Zachary H Garfield

Ryan Schacht

Emily R Post

Dominique Ingram

Andrea Uehling

Shane J Macfarlan

The content and structure of reputation domains across human societies: a view from the evolutionary social sciences

Keywords: Reputation, Prosociality, Cooperation, Human Uniqueness, Cross-Cultural Analysis

Reputations are an essential feature of human sociality and the evolution of cooperation and group living. Much scholarship has focused on reputations, yet typically on a narrow range of domains (e.g., prosociality, aggressiveness), usually in isolation. Humans can develop reputations, however, from any collective information. We conducted exploratory analyses on the content, distribution, and structure of reputation domain diversity across cultures, using the Human Relations Area Files ethnographic database. After coding ethnographic texts on reputations from 153 cultures, we used hierarchical modelling, cluster analysis, and text analysis to provide an empirical view of reputation domains across societies. Findings suggest: 1) reputational domains vary cross-culturally, yet reputations for cultural conformity, prosociality, social status, and neural capital are widespread; 2) reputation domains are more variable for males than females; and 3) particular reputation domains are interrelated, demonstrating a structure consistent with dimensions of human uniqueness. We label these features: Cultural group unity, Dominance, Neural capital, Sexuality, Social and material success, and Supernatural healing. We highlight the need for future research on the evolution of cooperation and human sociality to consider a wider range of reputation domains, as well as their social, ecological, and gender-specific variability.

Introduction

Reputations are essential for human sociality. Whether used to punish norm violators in small communities or orient behaviour in anonymous online markets, reputations matter [START_REF] Alexander | The biology of moral systems[END_REF]. Reputations represent collective beliefs and evaluations a community forms about an individual's behavioural or emotional tendencies [START_REF] Barclay | Reputation[END_REF][START_REF] Macfarlan | Multiple reputation domains and cooperative behaviour in two Latin American communities[END_REF]. They function as currencies in a social marketplace with individuals signalling qualities relative to peers [START_REF] Barclay | Strategies for cooperation in biological markets, especially for humans[END_REF][START_REF] Milinski | Reputation, a universal currency for human social interactions[END_REF]. Such signals can reduce transaction costs in the formation, maintenance, and termination of relationships by providing information about others without direct experience [START_REF] Sugden | The Economics of Rights, Co-operation and Welfare[END_REF]. Because reputations can facilitate prosocial behaviour and punish deviancy, they provide some cognitive scaffolding supporting human sociality, including, the formation of status hierarchies [START_REF] Henrich | The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission[END_REF][START_REF] Buss | Human status criteria: Sex differences and similarities across 14 nations[END_REF], social institutions [START_REF] Glowacki | The Emergence of locally adaptive institutions: Insights from traditional social structures of East African pastoralists[END_REF], and prosociality [START_REF] Chudek | Culture-gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality[END_REF][START_REF] Gintis | Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality[END_REF]. Many species rely on reputation-information exchange [START_REF] Subiaul | Do chimpanzees learn reputation by observation? Evidence from direct and indirect experience with generous and selfish strangers[END_REF]. Among humans, however, language and gossip creates a selective environment whereby reputations have significant social consequences [START_REF] Nowak | Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring[END_REF][START_REF] Macfarlan | Competitive Altruism Explains Labor Exchange Variation in a Dominican Community[END_REF][START_REF] Hess | Psychological adaptations for assessing gossip veracity[END_REF].

Individual reputations can develop for any domain in which collective information exists on people's behavioural or emotional tendencies [START_REF] Giardini | The Oxford handbook of gossip and reputation[END_REF]. As new formats of social interaction emerge, the human behavioural repertoire becomes unbounded [START_REF] Enquist | Modelling the evolution and diversity of cumulative culture[END_REF], suggesting an unlimited number of potential reputation domains. Nevertheless, evolutionary scholars have typically focused on a narrow range of reputation domains, such as prosociality [START_REF] Macfarlan | Competitive Altruism Explains Labor Exchange Variation in a Dominican Community[END_REF][START_REF] Barclay | Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the 'tragedy of the commons[END_REF][START_REF] Panchanathan | Indirect reciprocity can stabilize cooperation without the second-order free rider problem[END_REF][START_REF] Macfarlan | Cooperative behaviour and prosocial reputation dynamics in a Dominican village[END_REF][START_REF] Lyle | The reputational and social network benefits of prosociality in an Andean community[END_REF], competency [START_REF] Macfarlan | Multiple reputation domains and cooperative behaviour in two Latin American communities[END_REF][START_REF] Hawkes | Showing off, handicap signaling, and the evolution of men's work[END_REF][START_REF] Fiske | Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence[END_REF], aggressiveness [START_REF] Benard | Reputation systems, aggression, and deterrence in social interaction[END_REF][START_REF] Hess | Sex differences in indirect aggression Psychological evidence from young adults[END_REF][START_REF] Hess | Gossip, reputation, and friendship in within-group competition: An evolutionary perspective[END_REF], and sexuality [START_REF] Buss | Derogation of Competitors[END_REF][START_REF] Davis | Women's Gossip as an Intrasexual Competition Strategy[END_REF]. This research has produced valuable insights on the influence of particular reputation domains on facets of social interaction [START_REF] Barclay | Strategies for cooperation in biological markets, especially for humans[END_REF], gendered relationships [START_REF] Davis | Women's Gossip as an Intrasexual Competition Strategy[END_REF], and the evolution of social systems [START_REF] Nowak | Five rules for the evolution of cooperation[END_REF].

Research on reputations has remained agnostic, however, about the scope of reputation domains within societies, their frequency across cultures, and potential gender biases [START_REF] Post | Tracking Cross-Cultural Gender Bias in Reputations[END_REF]. Furthermore, research has often occurred in a piece-meal fashion focusing on a single domain, obfuscating the degree to which domains interact and shape behavioural responses as a suite of integrated parts (however, see [START_REF] Macfarlan | Multiple reputation domains and cooperative behaviour in two Latin American communities[END_REF]). Current scholarship lacks a clear understanding of the content, structure, and diversity of reputation domains across societies.

We seek to build a foundation for comparative approaches to reputation domain diversity through exploratory analyses of the ethnographic record. We first derive a list of a priori reputation domains (discussed in the Supplementary Information [SI]). We then assess the cross-cultural frequency of evidence for reputation domains and how evidence for genderspecific reputations varies. Lastly, we identify features of reputation domain co-occurrence and the semantic content of ethnography describing reputations. The following aims guide our study:

Materials and Methods

Ethnographic sample and coding

To accomplish our aims we relied on the electronic Human Relations Area Files (eHRAF)an online database of primary ethnographic documents. It should be noted, the ethnographic record is male-biased given the majority of ethnographers have been men and their writings and observations have generally prioritized (deliberately or not) the behaviour and social lives of men [START_REF] Mukhopadhyay | Anthropological studies of women's status revisited: 1977-1987[END_REF][START_REF] Abu-Lughod | Can There Be A Feminist Ethnography? Women & Performance: a journal of feminist theory[END_REF].

The eHRAF includes thousands of documents from over 300 cultures indexed by subject at the paragraph-level [START_REF] Ember | Using the HRAF Collection of Ethnography in Conjunction With the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample and the Ethnographic Atlas[END_REF]. Users can generate a sample of ethnographic texts (i.e., paragraphs) using Boolean searches of subject codes and/or key words. Our dataset was compiled using a keyword and eHRAF's indexing system, the Outline of Cultural Materials (OCM), which associates each paragraph with any of over 700 subject codes covering a range of topics relevant for the human sciences. We conducted an "Advanced Search" of the keyword "reputation" with any of the OCM subjects: Social Personality, Personality Traits, or Status, Role, and Prestige. This search aimed to strike a balance between retrieving a generalizable yet manageable sample of the ethnography of reputations. A limitation is that our search may have omitted particular domains of reputations. See the SI for additional details.

We read the resulting 1,383 paragraphs for content, excluding those referencing reputations for groups, non-human entities, or ethnographers. We applied these inclusion criteria because our goal is to understand individual reputations within a particular culture. We then aggregated paragraphs from the same document. This resulted in a dataset containing 319 documents from 153 diverse cultures with broad geographic coverage (see Figure S1 and Table S1). These documents had a mean word count of 140 (SD of 160 and range of 14 to 1957). We refer to this as our Document dataset, which is publicly available in the Reputation Diversity Database R package [START_REF] Garfield | Zhgarfield/reputationdiversitydata: Initial release of the reputationdiversitydata package[END_REF], including bibliographic information, culture sample, and all data.

We derived, a priori, 20 reputation domains from the scientific literature on human sociality. Using these operationalized reputation domains, we coded the 319 documents in the Document dataset for supporting evidence across the 20 reputation domains. Authors decomposed into groups of two were allocated a subset of documents (approximately 106 per pair) to read and code, indicating supporting evidence for each domain and whether the evidence was gendered: male-specific, female-specific, or gender neutral. We did not compute inter-coder reliability measures given coders varied in experience reading and coding ethnographic texts and common inter-rater reliability statistics can produce misleadingly low reliability metrics despite relatively high levels of simple agreement for sparse matrices, such as our data [START_REF] Syme | Testing the bargaining vs. Inclusive fitness models of suicidal behavior against the ethnographic record[END_REF][START_REF] Garfield | Evolutionary models of leadership: Tests and synthesis[END_REF]. Author-pairs compared coded data to resolve disagreements. For divergent codings the text and operational definitions were reviewed and consensus reached on the appropriate coding. The aggregated resolved codings constitute our data. See the SI for example text and coding.

Data analysis

The current study is primarily exploratory. We rely on descriptive and exploratory statistical approaches to accomplish our aims. We assess the cross-cultural support for each reputation domain by estimating the proportion of documents providing supporting evidence, including across our gender coding (represented as a percentage estimate).

Because our Document dataset is a sample of the ethnographic record and because multiple documents often described the same culture, we incorporated uncertainty accounting for this non-independence and hierarchical structure with generalized linear mixed effects regression models (GLMM) with random effects for culture using the lme4 package [START_REF] Bates | Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4[END_REF]. Some analyses are agnostic to gender-specific codings and any coding (female-specific, male-specific, or gender neutral) counts as supporting evidence, while others account for gender-specific codings.

To estimate the frequency of supporting evidence for each reputation domain, we fit intercept-only GLMMs with random intercepts for culture, with each binary-coded reputation domain as outcomes, for all coded data (i.e., evidence for each reputation domain independent of gender-specific codings). We also fit identical models for femalespecific and male-specific evidence. These GLMMs estimate the proportion of documents providing evidence for the reputation domains (i.e., the fixed effect with 95% CI) adjusting for the non-independence of documents from the same culture (Aims 1 and 2). We also compute the percentage of cultures with at least one document providing supporting evidence for each reputation domain (independent of gender coding), with 95% CI estimated using a cluster bootstrap and 1,000 samples with replacement (Aim 1).

Using all data, where each row represents the gender-specific evidence for each document, we assess gender-biased evidence for each reputation domain by comparing (via information criterion model selection) an intercept-only GLMM (with random intercepts for documents nested within culture and for culture language family) to similar models which include a gender-term covariate (Aim 2).

We rely on hierarchical cluster analysis to identify structure (i.e., features) among reputation domains (Aim 3). We then use text-analytic methods and a document-term matrix of our corpus of ethnography with penalized regression to identify semantic content predictive of evidence for reputation features (Aim 4).

We also investigated sources of bias in our coded data due to features of the ethnographic record. We used the presence of a female coauthor, document publication year, and total pages of ethnography per culture in the eHRAF as predictors of our reputation domains (accounting for the hierarchical document-culture structure and culture language family).

All analyses were conducted with R version 4.0.2 (2020-06-22).

Results

Evidence for reputation domains varied across subsistence types with horticulturalists and agriculturalists overrepresented relative to pastoralists and hunter-gatherers (Table S1).

Evidence was also male-biased. Of the 1252 counts of supporting evidence across domains, 695 (56%) were coded as male-specific, 418 (33%) were coded as gender neutral, and 139 (11%) were coded as female-specific (Table S2).

Bias assessment analyses did not identify strong evidence of bias due to our metaethnographic measures. Consequently, we did not incorporate such measures in analyses. See the SI for results.

Evidence for reputation domains

For all 20 reputation domains, we report the percentage of cultures that provided at least one count of supporting evidence, independent of gender coding. At the culture-level, the most strongly supported domains, documented in over 50% of cultures included Cultural conformity, Neural capital, Prosociality, and Social status (Figure 1A).

We report the proportion of documents that provided supporting evidence including for gender-specific evidence (Figure 1B). At the document-level, the most strongly supported domains, represented in over 30% of documents, included Cultural conformity, Prosociality, Social status, Neural capital, and Industriousness. Evidence for these reputation domains was strongly male-biased, in particular Social status and Neural capital which were the most supported male-specific domains. The most strongly supported female-specific reputation domains (although male-biased overall) were Cultural conformity and Industriousness. The between-domain variation among female-specific evidence was minimal compared to the male-specific evidence which was more variable. We emphasize the relatively low levels of female-specific evidence could be a feature of systemic malebias in the ethnographic record, more so than gendered patterns of social or cultural diversity (see Discussion). Figure 1: Evidence for reputation domains. A: Percentage of cultures providing at least one supporting document (95% CI estimated using a cluster bootstrap). B: Percent of documents providing supporting evidence (95% CI computed with intercept-only mixed effects models). Purple circles: Estimates from all data independent of gender coding. Green triangles: Estimates from female-specific evidence. Yellow squares: Estimates from male-specific evidence.

To assess gender-biases in the supporting evidence for reputation domains, we fit two binomial GLMMs of each reputation domain using the entire data set, where each row represents the gender-specific evidence for each document (i.e., female-specific, malespecific, gender neutral; three rows per document). The first model was an intercept-only GLMM with the binary coded reputation domains as outcomes and random intercepts for document nested within culture (to account for the repeated measures of evidence type per document and multiple documents per culture) and a random intercept for culture language family (to partially account for shared ancestry). These intercept-only models were compared to similar models which included gender-evidence type as a covariate. We compared the intercept-only models to their respective gender-term models using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) [START_REF] Burnham | AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: Some background, observations, and comparisons[END_REF]. Gender was deemed to be a predictor of reputation domain evidence when 𝐴𝐼𝐶𝛥 < -2 [START_REF] Burnham | Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach[END_REF]. Results are reported in Table S3 and support patterns in Figure 1B. Evidence for all domains was male-biased with the following exceptions: Sociosexuality, Parental care, and Teaching did not demonstrate gender biases and Sexual fidelity was female-biased. Two reputation domains (Bravery and Honesty) did not produce female-specific evidence and were not included.

Structural features of reputation domains

Evidence for different reputation domains may co-occur within documents, putatively suggesting domain interrelatedness and structure. To identify features (i.e., clusters) of domains we used agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis. See the SI for details.

Figure 2 [START_REF] Suzuki | Pvclust: Hierarchical Clustering with P-Values via Multiscale Bootstrap Resampling[END_REF]. Edge number in grey.

We estimated the percentage of cultures providing support for each reputation domain feature using the same cluster bootstrap methods used to estimate the culture-level support for domains. Supporting evidence for the Cultural group unity and Social and material success features was common across cultures, documented in 82% and 64% of cultures, respectively. Evidence for the Neural capital feature was documented in 59% of cultures, the Dominance feature in 53% of cultures, the Supernatural healing feature in 44% of cultures, and the Sexuality feature in 23% of cultures (Figure 3).

Sexuality

Dominance

Supernatural healing

Social and material success

Cultural group unity

Coercive ability

Aggressiveness Figure 3: Percentage of cultures providing evidence for reputation features (95% CI estimated via cluster bootstrap).

The ethnography of reputation domains

We used text analysis to explore the ethnography of reputation domains in reference to our six features. We created a document-term matrix (DTM) of all "informative" words in our corpus of texts which captures the frequency of each unique term within each document. We fit an elastic net logistic regression model (with the lasso penalty, 𝛼 = 1) of each of the six features as a function of the frequencies of all 8,770 unique words (using the glmnet package [START_REF] Zou | Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net[END_REF]). Words that were strong positive predictors epitomized the semantic content of documents which provided evidence for that feature. Figure 4 displays non-zero coefficients from elastic net lasso regression models of each reputation domain feature.

Evidence for the Cultural group unity feature was positively predicted by terms related to social relationships and community (e.g., family, person, wife) and negatively predicted by terms related to the supernatural (e.g., spirit, shaman). Evidence for the Social and material success feature was positively predicted by wealth, prestige, and terms for leadership and status. Evidence for the Neural capital feature was positively predicted by skill, leader, and village. Evidence for the Dominance feature was positively predicted by war, strong, kill, and physical implicating reputations for dominance with conflict, physical formidability, and aggression. Negative predictors of the Dominance feature included status and wealth, suggesting a distinction between dominance and prestige. Evidence for the Supernatural healing feature was positively predicted by the terms, shaman, cure, power, and medicine; woman was a weak negative predictor. Evidence for the Sexuality feature was predicted by girl, woman, and sexual.

Discussion

The content, structure, and diversity of reputation domains across societies are understudied from a holistic perspective. The current study was motivated by a lack of cross-cultural research, despite widespread theorizing in biology, psychology and anthropology regarding the role of reputations for sociality and evolutionary dynamics. Using the eHRAF database we extracted ethnographic accounts of individual-level reputation domains. Results suggest: 1) there is considerable cross-cultural variability in evidence for reputation domains -some domains are common in the ethnographic record (e.g., cultural conformity, prosociality) while others are relatively rare (e.g., teaching, honesty); 2) evidence for most reputations are male-biased with male-specific reputation domains more variable than female-specific domains; and 3) reputation domains cluster within six features: cultural group unity, dominance, neural capital, sexuality, social and material success, and supernatural healing. Below we interpret results from an evolutionary social science perspective.

Diversity in reputation domains

Most reputation domains (16 of 20) were documented in less than half of sampled cultures (Figures 1A and3). Despite variability, some were more common than others, including reputations for cultural conformity, prosociality, social status, neural capital, and industriousness. These results are notable because of what is missing: "cooperation." Evolutionary-oriented scholars have implicated cooperative reputations for explaining human ultrasociality [START_REF] Milinski | Reputation, a universal currency for human social interactions[END_REF][START_REF] Nowak | Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring[END_REF][START_REF] Macfarlan | Competitive Altruism Explains Labor Exchange Variation in a Dominican Community[END_REF], yet reputations for "cooperativeness" were documented in only 23% of cultures. Reputations indirectly related to cooperation (e.g., conformity, honesty, social relationships, and industriousness), however, were common across societies. Reputations for cooperation were also captured by the most common feature: cultural group unity (Figure 3). The limited evidence of reputations for cooperativeness could be due in part to the nature of the ethnographic record (see Limitations) or a product of our operational definition. We follow developmental and neuro-psychologists [START_REF] Fiske | Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence[END_REF][START_REF] Tomasello | Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition[END_REF][START_REF] Maclean | Unraveling the evolution of uniquely human cognition[END_REF] by differentiating cooperation -defined as the likelihood an individual intentionally assists another in order to achieve a joint goal -from prosociality -defined as the likelihood one will invest in group welfare or act in group-altruistic ways (see the SI for discussion).

While we wish to avoid sweeping claims and emphasize the exploratory nature of our study, these results signal a need to expand research on reputations beyond cooperativeness, incorporating a variety of domains and examining their effect on sociality, particularly in experimental settings (sensu, [START_REF] Macfarlan | Multiple reputation domains and cooperative behaviour in two Latin American communities[END_REF]). Across cultures, distinct reputations capturing inter-individual variation in personality, experiences, capacities, and reliability, likely underpin much of human sociality, including cooperativeness.

Gender-differences in reputation domains

Evidence for most reputation domains was male-biased and there was greater variance among male than female reputation domains (Figure 1B). While this finding is consistent with research demonstrating that, across cultures, male social life is typically more public than female social life [START_REF] Hawkes | Why Hunter-Gatherers Work: An Ancient Version of the Problem of Public Goods [and Comments and Reply[END_REF][START_REF] Smith | Obstacles and opportunities for female leadership in mammalian societies: A comparative perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Rosaldo | The use and abuse of anthropology: Reflections on feminism and cross-cultural understanding[END_REF] we cannot disentangle male-bias in ethnography from putative male biases in more overt sociality and reputation diversity. This male-biased pattern is consistent, however, with perspectives suggesting societies disproportionately channel opportunities to men to differentiate themselves, at the detriment of women who have fewer avenues to develop social capital [START_REF] Post | Tracking Cross-Cultural Gender Bias in Reputations[END_REF][START_REF] Smith | Obstacles and opportunities for female leadership in mammalian societies: A comparative perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Lin | Inequality in Social Capital[END_REF][START_REF] Von Rueden | Sex differences in political leadership in an egalitarian society[END_REF]. As Rosaldo ([46], pp. 393-394) suggests reviewing much ethnography, "the vast majority of opportunities for public influence and prestige, the ability to forge relationships, determine enmities, speak up in public, use or forswear the use of force are all recognized as men's privilege and right."

Competition among women, however, has been suggested to be more indirect and reputation-based, compared to men [START_REF] Hess | Sex differences in indirect aggression Psychological evidence from young adults[END_REF][START_REF] Campbell | A mind of her own: The evolutionary psychology of women[END_REF], which would predict at least some female-specific reputation domains or limited variance between reputation domains of women and men. Some empirical studies of gender-differences in social influence among relatively egalitarian societies have found similarity in the weights of particular status-determining attributes between genders, despite male biases in overall influence [START_REF] Von Rueden | Sex differences in political leadership in an egalitarian society[END_REF][START_REF] Garfield | Investigating evolutionary models of leadership among recently settled Ethiopian hunter-gatherers[END_REF]. Future comparative studies should more comprehensively define female-specific reputation domains and design targeted methods to document supporting evidence [START_REF] Dahlberg | Woman the gatherer[END_REF][START_REF] Low | Women's lives there, here, then, now: A review of women's ecological and demographic constraints cross-culturally[END_REF].

The only reputation domain more strongly associated with women than men was sexual fidelity; reputations for sociosexuality did not demonstrate gender-bias (see [START_REF] Schacht | Sex ratio effects on reproductive strategies in humans[END_REF] for similar results). These findings support evolutionary psychology models drawing on sexual selection theory which predict gender-specific evaluations related to reproductive strategies [START_REF] Buss | Derogation of Competitors[END_REF][START_REF] Campbell | A mind of her own: The evolutionary psychology of women[END_REF] and widespread male reproductive skew specific to influential men [START_REF] Garfield | Evolutionary models of leadership: Tests and synthesis[END_REF][START_REF] Von Rueden | Mens status and reproductive success in 33 nonindustrial societies: Effects of subsistence, marriage system, and reproductive strategy[END_REF][START_REF] Schacht | The evolution of monogamy in response to partner scarcity[END_REF][START_REF] Schacht | Too many men: The violence problem?[END_REF]. Overall, reputations related to sexuality were rare in our data. Sexuality may have been a taboo topic in some ethnographic contexts, but the ethnographic record includes rich descriptions of human sexuality [START_REF] Hames | Is Male Androphilia a Context-Dependent Cross-Cultural Universal?[END_REF][START_REF] Malinowski | The sexual life of savages[END_REF]. It is possible that our search strategy did not capture much of the ethnography of reputations related to sexuality. Nonetheless, findings do not provide support for a universal psychology dedicated to evaluating female sexuality vis-à-vis males and do support perspectives emphasizing flexibility in reputations, strategies, and norms related to sexuality [START_REF] Hrdy | The optimal number of fathers. Evolution, demography, and history in the shaping of female mate preferences[END_REF].

Reputation domain structure and evolutionary theories

We find reputation domains are structured along six features which we termed Cultural group unity, Social and material success, Neural capital, Dominance, Supernatural healing, and Sexuality. This data-driven, exploratory analysis comports well with theory from evolutionary psychology and the framework of human uniqueness in evolutionary anthropology.

Evolutionary psychologists examining the content of competitor derogation [START_REF] Buss | Derogation of Competitors[END_REF], have predicted men will often be evaluated for abilities to control resources necessary for status achievement, attracting mates, and reproductive success. We find some support for this claim given the reputation features of Dominance and Social and material success. Additionally, evidence for the reputation domains Social status, Material capital, and Coercive ability were among the most male-biased domains (Figure 1B). Status hierarchies shape priority of access to resources and scholars have suggested they can be navigated through two distinct (though non-mutually exclusive) pathways: dominance and prestige [START_REF] Henrich | The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission[END_REF][START_REF] Van Vugt | A Dual Model of Leadership and Hierarchy: Evolutionary Synthesis[END_REF][START_REF] Cheng | Dominance, Prestige, and the Role of Leveling in Human Social Hierarchy and Equality[END_REF]. These results support a distinction between dominance and social status or prestige [START_REF] Cheng | Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence[END_REF][START_REF] Rueden | The roots and fruits of social status in small-scale human societies[END_REF], indicated by the cluster and text analyses (Figures 3, 4C and4D).

Reputations for prestige (our Social and material success feature) are associated with social networks as well as material resources, more so than reputations for dominance (Figures 2,4B). These results are consistent with analyses among the Tsimane illustrating interrelationships between status, social networks, and social and material gains from cooperation with high status individuals [START_REF] Von Rueden | The dynamics of men's cooperation and social status in a small-scale society[END_REF]. Results also support associations between reputations for dominance and coercion, physical aggression, and conflict (Figure 4D) [START_REF] Earle | How chiefs come to power: The political economy in prehistory[END_REF]. Reputations for bravery were also captured by the Dominance feature and cross-cultural research identified bravery as a universal feature of prosocial moral values [START_REF] Curry | Is It Good to Cooperate?: Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies[END_REF]. Taken together, these results suggest reputations for social status and prestige are often associated with capacities for resource control while reputations for dominance may, in some contexts, be associated with prosocial investments [START_REF] Rueden | The roots and fruits of social status in small-scale human societies[END_REF][START_REF] Durkee | Psychological foundations of human status allocation[END_REF][START_REF] Garfield | Universal and variable leadership dimensions across human societies[END_REF][START_REF] Pietraszewski | The evolution of leadership: Leadership and followership as a solution to the problem of creating and executing successful coordination and cooperation enterprises[END_REF].

The clustering of reputations for cooperation, prosociality, conformity, honesty, teaching, and industriousness fits conceptions of the distinct nature of human social cognition, as well as fundamental structures of human groups. For example, scholars suggest human uniqueness relies on an evolved psychology dedicated to reasoning about others having cooperative and prosocial motivations [START_REF] Tomasello | Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition[END_REF][START_REF] Maclean | Unraveling the evolution of uniquely human cognition[END_REF][START_REF] Hill | The emergence of human uniqueness: Characters underlying behavioral modernity[END_REF]. These models suggest cultural conformity and learning biases leads to the evolution of well-structured groups and better equip groups to compete with others groups [START_REF] Chudek | Culture-gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality[END_REF][START_REF] Boyd | Culture and the Evolutionary Process[END_REF][START_REF] Henrich | The Evolution of Conformist Transmission and the Emergence of Between-Group Differences[END_REF]. Such between-group competitive dynamics can occur through altruistic provisioning of group members or through intergroup violence [START_REF] Bowles | Group Competition, Reproductive Leveling, and the Evolution of Human Altruism[END_REF][START_REF] Glowacki | The evolutionary anthropology of war[END_REF] and can in turn, further support within group cooperation [START_REF] Gavrilets | A solution to the collective action problem in betweengroup conflict with within-group inequality[END_REF][START_REF] Henrich | The Big Man Mechanism: How prestige fosters cooperation and creates prosocial leaders[END_REF].

Lastly, the supernatural healing feature is associated with unique features of the human niche (i.e., religion) and fits long-standing anthropological notions about the important role of religious practitioners (e.g., shamans) who manipulate the supernatural to provide benefits for and impose costs on group members [START_REF] Garfield | Universal and variable leadership dimensions across human societies[END_REF][START_REF] Singh | Small gods, rituals, and cooperation: The Mentawai water spirit Sikameinan[END_REF][START_REF] Singh | The cultural evolution of shamanism[END_REF][START_REF] Lightner | Ethnoscientific expertise and knowledge specialisation in 55 traditional cultures[END_REF].

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. First, our data are limited to the content ethnographers recorded and published. Information on reputations that the ethnographer was unaware of, not interested in, nor permitted to research, constrains available data. Therefore, while we can conclude the widespread ethnographic evidence of some reputation domains likely indicates their cross-cultural importance, we cannot conclude reputations domains lacking substantial evidence are indeed rare across cultures. Additionally, the terms an ethnographer uses for reputation domains may reflect their worldview (etic), rather than the worldview of the focus population (emic). We attempted to assess potential biases in our data due to meta-ethnographic measures (see the SI), however, it is possible other features of ethnography or ethnographers influenced results.

Ethnographic materials related to the social, economic, and cultural lives of women are systematically underreported, especially in the early history of the field [START_REF] Post | Tracking Cross-Cultural Gender Bias in Reputations[END_REF][START_REF] Mukhopadhyay | Anthropological studies of women's status revisited: 1977-1987[END_REF][START_REF] Rosaldo | Woman, culture, and society: A theoretical overview[END_REF]. Thus, the extent to which women have fewer avenues for gaining reputations cross-culturally remains unclear and cannot be evaluated via these methods. However, the evidence of gender biases we discovered comport with the common notion that patriarchy is pervasive globally and negatively impacts women's ability to achieve recognition, political power, economic capital, and autonomy (see [START_REF]Gender equality and women's empowerment[END_REF]).

We identified the 20 reputation domains a priori, drawing on the literature on human uniqueness and sexual selection theory, which itself is likely to be biased by authors and general biases across the human sciences. While a useful starting point for exploring reputational diversity, we imagine that other domains could exist. Lastly, we constrained our eHRAF search using the keyword "reputation", which could have missed other content on reputations that used adjacent language (e.g., personality, gossip). Recognizing these limitations, these results provide greater cross-cultural validity to existing theories of reputation and can spark future empirical and theoretical work better incorporating the cultural diversity, structure, and gendered dimensions of reputation domains.

Conclusion

Reputations are a critical component of human social life and have fundamental implications for human evolution. From a socio-structural perspective, reputations are the pathways by which societies evaluate individuals and are the mechanisms through which individuals can distinguish themselves. Despite their centrality to much of human sociality, little systematic cross-cultural research exists on the content and structure of reputation domains. We find that ethnographic evidence for reputations is variable across societies, tends to focus on cultural conformity and prosociality, displays large gender biases with greater variance among males, and is structured around themes related to human uniqueness.

Drawing on Chapais' [START_REF] Chapais | Complex Kinship Patterns as Evolutionary Constructions, and the Origins of Sociocultural Universals[END_REF] distinction between context-independent vs. context-dependent human universals, we hypothesize reputations for cultural group unity will be a contextindependent universal, likely to manifest in all human societies; whereas reputations for social and material success, neural capital, and dominance are more likely to be contextdependent universals, promoted or suppressed by socio-ecological or cultural evolutionary processes.

  fight person physical kill strong war

  To reveal the semantic content of reputation domains in the ethnographic record.Existing work provides strong rationale for both putative universality in human reputation domains, as well as variation by social, ecological, or gender-specific pressures. Leveraging the ethnographic record in a systematic framework, despite limitations and potential biases (see Materials and Methods, Discussion), is a first step in uncovering patterns across human societies.

• Aim 1: To assess the distribution of ethnographic evidence for reputation domains. • Aim 2: To identify if reputation domains exhibit systematic gender-biases and if these domains vary within gender. • Aim 3: To identify the structure and interrelationships of reputation domains. • Aim 4:

  displays a dendrogram from cluster analysis of the 20 reputation domains, which includes two estimates of significance for how strongly each cluster is supported by the data. We rely on the AU (approximately unbiased) p values (represented in red at each cluster's "edge"), which are computed by multiscale bootstrap resampling and represented as percentages (clusters with AU values > 95 are strongly supported; top-level clusters are automatically outlined by red rectangles). This revealed five strongly supported clusters we post hoc identify as Sexuality, Dominance, Supernatural healing, Social and material success, and Cultural group unity. We used these clusters to compute new variables, henceforth reputation domain features. Although the cluster capturing Neural capital and Oration was only moderately supported (AU = 76), given Neural capital was among the most frequent domains and oratory abilities are a type of neural capital we computed a Neural capital feature from this cluster. For each document, these six reputation domain features are coded as 1, when any of the associated domains provided supporting evidence.

Figure 2: Cluster analysis of reputation domains. Distances were 1 -𝑐𝑜𝑟. Ward agglomeration method. AU p-values (red) computed with 10,000 bootstrap samples using the pvclust package

  Figure 4: Non-zero coefficients from text analysis elastic net regression models of evidence for reputation features. Coefficients indicate the words in each document which best predicted evidence for the feature. Positive coefficients as purple triangles. Negative coefficients as yellow circles.

	Cultures
	Cultural group unity
	Social and material success
	Neural capital
	Dominance
	Supernatural healing
	Sexuality
	0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Acknowledgements

We thank Nicole Hess and Chris von Rueden for helpful comments on this manuscript as well as the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their careful review and useful feedback.

Original data produced for the current study are available in the archived reputationdiversitydata R package (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4740791).

Funding

This work was supported in part by the Global Change and Sustainability Center and the Office of Undergraduate Research at the University of Utah. Zachary H. Garfield acknowledges IAST funding from the French National Research Agency (ANR) under the Investments for the Future (Investissements d'Avenir) program, grant ANR-17-EURE-0010.


Laurent Tessier

Michaël Bourgatte

Supporting collaborative practices and reciprocal exchanges of knowledge in digital teachers training. 4S -Open Panel 60. Digital Inclusion In Practices

Teachers training in digital pedagogy is a key issue for schools and universities. Due to the rise of these practices (such as hybrid or distance learning that have been intensively deployed in the context of the Covid19), educational institutions must now find ways to support teachers who have not yet mastered them. However, in this matter, classic teacher training methods often fail, especially when they do not focus on the participant's own discipline or research field (they can encounter sheer refusal of training, lack of confidence in the proposal or dropping out during training). All these issues are intensified by some kind of shame linked to digital illiteracy. In this paper, the authors propose to discuss three continuing education projects aimed at acquiring digital skills and based on cooperation and reciprocal exchanges of knowledge between teachers. Firstly, we will explore the organizing of an event included in the "EdCamp" foundation's program, then, the design and broadcasting of a SPOC entitled "Digital Commons for Education"; and finally the creation of a digital pedagogy cooperative within their university. These three initiatives have one thing in common: they all reject the pedagogical approach of lecture training. On the contrary, they are based on the exchange of knowledge and know-how between practitioners. But we will also see that each of these three initiatives is based on a specific approach of coaching. Finally, we will see how each of them gives a slightly different place and form to the autonomous practices of participants.

Introduction

Teachers training focusing on digital skills is not something remotely new. It has been an issue for schools and universities since at least the mid-1980s [START_REF] Cuban | Teachers and machines: the classroom use of technology since 1920[END_REF]Baron, 1989;[START_REF] Tessier | Éduquer au numérique ? : Un changement de paradigme[END_REF]. However, this issue has been given a new impetus by the pandemic context, in particular everything that concerns hybrid or distance learning, which has been massively deployed over the last two years, whereas it was previously seen as a mere 'extra' in pedagogical practices. Until then, digital skills could be considered as not being part of a teacher's core competences. This is probably no longer the case. As we all experienced in the months of lockdown, in most OECD countries, a teacher who was unable to use his school's LMS may simply find it impossible to do his or her job. In this new context, educational institutions must therefore find ways to support teachers who have not yet mastered these digital skills, or risk their exclusion. In this sense, One could say that the aim of digital technology in teacher training has moved from innovation to inclusion.

Of course, this observation does not only apply to teachers: the social goal of digital inclusion is based on the assumption that a person who does not master digital skills will always be more excluded as society becomes more digital. Hence the use of the term illectronism (Caclard, 2012;[START_REF] Lefebvre-Chombart | Reconfigurer l'économie sociale et solidaire en Hauts-de-France : un living lab en commun au service de l'intermédiation territoriale ?[END_REF], which refers directly to the problem of illiteracy, to the forms of exclusion that it entails and therefore to the types of social response to be provided1 .

One of the common features of illiteracy and illectronism is the embarrassment, or even the shame, that they arouse. People who are victims of illiteracy or illectronism do not dare to call for help, and can even wall themselves off in forms of denial or avoidance that can ultimately lead to personal and professional isolation. This perhaps partly explains the difficulty in setting up training courses for teachers on these issues, a difficulty that we were able to observe directly when our university wanted to set up workshops for teachers. In addition to our position as researchers on these issues within a faculty of educational sciences, we should mention that we have held development positions on these issues for the past ten years, including the creation of a DH Lab (digital humanities laboratory).

This will be important for the rest of this paper, as the perspective on digital inclusion and the projects we will present here are part of the digital humanities approach. The Digital Humanities is a movement that has its roots in the very birth of computer science and that became internationally structured at the turn of the 2000s [START_REF] Schreibman | A new companion to digital humanities[END_REF]. It is not possible here to expand on all the dimensions of this research movement, but it can at least be said quickly that the researchers involved in this movement are working for the development of a digital culture and technological practices adapted to the human sciences. They raise the questions of the design of these technologies and the critical relationship that should be maintained with them. Over the last ten years, this movement has been institutionalised in the academic world through chairs, courses and departments.

One of the typical ways in which this movement has been institutionalised is in the form of 'DH Labs'. This type of structure is generally driven by two objectives: the conduct of research involving technologies and digital inclusion within higher education institutions (through teacher training, the development of innovative tools and pedagogies adapted to this public). In 2013, we therefore experimented with the creation of a DH Lab at the Catholic University of Paris, which we called the Digital Workshop (Atelier Du Numérique) and which brings together researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds (education, media studies, sociology, theology, engineering sciences) and collaborators of different status (developers, designers) 2 .

It was in this context and on the basis of these experiences, and of course by using scientific data available on these issues3 , that we saw how difficult it was to implement a real policy of digital inclusion in an academic context: if we offered lecture-based training, or even practical workshops centred on specific technologies, very few people signed up, even though we knew that there were many colleagues in difficulty, thanks to informal feedback, but also thanks to quantitative feedback from the University Digital Officers.

One way of explaining the low take-up of digital training by teachers, and in particular by higher education teachers, is that many teachers refuse to train in anything other than their discipline or field of research. This disciplinary research is already very time-consuming and teachers do not necessarily want to go into fields that give them the impression of being dispersed. Finally, we could add a last hypothesis, which is quite simply the high expectations in terms of quality of training that this particular public have. A course set up by people that are not teachers (for example, IT engineers from the institution's IT department) is therefore likely to be rejected.

All this led us to test different formulas, gradually refining our understanding of the expectations of the particular learners we were targeting (that is, teachers in higher and school education). Here we propose to discuss three training projects aimed at the acquisition of digital skills, each of which attempts in its own way to address these issues of digital inclusion of teachers. Firstly, we will explore the organisation of an event participating in the EdCamp Foundation program. Secondly, we will see the design of a SPOC entitled "Digital Commons for Education", and thirdly, the creation of a "Digital Pedagogy Cooperative" within our university. These three initiatives are all based on cooperation and reciprocal exchanges of knowledge between teachers in order to generate an inclusive dynamic. But we will also see that each of these three initiatives is based on a specific approach to coaching and gives a slightly different place and form to the participants' autonomous practices.

EdCamp: starting from the participants' needs

The first formula that we have experimented in our DH Lab took the form of an EdCamp. Created in the United States in 2010, the Edcamp format is very popular in that country, where several dozen labelled events are organised every year4 . This model is spreading widely around the world as education stakeholders everywhere seek alternative forms of disseminating skills and knowledge. The organisation of "camps" 5 is nowadays a popular activity in the world of higher education. Like a Barcamp and Thatcamp 6 , an Edcamp is an 'unconference' in the specific field of 6 http://tcp.hypotheses.org/category/thatcamp-paris-2015 5 The model is that of the Barcamps organised by ICT players in Silicon Valley (http://barcamp.org/w/page/402984/FrontPage). In order to achieve these objectives, the Edcamp "Digital Humanities for Education" included three types of events: thematic workshops during which participants imagined pedagogical projects or exchanged around their experiences; a "Kindergarten" which was a kind of open and playful space in which participants were able to discover and interact freely around innovative technologies or pedagogical projects presented by their creators and developers; conferences and communication sessions. This hybrid format (between conference and unconference) can be explained by our inclusive approach: proposing an event that took the both forms made it possible to attract colleagues who would not have come if the event had only been a "training in digital technology". In a very prosaic way, participation in the EdCamp could be valued in their research activities and was not seen in this sense as time lost.

Strange as it may seem, for many teachers, training is a waste of time. We had to take this into account if we wanted to include as many colleagues as possible. The limitation of such a scheme is that it seemed to us to be more suitable for an audience of higher education teachers than for school teachers, who are the main public of our faculty of education (even if there are examples of EdCamps organised in the school world with success). So the inclusive principles that we had begun to identify needed to be adapted to wider audiences.

A SPOC to share the Digital Commons for Education

This first trial was successful in that it attracted about 100 colleagues and their participation and feedback were largely positive. As a result, we decided to set up a recurrent online training program for primary and secondary school teachers. We retained the two principles that had guided the inclusive approach to EdCamp: keeping a horizontal approach -in which everyone brings skills and ideas -rather than a vertical one facing knowers and ignorers; adapting the project to the needs, but also to the professional constraints of these school teachers who constitute the audience of the program. This online training should therefore be based on digital activities that can be conducted practically in the classroom8 . The aim was not to give an overview of the theories on innovation and digital technology, but to use concrete examples, the implementation of digital innovation projects by teachers, such as the creation of a digital audio book with kindergarten pupils or the participation of secondary school pupils in a physical sciences escape game. From these case studies, teachers are then invited to imagine methods and tools to develop their own projects and share them with others. This was the philosophy of the "Digital Commons for Teaching" SPOC (Small Private Online Course): to be able to transform one's teaching practice without necessarily becoming a "geek". The idea is to share one's experience and tools, to share difficulties also, and to find solutions. The aim is to promote the development of teachers' skills and to support them in the development of their digital practices. The implementation of the training includes the preparation of educational scenarios and the production of visual and textual resources by the participants. The success of this training (this SPOC has trained several hundred teachers since its first iteration) has 3 explanations: it is based on the technologies, tools and philosophy of the famous MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) applies to a small group, allowing for more interactivity between participants and with the trainers that come in regularly in the plateform forums and gives weekly synchronous Zoom meetings. It should also be said that its small format (12 hours) is a strength, as it represented a challenge that could be met by many full-time teachers However, the limitation of such a program is that it is designed to build momentum among learners but not to sustain long-term work. We therefore still had to find a way of supporting teachers who wanted to deepen their skills following this first approach.

A digital education cooperative within the university

In this spirit, we have imagined a project of digital pedagogy cooperative, implemented since 2018 at the Catholic University of Paris. The primary objective of this cooperative was to improve and transform pedagogical practices, through meetings, exchange and co-development of pedagogical projects between teachers and researchers:

• The forum, which is a yearly cycle of meetings, combining accounts of educational experiences, research work and practical workshops. The goal was to discover new practices and to exchange them.

• The incubator: teachers and researchers wishing to transform a course (using digital technology or the Catholic University of Paris' pedagogical innovation spaces) can present a project. The steering committee examines the proposals and decides to incubate two of them per year. During one semester, the teacher (or a group of teachers) and the DH Lab team meet every week and scripte the course together. The next semester, DH Lab team supports its implementation on the LMS. At the end of the incubation period, the project leader or the teaching team is invited to give feedback to the teaching community.

• The toolbox: this is intended for professors and teachers who want to ask a question or who wish to have an opinion on a project to be implemented (e.g.: "I want to use digital applications to conduct an activity: which one is the most appropriate?", "I want to do video recording, but I don't know how to do it", etc.). We find solutions to a specific pedagogical and/or technical problem. This requires the definition of a regular weekly time slot, with free access on the set.

Interestingly, only the incubator activity was successful (we abandoned the others).

Several teachers who had ambitious digital projects that they were unable to carry out on their own were able to receive support in carrying them out. Here again, it can be hypothesised that the success of such a scheme depends on the ability to adapt to the real needs and constraints of teachers in order to help them progress from where they are, in a realistic way.

Conclusion

In conclusion, in these three examples, the starting point was the same: proposing inclusive training and support systems that made it possible to welcome and support colleagues who refused to follow traditional formal training courses. But the issue of digital inclusion is not only in the initial moment of welcoming someone (even if it is fundamental). It is also about the end point of the training. This point is particularly well illustrated in an article reporting on another scheme, METAT, the digital methods workshop at Sciences Po Paris9 . As the authors of this article, who are also the facilitators of this workshop, show very well, in this workshop, the training ends when the person says that he or she has found what he or she came for. The training does not have a predefined time frame: it can be done in one session or several, it can last fifteen minutes or two hours, depending on the need expressed by the person. This is an insight that we would like to follow in our next projects, and it brings us back to a fundamental rule of adult education: adults are free. Therefore, it is always the learner who decides when learning starts and when it is finished. If we do not recognise this freedom, if we try to train them against their will, in a way that does not suit them, we will not succeed in including them. This is one of the fundamental intuitions of distance education, which has historically defined itself as "open education" [START_REF] Glikman | Des cours par correspondance au e-learning : Panorama des formations ouvertes et à distance[END_REF]: inclusion implies that the training institution adapt to the needs and multiple situations of learners. Without this, these learners risk being stuck in situations of illectronism which will become increasingly blocking in their daily and professional lives. It is therefore the responsibility of educational institutions to develop innovative formats that address the issue of digital inclusion of teachers.

Bibliography

  education. It does not include a lecture, but only practical workshops dedicated to the exchange of experiences and the development of innovative projects. The sessions are not organised in advance. Participants propose workshops at the opening of the Edcamp. Other participants can then take part. Workshops are usually organised in one of the following ways: open exchanges around the sharing of experiences; conducting practical activities according to the educational logic of the "Learning by Doing" and completing a project within a given time frame. It is a type of event organised by and for people involved in formal education (higher, secondary or primary education) or non-formal education (educational activists, mediation structures): teachers, researchers, students, trainers, educators, mediators. One can also meet people involved in the field of the educational technology industry (called EdTech movement): entrepreneurs, designers, etc. The issues of pedagogical innovation and the use of educational technologies are at the heart of the Edcamps. The work that takes place there can thus concern technologies (devices, software and applications); pedagogical innovations (Blended Learning or Mix Pedagogies); the design of online courses and their scripting; the design of space and the layout of classrooms, etc. The "Digital Humanities for Education" Edcamp organised in September 2016 had the aim of identifying the possible contributions of digital humanities to education. By mirror effect, the participants also questioned the way in which digital humanities can become a taught "discipline", by stimulating exchanges between researchers and practitioners around educational experiences that involve the use of new technologies. The event was introduced as follows: "The educational dimension of the Digital Humanities is expressed in various ways: transmission of skills in and out of educational institutions, teachers training, democratization and open access to digital culture. The perspective of the Digital Humanities can be relevant for thinking about information and communication technologies for education (ICTE) and their uses. The Edcamp "Digital Humanities for Education" proposed to explore the different forms of these links 7 .

  Baron, G.-L. (1989). L'informatique, discipline scolaire ? Le cas des lycées. Paris :Presses universitaires de France. Bourgatte, M., Ferloni, M., & Tessier, L. (Éds.). (2016). Quelles humanités numériques pour l'éducation ? : Ouvrage collaboratif édité en temps réel. MkF éditions. Caclard, N. (2012). La médiation numérique : une urgence pédagogique et politique. Cahiers de l'action, 36, 21-25. https://doi.org/10.3917/cact.036.0021

France, like many other countries, has seen in recent years the implementation of local policy projects explicitly aimed at the digital inclusion of different audiences (young or elderly people, women, people with disabilities, etc.). One example is the Maison de l'inclusion numérique du Gard project: https://www.gard.gouv.fr/Actualites/Inauguration-de-la-M-ison-de-l-Inclusion-Numerique. About this project and others of the same type, one can refer to the work and interventions of François Huguet: http://francoishuguet.fr/en

As an example,[START_REF] Messaoui | Impact du confinement sur les pratiques pédagogiques dans l'enseignement universitaire technologique en France : une étude exploratoire[END_REF], show that this difficulty is not specific to our institution but seems to be widespread. In the institutions they study, the authors note a very low enrolment rate when 'classic' digital training modules are offered to teacher-researchers.2 About this DH Lab, see "Disseminating research results in a DH Center: Mediasprint as "unconference proceedings", Speech given during the conference "Digital Humanities Centres: Experiences and Perspectives", Warsaw, 8-9 December 2016: http://dhlabs2016.lach.edu.pl/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MYpcCcaZmM

https://digitalpromise.org/edcamp/

http://edcamp.icp.fr/

It will be conducted for the third time this year. For a presentation of this training, see https://youtu.be/U_AVhJk9E2c

Diégo Antolinos Basso, Audrey Baneyx, Héloïse Théro, Benjamin Ooghe Tabanou, article to appear in the journal Humanités Numériques (https://journals.openedition.org/revuehn/).