I would like to propose a THATcamp session where I discuss the versatility and useability  of TEI, by comparing aspects of three TEI-projects I was involved in: the Streuvels letters and the correspondence between Gust Gils and Paul Snoek (both in the Centre for Scholarly Editing and Document Studies (CTB) of the Royal Academy of Dutch Language and Literature), as well as the DABNAP (Digital Archive of Belgian Neo-Avant-garde Periodicals) project from the University of Antwerp. With this, I hope to provide insight in the many ways in which TEI can be useful within a library context, as wel as provide some insight in TEI and markup language itself.

If scholarship is constantly changing as a result of new digital tools, resources and methods, why shouldn’t academic education evolve along? This session will concentrate on the usefulness of integrating digital tools and digitised (re)sources in academic trainings and courses (Bachelor and Master). By way of introduction, some applications that already serve as a pedagogic tool within the Faculty of Arts and Humanities will be clarified and discussed.

Subsequently both lecturers and instructors, students and other participants will be invited to share their own experiences about the opportunities and limitations they are faced with during their digitally supported teaching and learning process, and to take part in the discussion on the expectations, needs and requirements for the development and management of digitally based educational support in general, and virtual learning environments in particular.

We hope to meet you on Tuesday,
Els and Nina

Together with some colleagues I set up an International Network for Theory of History (INTH) which aims to foster collaboration and the exchange of ideas among historical theorists worldwide. After having talked about it for a long time, we started intensively preparing the establishment of the network in 2011 and finally launched it early 2012. Because our research field is very fragmented — with many scholars working in different linguistic and academic traditions, often at the periphery of long-established academic disciplines and frequently in relative isolation — we wanted our network to be as inclusive as possible. We figured it was best not to define in advance what should be considered as historical theory and what not. Rather we wanted to take a community-based approach in which potential participants would identify themselves, their/our field and its main problems and potentialities.

It was clear to us from the start that we would need a wide range of digital tools: we definitely needed a website, we wanted an online community-based bibliography for which we used Zotero, wanted a worldwide directory of researchers for which people could make their own member-pages, we wanted a news function based on a blog-structure to which people could freely contribute, etc.

Yet, the very openness and community-based character of our network and its digital tools also posed some challenges: mainly evolving around the question how we could guarantee a certain qualitative standard and a certain thematic coherence to our network. A lot of dilemmas, some of which we think we solved, while other remain on the table. I would like to share our findings and am very interested in any of your ideas on how to solve particular problems concerning a community based research network.