Listen to Episode No.1 of All We Mean, a Special Focus of this podcast. All We Mean is an ongoing discussion and debate about how we mean and why. The guests on today's episode are Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, professors at the University of Illinois. We talk about what meaning actually is.Meaning is form, and meaning is function. Meaning is made, for example, when a scientist sees the image of a celestial object which till that very moment has been unseen by human eye. But meaning is also made by the novelist who just narrates this same scene, because in truth, the celestial object in question is not really in our universe and doesn't actually exist at all.Meaning can be devious like that — but only if we make it so. Because that's the real idea here about meaning: It's human. Meaning is the one term which may truly describe the entire human project. But do not let me fool you. It's not like meaning denies or somehow escapes the physical world. Meaning does, for sure, occur in our inner consciousness and mind, but the fact of this reality has no priority over the reality of the world out there. No, much the opposite. The two realities condition and recreate one another. And it's here that we should really be looking for meaning, because this sort of intersecting is precisely the sort of work we humans excel at. Equally, we excel at grinding it all to halt, as for example when we deny a fact or we exclude a person or we destroy an image or a document or a statue.Perhaps — just think for a moment — perhaps that celestial object I mentioned really does exist and isn't the figment of some novelist. Perhaps it's the novelist who is the figment here. Perhaps the celestial object really is out there, only we can't prove it anymore because the image and the evidence have been shredded by an envious rival scientist. Where there is meaning, there too are humans. Thus, interest will always figure in. It would appear, then, that real neutrality was the figment here — but we'll leave that topic to a future episode of All We Mean. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Archive Everything: Mapping the Everyday (MIT Press, 2016; paperback edition, 2023), Gabriella Giannachi traces the evolution of the archive into the apparatus through which we map the everyday. The archive, traditionally a body of documents or a site for the preservation of documents, changed over the centuries to encompass, often concurrently, a broad but interrelated number of practices not traditionally considered as archival. Archives now consist of not only documents and sites but also artworks, installations, museums, social media platforms, and mediated and mixed reality environments. Giannachi tracks the evolution of these diverse archival practices across the centuries.Archives today offer a multiplicity of viewing platforms to replay the past, capture the present, and map our presence. Giannachi uses archaeological practices to explore all the layers of the archive, analyzing Lynn Hershman Leeson's !Women Art Revolution project, a digital archive of feminist artists. She considers the archive as a memory laboratory, with case studies that include visitors' encounters with archival materials in the Jewish Museum in Berlin and projects like heritage projects organized by the Exeter City Football Club Supporters Trust. She discusses the importance of participatory archiving, examining the “multimedia roadshow” Digital Diaspora Family Reunion as an example. She explores the use of the archive in works that express the relationship between ourselves and our environment, citing Andy Warhol’s time capsules and Ant Farm, among others. And she looks at the transmission of the archive through the body in performance, bioart, and database artworks, closing with a detailed analysis of Lynn Hershman Leeson's Infinity Engine.Jen Hoyer is Technical Services and Electronic Resources Librarian at CUNY New York City College of Technology. Jen edits for Partnership Journal and organizes with the TPS Collective. She is co-author of What Primary Sources Teach: Lessons for Every Classroom and The Social Movement Archive. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Dr. Miranda Vinay, full-time editor at Communications Engineering (a Nature Portfolio journal) and also currently Locum Associate Editor for electronics, photonics, devices, 2D materials, and applied physics at Nature. We talk about planning before writing, because it's the surest way to structure the arguments for the value of your research.interviewer : "And you know, one of the main things that I think that gets missed in research training is just that, logical argumentation. I mean, one reason is probably that most people focus in on the language. They're thinking, 'Science is in English. These scientists need training in English language.' But it's my experience that pretty much all scientists have the English they need to do their work, but what they often need is a grounded understanding of how they build an argument."Miranda Vinay : "Absolutely. I mean, the fundamental truth is that no reputable journal is going to reject your paper because of your strength in the English language. Some journals have staff for that, and there's plenty of services online that can help you with that. Oftentimes your coworkers can help you with that. But really what makes the science blurry and muddled is just not having a well-supported conclusion — and I mean well-supported in terms of the argumentation and the rational evidence to support that conclusion, even if all of the necessary data is there." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this interview, we talk with Stefan Tanaka, professor emeritus of UCSD and a specialist in modern Japanese history. He is author of two books on modern Japan, Japan's Orient: Rendering Pasts into History (1993) and New Times in Modern Japan (2004), and his most recent book is History Without Chronology (Lever Press, 2019) which we discuss here! The host, Sarah Kearns, was introduced to Tanaka's work at a Digital History and Theory Conference and became very interested in becoming a "mystic" of scholarly communications and how narrative and comic books could facilitate a different understanding of history and time. The 1884 project is here. A bit about the book, which is available open access: Although numerous disciplines recognize multiple ways of conceptualizing time, Stefan Tanaka argues that scholars still overwhelmingly operate on chronological and linear Newtonian or classical time that emerged during the Enlightenment. This short, approachable book implores the humanities and humanistic social sciences to actively embrace the richness of different times that are evident in non-modern societies and have become common in several scientific fields throughout the twentieth century. Tanaka first offers a history of chronology by showing how the social structures built on clocks and calendars gained material expression. Tanaka then proposes that we can move away from this chronology by considering how contemporary scientific understandings of time might be adapted to reconceive the present and pasts. This opens up a conversation that allows for the possibility of other ways to know about and re-present pasts. A multiplicity of times will help us broaden the historical horizon by embracing the heterogeneity of our lives and world via rethinking the complex interaction between stability, repetition, and change. This history without chronology also allows for incorporating the affordances of digital media.Sarah Kearns (@annotated_sci) reads about scholarship, the sciences, and philosophy, and is likely drinking mushroom tea. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

University Press Week 2023 will provide an opportunity for presses and their supporters to shout to the rooftops about the value of the essential work of university presses: giving voice to the scholarship and ideas that shape conversations around the world. Through a variety of publications and platforms, university presses and their authors cultivate and amplify a diverse, inclusive, and exhilarating range of research and concepts.For a complete list of UP Week events, see hereFor the gallery of 103 publications, see hereFor the gallery as listed on Bookshop.org with buy buttons next to relevant titles, see hereSome other news not discussed in the conversation: University of Georgia and Wesleyan University Presses have finalists for the National Book Award poetry prize, and Yale University Press has a finalist for the nonfiction prize.  AUPresses Central Office will consult with an invited advisory group to conduct an environmental scan regarding AI.  Jane Bunker is Director of Cornell University Press and President of the Association of University Presses.Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Konrad Rieck, Professor of Computer Science at Technische Universitat Berlin. We talk about enthusiasm in research and about researching with enthusiasm.Konrad Rieck : "Personally, and as well for my research group, I can say that we try not to lose fun in the whole thing. Because, when a person decides to go for a PhD or for a master's, often there's something inside the person — they just really like the topic. For example, I really love computers. It's not that I do this to make money. Really, it's something personal. And it's fun for me. Of course, sometimes I just don't experience the fun, and I try to get it back — which is really difficult. But I think, the more we enjoy doing research, the better the research gets. This is my feeling. And I know from others that this is not always the case. In other groups, there is more pressure, more hierarchy, and other stress factors like that. So, my recommendation is less pressure, less hierarchy in research." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kicking off our new monthly series on freedom of speech, Keith Whittington and Donald Downs discuss the Princeton Principles for a Campus of Free Inquiry. These principles, outlined by a group of scholars convened by Professor Robert P. George here at the James Madison Program in March 2023, expand on the well-known Chicago Principles in ensuring campus free speech and institutional neutrality.Professors Whittington and Downs are both among the original fifteen participants and endorsers of the Princeton Principles, and played significant roles in drafting the document. Keith Whittington is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics in the Department of Politics at Princeton University, and the author of Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech (Princeton UP, 2019). He specializes in public law and American Politics, and will soon join the faculty of Yale Law School. Donald Downs is the Alexander Meiklejohn Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. His areas of specialty include freedom of speech, academic freedom, and American politics. Since retiring, Downs has been the lead faculty advisor to the Free Speech and Open Inquiry Project of the Institute for Humane Studies in Washington, D.C.Princeton's governing document, Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities, referenced during the episode. The James Madison Program's Initiative on Freedom of Thought, Inquiry, and Expression.Annika Nordquist is the Communications Coordinator of Princeton University’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions and host of the Program’s podcast, Madison’s Notes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of David Evans, Professor of Computer Science, University of Virginia. We talk about what makes scientific reading different.David Evans : "Most scientific papers are making some claim. So, the real goal as a reader is to understand, Do I believe them? Have the authors done what's necessary to make that claim and make it convincing? But there's another goal, too, and that is to understand, What can I learn from this paper technically — have the authors done something that might inform work that we're doing — do they have something that might provide understanding or prove useful to projects that we are currently involved in or have had in the backs of our minds. Now, those are two quite different goals for a person's reading, but the structure of a paper — especially a well-written paper — that structure will help the reader figure out where to go to achieve which goal." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Andreas Zeller, faculty at the CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security and professor for Software Engineering at Saarland University. We talk about essence — that part of your research left when you've boiled it all down to the meaning.Andreas Zeller : "I think of science as a social process. I think of scientists as social beings — as unsocial as we might sometimes appear to be. Because we scientists are all humans, and so we long for meaning in our daily work, which means too that indirectly, we long for recognition. So, our research is just another form of social activity, and therefore it helps to see science as a social activity where the scientist's job is, ultimately, to enrich the lives of other scientists with ideas that are useful, that give direction." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An interview with Bo Li, a computer science professor, discussing how writing can help with thinking and collaboration. Topics include crafting research papers, creating taxonomies, maintaining a research paper log, and fostering scientific collaborations through networking.