits and go back to ‘normal’ writing.

EDIT: After thinking about it, I’m considering doing a literature review instead, looking towards other relevant studies. This accomplishes the same goal, and the only thing I’ll be removing really is the first portion regarding the production and consumption of obsidian.

EDIT 2: After some more contemplation I’ve settled on a topic. Essentially I’ll be answering these questions:

How have archaeologists looked at obsidian circulation, and how can SNA be used to engage in these discussions?

EDIT 3: I realize that I never provided a concrete outline for this, so I included one below:

1. Introduction to this chapter

2. Obsidian characterization

• How it works
• Early endeavours at obsidian sourcing

3. Obsidian characterization and the study of exchange

• In SW Asia and Mesopotamia
• In other regions

4. Social network analysis in archaeological, anthropological and historical research

• Using SNA to research regional interaction
• Using objects/material culture
• Using other kinds of sources

5. How my project contributes to broader discussions/conclusion

In order to improve upon my writing abilities, it is first necessary to recognize the workflows that I tend to follow. This blog post is meant to be a reflection of my current writing processes, noting the conditions that enable me to write best, and also the factors that slow me down and cause writers block.

I’m going to start off on a positive note. What are the conditions that enable me to write well, get on a roll, and hammer down ideas like it’s nobody’s business? First of all, I like writing in a busy environment. I like working in coffee shops, atriums, lobbies, libraries or even household kitchens or living rooms. However, I prefer to be by myself at the same time. I know this seems contradictory, but I must be isolated within a crowd in order to do my best writing, like sitting alone in a coffee shop for instance. If I am forced to write at a desk in my room, away from hustle and bustle, I tend to play some ambient instrumental music, which gets me into a rhythm. This helps the ideas flow onto a page, and allows me to skip over a troubled sentence, preserving the rhythm that the song provides for me. I can go for hours like this without leaving my desk, and if I get up to get some water or do some other mundane task, this ‘roll’ will probably be over when I get back.

I find that when I write productively I enter a certain mindset that breaks very easily. Before I start I try to conclude my prior thoughts, perhaps by finishing up my leisurely online reading list or sending off an email that I’ve been contemplating about. But this can backfire, I can find an article that links me to a chain of other articles, or I could get side-tracked into dealing with whatever the email is about.

I also try to make sure that everything I need is within arms reach. I close every non-relevant program on my computer, I open the most important sources on my PDF reader/browser (I find that reading PDFs in Chrome is best), and I clear my desk so only essential things are right next to me. I have a pretty broad desk that allows me to spread out, but some coffee shops have very small tables that don’t permit you to stretch out.

After reflecting on my writing habits, it seems that I work in two stages. First I try to get my main ideas onto paper (or rather a word processor) in a cohesive and comprehensive way. I find that once these ideas are down, which is often the main challenge for me, supplementary work is much easier. This would consist of reorganizing and smoothing out paragraphs, transitioning ideas, linking back to the thesis, or adding examples or analogies to illustrate a point. I sometimes get side-tracked when doing this. I could get carried away with a certain side-point that I try to emphasize too much, or I could be looking for an example from previous work on the topic when I stumble across another somewhat relevant article that takes me in a different direction. I often have to remind myself that I have a paper to write, and that I have to continue on the course that I laid out. So the ‘roll’, the uninterruptible mindset that enables me to get a paper finished, could be applied to both of these stages of writing.

If there’s one way to characterize my writing process, it’s this: once I’m in ‘the zone’ I tend to be very productive. It’s getting there, and staying there, that is the main challenge for me.

This semester I enrolled in a writing course called Writing the Field taught by Dr. Andy Roddick, and I am very excited about it. I hope to gain more confidence in my writing, and be able to convey the thoughts in my head more clearly. In addition to working on a piece of writing throughout the semester, one of the requirements is to maintain a blog. Since I already have one I’ll be writing the required posts here, in addition to my regular ramblings. Here is an overview of what I’ll be writing about:

• #1 – Your writing workflow: A blog post on your writing process and a reflection of what slows you down, or where writer’s block emerges.
• #2 – An Outline: A basic outline of the writing you wish to complete this semester.
• #3 – Review of a “Reviews in Anthropology” article: Find an article pertinent to your work and analyze the strengths of the literature review.
• #4 – Knowing your audience & recognizing the skeleton of written work: Annotations of 3 articles in 3 Anthropological journals.
• #5 – The Good and the Bad: Discussion of what makes articles fail and succeed by looking at an excellent article and a weak one.
• #6 – Review of a good presentation: Within the department, at a conference, or from a Youtube link.

I think blogging is a great medium for a course like this. Blogging can help students gain confidence in their writing abilities, formulate ideas that can be shared and discussed, balance the formality of academic writing, and develop a presence among peers. I find that blogging is easier to do than writing a formal piece, as I tend to consider blogging more ‘active’. I want this view to change. Both blogging and ‘formal’ academic writing should be considered active, and these lessons just described should be applied to any piece of work. By the end of the course I hope I’ll be able to apply my current mindset regarding blogging to other forms of writing as well.