Session Blog: Supporting Digital Humanities Research
The term Digital Humanities Research (DHR) may be an unfamiliar term for some readers, so I think it’s important to begin with some of the many examples referenced during the presentation. You have to immerse yourself in several sample projects to appreciate the rich possibilities afforded by digital humanities research. So I encourage you to click on a few of the links below and browse around before reading further in this blog entry.
* Anglo-Saxon Aloud, a daily reading of the entire Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records read aloud by Wheaton professor Michael Drout and made available online for students [http://fred.wheatonma.edu/wordpressmu/mdrout]
* Libro de los Infortunios y Naufragios (Book of the Misfortunes and Shipwrecks), in which Domingo Ledezma and his students created a translated and annotated hypertext edition of a 1535 Spanish text [http://webedit.wheatonma.edu/custom/xslt/users/xs12057321/output/xx68380113]
* Perry Visits Japan, a collection of scrolls that provides insights into Japanese perceptions of both the explorer and of American culture [http://dl.lib.brown.edu/japan]
* The Landscape Change Project in which community members create contemporary photos that can be paired with historic images to compare change over time [http://www.uvm.edu/landscape]
Viewed separately, each is a rich and annotated collection of humanities-oriented texts, sounds, and images. Viewed in sequence, one begins to see why these are more than discrete websites — they are a genre of research and production that are challenging academics, technologists, and librarians to develop new research methodologies, scalable production processes, and interoperable standards.
These examples, and others, were used to illustrate and discuss what presenters Hamlin, greenberg, Mylonas, and Yott have learned over the years about supporting humanities research. Below is a summary of the presenters’ observations and advice for those who are interested in taking on this type of project.
DHR–Understanding What It Is
Digital humanities research often intersects with classroom teaching, but is best considered as a form of “project.” This is because the research is not necessarily course- or class-bound, may span a number of semesters, may or may not involve students as producers, may extend beyond campus to include the surrounding community, etc. As with other forms of research, additional funding can make it possible to achieve a more satisfying quality of product. But it’s also important to keep in mind that, in the case of student-produced projects, the process can be as (or more) important than the product.
Breadth of inquiry is one of the hallmarks of a liberal arts education — students are challenged to become well rounded learners and thinkers. But digital humanities research projects offer the possibility of also taking student learning to a deeper, more nuanced level. As students scan, analyze, and develop metadata for project artifacts, their attention to detail surpasses that for a typical classroom assignment. For example, in working with Misfortunes and Shipwrecks the students became deeply engaged in understanding a text that would have been “otherwise impenetrable.”
DHR –What It Challenges Us To Become
As research becomes digital, the change in process challenges researchers to make more “conscious” use of their data. New questions emerge: Are the online renderings faithful to the original? What affordances and constraints are associated with putting research online? For example, affordances include the ability to represent–simultaneously–multiple perspectives on a topic and to add additional layers or dimensions to subject analysis. Constraints involve the considerable time, labor, and technical expertise required to create these types of projects, demands that may necessitate scaling down a project or procuring additional resources.
In addition, as compared with analog research, the process for conducting digital research introduces new steps and dimensions to the research process:
* Clarifying the vision and methodology (technical and theoretical) for the project
* Planning a process that will allow this vision to be successfully realized despite procedural complexities, limited resources, unanticipated developments, and rapid change in technology
* Identifying and selecting “texts” for study that may also include sounds, objects, movies, images, or documents such as maps
* Transcription and other steps to ensure accessibility
* Content encoding (translating the objects of research into digital format, text encoding or TEI, xml markup)
* Analytical encoding (assigning metadata)
The digital context makes it possible to take on new roles and partners – in fact, this collaboration is usually necessary for a successful outcome. Possible roles include:
* content experts,
* data creators,
* metadata creators,
* creators/supporters of technology infrastructure, etc.
This collaboration both offers (and sometimes demands)a surprising level of flexibility and attention to detail on the part of project participants.
Libraries are key partners who are concerned with standards, longevity, metadata to allow for robust searching and retrieval. Libraries help preserve and disseminate the products of the project work and will inevitably be concerned with the quality and accuracy of the work.
As digital humanities research progresses into the realm of digital publication, the focus may remain on the content or it may also include (or even focus on) the process, such as the research and production methodology.
Finally, in the case of projects that involve students, digital humanities research challenges us to look for the link between pedagogy and disciplinary research. The connection can be quite synergistic, creating a context in which the faculty member’s research and teaching are mutually informed. It also provides opportunities for students to make significant contributions to larger research efforts, resulting in a more gratifying learning experience.
Thoughts on Institutional Support for DHR
Wheaton College: Scott Hamlin of Wheaton College in Norton Massachusetts described their support as a “liaison model.” Technologists and librarians at the college specialize in subject areas, usually with formal education in the area in addition to an advanced LIS or technology degree. This allows them to understand the needs and concerns of the faculty with whom they work. Support staff may also develop expertise in discipline-specific software or technologies that are particularly appropriate to the field of study (for example, audio production software would be relevant to language study)
Regardless of the model for support, digital humanities research demands significant infrastructure to achieve a satisfactory experience (e.g., dedicated technology orientation, library support, follow-through technical assistance, quality monitoring, etc.)
In the case of course-related research, another challenge is that projects happen in a short time period. If this work is undertaken by a small institution with limited resources, projects may not be as polished as the participants would like. However, this is not an argument against conducting digital humanities research in this type of setting — it is just a heads-up on managing expectations. At Wheaton, where the student/faculty ratio is 11.7:1 and they value a high touch approach, research projects are pedagogy based and emphasize process over product. Despite limitations, smaller institutions have some advantages; they can be more nimble (time from idea to implementation) than larger institutions.
University of Vermont: Joking, Hope Greenberg of the University of Vermont described their digital humanities research as a “history of failure.” However, problems associated with each project have given them ideas for new strategies to try in the next, resulting in an increasingly sophisticated approach to digital research. In working with faculty and students, her unit’s motto is “We will explore, recommend, encourage, teach, but we can’t do it for you” and many of their challenges stem from trying to stay true to their “can’t do it for you” maxim.
UVM has experienced the most success when they have procured additional funding, involved community members and an emeritus professor in a project, and worked with the college to offer humanities computing courses that are designed to “grow” cohorts of students who are prepared to work on future projects. However, in one instance most of the students who enrolled were seniors, so unfortunately they lost many to graduation.
They are also experimenting with developing UVM DC, a coalition of people dedicated to the initiation and support of ongoing digital projects. As with many schools, UVM departments tend to operate with silos, with the assumption that the experiences of other disciplines will have limited relevance. UVM DC participants discovered that, while they do have different disciplinary needs, they also have much in common, such as the need for rich image sets, artifacts, etc. Greenberg’s advice to those invested in project development and support: “small is sometimes good – one size doesn’t have to fit all.” She encourages participants to visit their Center for Digital Initiatives [http://cdi.uvm.edu/collections/index.xql] and to read the CDI process blog that is kept by Winono Salesky [http://thedil.wordpress.com]
Brown University: Brown has one of the longest histories of digital humanities research in the country. In 1964 the school developed the Standard Corpus of Present-Day American English (Brown Corpus). Professors Henry Kucera and W. Nelson Francis published Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English in 1967, a landmark work in computational linguistics.
As with UVM, Brown formed a Scholarly Technology Group in 1994 with the goal of bringing scholars from diverse disciplines together so that they can find and act upon commonly-held needs. Brown also puts out call for proposals so that project development takes place under the aegis of a grants program, with the attendant professional recognition and academic respect.
The Brown University Women Writers Project [http://www.wwp.brown.edu] has been a key collaborator. In addition, the University Library’s Center for Digital Initiatives [http://dl.lib.brown.edu] provides direct faculty support. At Brown, three factors have been most critical to project success: standards, architecture, and structure (for example, APIs).
They have also observed that as projects mature and faculty delve into their research, or as work is made available to new audiences, the scope of work may need to be expanded or changed. For example, it may be desirable to add menu items, expand metadata categories, include new types of artifacts, provide different views, etc. If projects are well designed and adhere to standards, an expanding or changed scope of research can be accommodated.
At Brown they have found that it is to their advantage to have a “semi-permeable membrane between units in the college.” One unit may do the initial work on a project and then expansion or refinement may be done by another. The model for building digital materials may change depending on the use scenario (public access, scholarly research, student projects, etc.), so they needed to adapt development processes to allow for the greatest flexibility and collaboration from project inception to maturity (or even project spin-offs).
As the session ended, my only regret was that it took place on the afternoon of the last day of the conference, as the thoughts of many turned to homeward commutes. The audience was audibly reminded that the conference was winding down, as session presenters verbally competed with considerable background noise (packing up tables, transporting chairs, etc.)! It is my hope that this blog entry provides an opportunity to extend our dialogue on the important topic of digital humanities research.
-Posted by Gail Matthews-Denatale
Tags: educause_nc08