Patrik Svensson the director of HUMlab at Umeå University and a docent in the humanities and information technology. His research concerns digital humanities as a field, learning and information technology, cyberinfrastructure for the humanities and new media studies.
This is the source
There is currently an infrastructure turn with very real implications for the humanities and digital humanities. It comes not only with presumed technology or infrastructure, but also with certain assumptions, discursive patterns, and models. This paper analyzes these critically and advocates a humanities-based notion of cyberinfrastructure, not necessarily built on a science-and-engineering paradigm or exclusively grounded in existing humanities infrastructure. It is argued that we need to maintain a critical stance while simultaneously engaging in the exploration of research issues and technologies. There is often a gap between the material details of infrastructure and underlying, foundational ideas, and it is suggested that a model based on conceptual cyberinfrastructure and design parameters can be one way of connecting the ideational level with actual implementation. HUMlab at Umeå University serves as a case study.
Why the humanities should care about research infrastructure and how humanities cyberinfrastructure can be analyzed and built.
Whether or not
In this article, I argue that the humanities need to consider the multiple opportunities associated with cyberinfrastructure, while maintaining epistemic integrity and avoiding modeling new infrastructure uncritically after existing models. For example, what is humanities cyberinfrastructure? How can we critically engage with the discourse and ideas of cyberinfrastructure? What are the infrastructural needs of the humanities? How can new infrastructure and digital humanities spaces be designed and implemented? The humanities are arguably in a position to co-create and co-construct their own notion of cyberinfrastructure, as well as implementing it, even if the discourse and its associated implementations do not necessarily conform fully to a science and engineering based model or previous layers of scholarly infrastructure. HUMlab, a digital humanities center at Umeå University, serves as a case study leading to a more general discussion of design principles and conceptual cyberinfrastructure for the humanities. Further, tentative advice as to implementing and strategizing humanities cyberinfrastructure is offered.
The article series, as a whole, traces digital humanities as a project in terms of history, epistemic commitments, modes of engagement with the digital, conceptual foundations for associated cyberinfrastructure, visions and hope invested, and future directions for the field, and necessarily, for the humanities at large.
In the first article, I examined the discursive transition from humanities computing to digital humanities, exploring how this naming is related to shifts in institutional, disciplinary, and social organization. I also addressed the epistemic culture and commitments of humanities computing, and tensions between this tradition and a broad notion of digital humanities.
In the second article, I explored the broader landscape of the digital humanities through a discussion of digital humanities and digital humanists, associated traditions, personal encounters and importantly, through a suggested set of paradigmatic modes of engagement between the humanities and information technology: information technology as a tool, an object of study, an exploratory laboratory, an expressive medium, and as an activist venue.
In the fourth article, I explore the multiple ways in which the digital humanities have been envisioned and how the digital humanities can often become a laboratory and vehicle for thinking about the state and future of the humanities at large. Some foundational issues, including the role of the humanities and changing knowledge production systems, are discussed and related to the development of the digital humanities. Furthermore, a tentative vision of the digital humanities is presented. This vision is grounded in the article series as a whole as well as in the important collaborative possibilities and challenges that lie ahead of us.
The current article is divided into three parts. The first part discusses the notion and discourse of research infrastructure critically, and relates this to the humanities and humanities infrastructure. There is a significant gap between the grand visions of the discourse of cyberinfrastructure and the actual, implemented infrastructure. It is argued that it is essential that the humanities embrace current opportunities and explore multiple visions when considering cyberinfrastructure for the humanities, while avoiding the dangers of being uncritically modeled after existing humanities infrastructures or after technology and science based models. The second part investigates a particular example of digital humanities infrastructure in considerable detail. An attempt at bridging the gap mentioned above is made through introducing a three-layered model which incorporates conceptual cyberinfrastructure (underlying ideas and epistemic grounding), design principles (intermediate level articulation of conceptual cyberinfrastructure) and actual cyberinfrastructure (implemented infrastructure). Special emphasis is given to space, infrastructure and how ideational grounding and physical (as well as digital) implementation are negotiated. Finally, the third part of this article reflects on packaging, strategizing and implementing cyberinfrastructure for the humanities. This discussion draws on the previous parts, as well as experience from building a lab and engaging with the digital humanities community.
It is argued that this expansive approach can help provide a comprehensive picture of research infrastructure from visionary discourse to actual implementation, and support a sophisticated argument for humanities cyberinfrastructure. However, any analysis of such a complex matter as research infrastructure is necessarily partial, and while much of the study is fairly general, the case study has provided an important point of canalization. This also means that the idea of a physical, digitally inflected laboratory has influenced the work, and that some other aspects, including standardization and digital libraries, are given limited attention.
Research infrastructure, while traditionally not associated with the humanities, has become a topic of conversation on faculty boards and among researchers in the humanities. Moreover, there is substantial interest from funding agencies, councils and various organizations under rubrics such as cyberinfrastructure and e-science. At this point in time, there is a grapple for securing funding, defining key questions and aligning the humanities with an epistemic framework bearing a strong science and engineering legacy. There is no doubt there are many opportunities, particularly for a field such as the digital humanities, but also real risks and important considerations. What requires attention is not least the assumed epistemic and ontological neutrality of the ‘infrastructure move’ and, correspondingly, its assumed broad applicability for everything from geology to cultural studies. In this section, we will consider risks associated with modeling humanities cyberinfrastructure on existing infrastructure, or on a technology and science driven paradigm. The stakes are high, and the cyberinfrastructure movement as a whole – and its articulation as an important strategy in the humanities – can be seen as an epistemic power play. It is a power play with very real implications for the humanities and the digital humanities.
In the
In the roadmap, we deal with facilities, resources or services of a unique nature that have been identified by pan-European research communities to conduct top-level activities in all fields. This definition of Research Infrastructures, including the associated human resources, covers major equipment or sets of instruments, as well as knowledge‑containing resources such as collections, archives and databases. Research Infrastructures may besingle-sited, distributed, orvirtual (the service being provided electronically). They often require structured information systems related to data management, enabling information and communication. These include technology-based infrastructures such as grid, computing, software and middleware.
This definition is fairly typical, and the full report is typical in the sense of
providing enumerations of different types of technologies and research infrastructures.
There is no simple way of defining the resources (as personnel, buildings, or
equipment) required for an activity
as well as the
underlying foundation or basic framework (of a system or organization)
connotes big, durable, well-functioning systems and
services, from railroads and highways to telephone, electric power, and the
Internet.
In practice, the notion of research infrastructure carries with it a number of assumptions that are partly linked to funding structures and the idea of infrastructure as a resource of national or international interest. Research infrastructure is typically taken to be advanced, costly, require national or pan-national funding, be associated with leading research and researchers, be part of a system, have use beyond single research groups or disciplines, have longevity, and add significant new research possibilities.
In general, much discussion of cyberinfrastructure is technology-driven, data-driven
and structural-level. This is partly a result of the selling of a new generation of
research infrastructure (cf.
OCI supports cyberinfrastructure resources, tools and related services such as supercomputers, high-capacity mass-storage systems, system software suites and programming environments, scalable interactive visualization tools, productivity software libraries and tools, large-scale data repositories and digitized secientific data management systems, networks of various reach and granularity and an array of software tools and services that hide the complexities and heterogeneity of contemporary cyberinfrastructure while seeking to provide ubiquitous access and enhanced usability.
As Borgman observes, cyberinfrastructure is often defined through example, typically
emphasizing the integrative, collaborative, and distributed
nature of new forms of research
Research infrastructure seems to easily acquire a status and life beyond
However, the nature of infrastructure and funding mechanisms make the process more
complicated than matching one identified research challenge with an appropriate piece of
infrastructure. In practice, infrastructure often has to be relatively abstractly framed
and typically serve more than one specific need in order to qualify as infrastructure.
Technologies such as visualization and grid computing fulfill this requirement, and they
often come across as
The discourse and practice of research infrastructure are strongly situated in science and engineering, and typically concerns technology and systems that require national or pan-national funding. Examples include high performance computing, grid computing, and facilities for synchrotron radiation and biomedical imaging. Also in cases when national funding sources in principle are open to all areas of research (including the humanities), there is a strong tendency to mainly fund science, engineering and medical research. For instance, the Swedish Research Council gave out 40 infrastructural grants in 2009 for equipment, running costs for infrastructure and large databases, and none of these grants had an obvious humanities focus or humanities based principal investigator, although one or two grants were given to quantitative social science projects. Clearly, the humanities have not been seen as a significant player in this kind of funding schemes apart from in certain areas (e.g. computational linguistics, environmental archaeology and digital libraries), which also means that the specifics of humanities infrastructures are rarely elaborated on, and there is relatively little discussion of what humanities infrastructure in this sense could actually be.
As was noted above, there is an acknowledgement and push for the importance of better
and more research infrastructure for the humanities — not least in the digital
humanities. This process is strongly linked to a realization that material, tools and
culture are becoming increasingly digitalized, and that academic work is increasingly
being carried out in a distributed and digitally supported fashion. The background is
also a relatively recent move towards a infrastructure turn,
while funding agency reports and other sources often
describe it as a revolution (e.g. The Panel’s overarching finding is that a new age
has dawned in scientific and engineering research, pushed by continuing progress in
computing, information, and communication technology; and pulled by the expanding
complexity, scope, and scale of today’s research challenges.
The use of
The National Science Foundation Report only mentions the humanities explicitly once (in
relation to digital libraries), but nevertheless there is clearly an interest in
engaging with the humanities and social sciences despite the NSF’s focus on science and
engineering. Similarly, in many accounts of cyberinfrastructure there will be a note
about the impact on these Although
our focus is on e-Science, other research fields such as the social sciences, arts,
and humanities will also require and benefit from this emerging cyberinfrastructure.
It may be argued that statements like these are somewhat external to the humanities in that they often make outside assumptions about the needs, requirements and priorities of the field. In order for the humanities to control our own cyberinfrastructure, we need to express humanities-driven needs and engage in constructive dialogue about our current and future infrastructure.
There are risks, however, that need to be addressed in this dialogue. First, existing humanities infrastructure may be disregarded as we do not have a tradition of science-like infrastructure. Second, the science-based and data-driven model may be imposed on the Humanities (sometimes by humanists themselves) without careful discussion of the premises and consequences. Third, there is a risk that infrastructural needs or agendas compatible with the largely science based model will be the ones most likely to be prioritized. Fourth, new humanities infrastructure may be uncritically based on existing infrastructure and associated epistemic commitments.
The position taken in this article is that the current investments and interest in cyberinfrastructure and e-science for the humanities present an opportunity to think carefully about what the humanities need and may not need in terms of infrastructure (broadly interpreted). This cannot be done, however, if we cannot maintain a critical stance and advocate a truly humanities based approach to academic infrastructure. At the same time, we need to acknowledge that we do not necessarily know what kind of infrastructure we need and will need, and that it is important to simultaneously engage in the exploration of humanities based research issues and challenges, and in the exploration of technology and different kinds of infrastructure (including infrastructure that is part of science and engineering cyberinfrastructure). Consequently, we must allow for both technology and humanities induced visions and implementations in different kinds of combinations.
Furthermore, we have to be aware of the fact that any investment in cyberinfrastructure is likely to be a prioritization and that certain parts of the humanities are more likely than others to be good candidates for such investments. It is important, however, that this prioritization is not a direct consequence or transfer of a predominantly science and engineering model of cyberinfrastructure and that it is not uncritically based on existing infrastructural traditions. Importantly, cyberinfrastructure is not neutral. In the following, we will look at three models for humanities research infrastructure, which exemplify the non-neutrality of cyberinfrastructure: existing infrastructure as a model, the humanities having no or little infrastructure, and a technology and science driven model.
The humanities have made use of research infrastructure in scholarly practice from
early on, and for instance, libraries and archives are often pointed out as essential
infrastructure to the humanities. Indeed, some writers claim that the humanities
themselves make up vital infrastructure (e.g.
One descriptive model states that there is considerable humanities research
infrastructure already in place and that this infrastructure is a very good candidate
for becoming cyberinfrastructure or being digitalized: The
infrastructure of scholarship was built over centuries. It includes diverse
collections of primary sources in libraries, archives, and museums; the
bibliographies, searching aids, citation systems, and concordances that make that
information retrievable; the standards that are embodied in cataloging and
classification systems; the journals and university presses that distribute the
information; and the editors, librarians, archivists, and curators who link the
operation of this structure to the scholars who use it. All of these elements have
extensions or analogues in cyberinfrastructure, at least in the cyberinfrastructure
that is required for humanities and social sciences.
While this is probably a valid description of existing infrastructure (but cf. The
design of new environments for performing scholarly work cannot be left to the
technical staff and to library professionals. The library is a crucial partner in
planning and envisioning the future of preserving, using, even creating scholarly
resources. So are the technology professionals. But in an analogy with building
construction, they are the architect and contractor. The creation of archives,
analytic tools, statistical analyses of aggregate data in humanities and social
sciences is work only possible with the combined expertise of technical,
professional, and scholarly personnel. [...] Modelling scholarship is an
intellectual challenge, not a technical one. I cannot say this strongly or clearly
enough.
In contrast to much of the discourse of cyberinfrastructure and digital humanities,
Drucker focuses on the scholarly challenge and not on the technology or
technology-induced visions. However, the terms on which this analogy is constructed
reinforces specific roles, and the term […] [W]e need new institutions to
provide access to the results of our work. Neither the libraries nor the publishers
of the early twenty-first century serve the needs that emerge in this collection.
While libraries may survive and indeed flourish as an institution, they will do so
by subsuming and transforming the functions that we entrusted to publishers in print
culture.
The library as a model is hence not static, and as Blackwell and Crane’s example illustrates, we need to be careful about not uncritically modeling tomorrow’s research infrastructure on past or current infrastructure.
There is a sense that traditional humanities have very little need of research
infrastructure and, at the same time, a partial realization that that the needs may be
changing. This is an argument sometimes put forward by the digital humanities community:
Despite a slow and uneven uptake of digital technology in
some areas of the Arts and Humanities research, the discipline is no longer based on
pen and paper. Specific individual needs of research that relies on the use of
advanced technologies must be better understood and matched by a level of support
that is already enjoyed by the scientists.
This kind of reasoning to some extent reinforces the sense of Humanities scholars often work alone
without collaborators or assistants. In contrast to the cooperative efforts common
in the sciences and social sciences, humanities scholarship is the result of
solitary research and thought.
Obviously most humanities research is not at all solitary (cf.
When a science and engineering framework is taken to the humanities and social
sciences, there will often be attempts at aligning specific toolsets and technologies
with the subject areas in question and here, the starting point will often be the
technology. A fairly recent example is grid computing (see e.g.
On the one hand we have to find ways of training and preparing humanities research teams to be able to imagine using existing HPC facilties, and on the other we have to develop the ability of HPC consortia to be able to reach out and support.
One recommendation in the report concerns the necessity of humanists being involved
early in the process (also in management and decisions). There is a balance between
discipline and technology driven issues and questions, and finding this common ground is
not trivial. Importantly, we also need to acknowledge that
On a more abstract level there is a concern with aligning cyberinfrastructure as a
project with the humanities and social sciences: Humanities
scholars and social scientists will require similar facilities but, obviously, not
exactly the same ones: “grids of computational centers” are needed in the humanities
and social sciences, but they will have to be staffed with different kinds of
subject-area experts; comprehensive and well-curated libraries of digital objects
will certainly be needed, but the objects themselves will be different from those
used in the sciences; software toolkits for projects involving data-mining and
data-visualization could be shared across the sciences, humanities, and social
sciences, but only up to the point where the nature of the data begins to shape the
nature of the tools. Science and engineering have made great strides in using
information technology to understand and shape the world around us. This report is
focused on how these same technologies could help advance the study and
interpretation of the vastly more messy and idiosyncratic realm of human
experience.
There is, again, a risk here of adopting a science and engineering based model for
humanities infrastructure in such a way that it significantly constrains and shapes
possible research enterprises and directions. The question is also whether it is at all
possible to discern a point like the one referred to in only up to
the point where the nature of the data begins to shape the nature of the
tools
. It may be argued that this point occurs very early and that there is more
at play here than the nature of the data. It could be argued the alignment described in
the ACLS report is simply not feasible. As Sterne points out, disciplines never fully constitute their objects; they fight over them
Information infrastructures such as databases
should be read both discursively and materially; they are a site of political and
ethical as well as technical work; and that there can be no a priori attribution of
a given question to the technical or the political realms.
Broadly conceived, cyberinfrastructure is intertwined with various institutional,
social, cultural and historical layers inside and outside the disciplines themselves. As
research infrastructure often, but not necessarily, supports interdisciplinary work, it
seems particularly important to situate data structures, standards, technologies,
knowledge structures and tools in a broad epistemological context. This is even more
important given that infrastructures have a tendency to become invisible over time and
that scalability is a commonly assigned property of cyberinfrastructure
There is a risk that external pressure on the humanities, not least the digital humanities, leads us to a positivist, results-driven approach. Here the need to provide motivation for funding agencies and university administration unsurprisingly plays an important role:
I'd just like to chip in and say this is what the funding councils are callingEvidence of Value — and are asking us to show evidence for the value of digital humanities research. It's important, as funding cuts in this area (such as the withdrawal of funds for the AHDS) are based on the perceived lack of evidence of value. Unless we can articulate, as a community, the better/faster/more nature of digital, we will struggle even harder for funding in years to come.
The choice of adjectives here — better/faster/more
At a time when there is both external pressure to specify infrastructural needs for the
humanities and a growing humanities-internal interest for academic infrastructure and
for the
Here the question of epistemic commitments (cf.
[a]cknowledging these commitments can help us develop appropriate technologies that help rather than hinder existing research practice, add a layer of reflexivity to researchers' choices and decisions, and ultimately, facilitate productive cross-disciplinary collaboration
Given the cyberinfrastructural push and the considerable interest in establishing new initiatives for the digital humanities, there is currently a window of opportunity. This window of opportunity needs to be combined with critical engagement to establish good practice, explore possible models and have a cyberinfrastructural dialogue across the Humanities.
As we have seen, the discourse on research infrastructure frequently becomes abstract and undetailed. At times, it is also positivistic and seemingly unsituated. At close quarters, on the other hand, infrastructure is often very concrete and material. The step from this material quality, as exemplified by a strand of optical fiber or a database server, to the conceptual underpinnings of research infrastructure, e.g. the ideas underlying a digital humanities initiative can be very substantial. In the following section, it is suggested that it can be helpful to look at the underlying ideas and the material qualities as well as intermediate level design principles that mediate ideas and infrastructure.
In order to connect ideational grounding, design principles and actual implemented infrastructure, the case study of HUMlab, a digital humanities laboratory in the North of Sweden, will be examined in detail, as a particular example of humanities cyberinfrastructure. The case study was partly chosen because of the current author’s intimate knowledge of it, but also because it serves as a fairly distinct example of digital humanities infrastructure. Needless to say, it is only one example of infrastructural implementations, and as most infrastructures, highly situated in a particular context.
HUMlab is situated in a comprehensive research university, Umeå University, and as a ten-year endeavor, it has just undergone a major expansion supported strongly by the university as well as several external funding agencies. HUMlab has a commitment to a wide range of different modes of engagement which, naturally, affects infrastructural needs and visions. At this particular point in time, the university has taken a decision to build a new artistic campus — Umeå Arts Campus — by the river not too far from the main campus. Here the Institute of Design, the Academy of Fine Arts, BildMuseet (museum for contemporary visual arts) and a new School of Architecture will be situated, in addition to the new HUMlab-X. HUMlab will be the only institute or department to have a clear presence on both campuses.
As noted above, there is evidently a considerable gap between the visionary, often positivistic and unsituated, discourse on cyberinfrastructure and implemented, and often quite material and situated, infrastructure. The connection between the two seems weak at times, and as we have seen, the conceptual underpinnings of cyberinfrastructure and associated epistemic scope may not be clear or explicated. At the same time, seemingly small decisions about technical or constructional details can have a very real impact on potential use and research possibilities afforded by the infrastructure.
Through looking at implemented infrastructure, how it came about, ideational grounding and actual use, we can get a better sense of the complexity of the process and hopefully suggest a model that makes the concept of cyberinfrastructure richer, at the same time as linking to actual infrastructure. In the following, a model which includes conceptual cyberinfrastructure, design principles and actual cyberinfrastructure will be explored in relation to a particular infrastructural example.
There are many possible infrastructural needs for a digital humanities lab or any
digital humanities enterprise. These needs are partly connected to the modes of
engagement discussed in the second article in this series
It is worth stressing the wide range of possible implementations within a single mode
of engagement such as technology as tool. One example may be a research environment
interested in experimental work using eye-tracking equipment or phonetic experiments in
an echo-free room. These various facilities could possibly be manifested in several
separate (but probably co-localized) rooms. Another example could be an institution
focused on digital cultural heritage and the use of heavy-duty databases for making
cultural heritage accessible to researchers around the world. Here the database servers
would not necessarily have to take up any lab space at all as they would probably be
housed in a server hall somewhere. Much of the work could then be carried out in
individual offices or in a small lab space with workstations and space to help
facilitate collaborative projects. A third example may be found in the tool-building
phase of a large-scale research project where the digital component was a small part of
the whole project. Here the facilities and equipment used may be part of that larger
research project, or there might be some general resources for certain tasks.
Importantly, all of the above examples require resources beyond the technology proper,
and high-level competency is often needed. For instance, it does not make much sense to
invest in high-end eye-tracking equipment if you do not have staff or researchers
invested in methodology, technical management and maintenance. For more extensive use,
and higher return on investment (i.e. higher and more
The installation we will now look at has a more general, multipurpose character beyond the needs of single research groups, disciplines or methodological areas. HUMlab is a physically grounded studio environment heavily dependent on distributed work, international collaboration and reaching out. My knowledge from this institution comes from personal engagement and directorship, and while this inside perspective certainly calls for methodological concern and care, it also brings long experience from building, developing and incorporating a particular institution and its associated cyberinfrastructure.
HUMlab at Umeå University, Sweden, is a digital humanities center whose main physical
manifestation is a 500 m2 (5,500 square feet) studio space
at the center of the campus below the university library. This location is ideal because
of its centrality and because it is seen as a neutral space not associated with any
particular school or department. It is also a space with history and certain, irregular
physical qualities that seem to help create an engaging and attractive environment.
The basic idea behind HUMlab, as articulated early on, is to facilitate the meeting
between humanities, culture and information technology, or put differently, to be a
meeting place for the humanities, culture and information technology. Being a
collaborative and intersectional
The roots of this fairly independent role can partly be found in the lab’s origins. HUMlab was established in the late 1990s as a result of a discussion at the humanities faculty that started around 1994-95. The earliest incitement was the fact that the analogue language laboratory (mainly for teaching language pronunciation and proficiency) was gradually breaking down, and an early response was to try to devise some kind of multimedia lab. The resultant application for external funding was not successful, but had it been, the new lab would probably have been fairly traditional and instrumental. The failed attempt to secure funding led to the faculty seeking help elsewhere, resulting in a multiple-year process and ultimately to a very different concept. This concept, the meeting place mentioned above, partly came from outside the faculty and through working with a senior and creative officer at the university-wide IT function, the faculty secured technological validity, administrative know-how and an outside perspective on the humanities.
The resultant project application rendered some early external funding for equipment in
1998, and a decision was taken to support the lab at a faculty board meeting in November
1998. It is noteworthy that the faculty board, despite the secured external funding for
equipment and a fairly long internal process, was quite divided. The decision was
positive but it took the decisive vote of the chair of the board to settle the matter.
This hesitancy is possibly unsurprising, giving the
The idea of having a lab or studio space was part of the concept from very early on.
Indeed, as we noted above, it all started as a concern with an old language laboratory
and a possible multimedia replacement, the spatial need and having a lab could be seen
as part of the original epistemic setup. It was taken further, though, in the subsequent
discussions of HUMlab. There is a significant difference between a more moderate lab
space and the large space that was envisioned and later allocated for HUMlab. This may
partly have been a consequence of the focus on HUMlab as a meeting place and a diverse
studio space with many different technologies and approaches. Moreover, HUMlab was
described at an early stage as a
The characteristics of the available space played an important role. After some negotiation, HUMlab was offered an old space below the university library. For many years, the long-term goal, supported by the university management, was to secure another space (newly built), but it has gradually become more and more obvious how well the existing space works. The location is critical, and a new, nice space at the periphery of the campus would most certainly not work as well as a meeting place. Also, the quirkiness, character and history of an old space plays an important role, as exemplified by the pillars, the irregularity of the space, the basement position and its earlier function as an exam hall. We will return to these elements shortly.
HUMlab as a physical playground and meeting place is very much grounded in ongoing
activities, lab life, meetings and technology. This physical presence extends into
various digital environments and the two spaces of activity are richly interlinked. Most
of the activities and projects are distributed in one sense or another. For instance,
one of the first projects in the lab (started in 1999) a three-year student based
exploration and expression in a virtual world hosted by HUMlab
In terms of organization, HUMlab is a unit directly under the Humanities faculty and in
most respects structurally comparable to a department. HUMlab can employ faculty as well
as staff, and the director of the lab has roughly the same role as a head of a
department. There is no formal research discipline associated with HUMlab, which means
that Ph.D. students are affiliated both with HUMlab and a department. Faculty can be
employed and tenured (in the European sense) by HUMlab. There are many possible
organizational models, of course, but in many respects this particular organizational
position seems advantageous. For one thing, there is little risk that HUMlab becomes too
much associated with one department. HUMlab works with all humanities departments and
disciplines (but in different ways and to varying extents). A higher organizational
position such as a being a university level unit may be useful in some respects, but the
risk may be that you lose disciplinary anchorage. Furthermore, because of the unit’s
relative independency and multiple modes of engagement with information technology,
there is little risk that HUMlab becomes classified as a service unit (a kind of unit
normally prone to restructuring and financial rationalization; cf.
An important part of HUMlab as practice is broad collaboration within and outside the humanities faculty. It is vital that HUMlab has had (or taken) a mandate to work extensively with other parts of the university, artists, companies and others interested in collaboration. Often these collaborations function as a way of creating collaborative opportunities for humanities researchers, students and departments. Importantly, HUMlab presents itself as being dynamically built on such collaborations rather than as a distinct and self-sustained research center. This is probably one of the reasons why there is strong support for a new HUMlab on the new Umeå Arts Campus. There was clearly an interest in having parties who not only engage in collaboration, but whose main function is to facilitate collaboration and interdisciplinary meetings (and in a way are dependent on rich collaboration for success).
It may be argued that a chief difficulty in growing digital humanities is finding modes of scholarship that enable young researchers to inhabit the often problematic in-between zones. HUMlab attempts to balance interdisciplinarity within a collaborative zone with a grounding in departments and disciplines. This allows a range of strategies to grow. Further, it provides migration in discourses between interdisciplinary zones and centers of traditional academic departments and enables solidarities to arise in communities across departments, thus helping structure a field of research, and does not force young scholars to compromise between conservative choices for career and their interest in speaking to the contemporary moment.
An early strategic decision that shaped HUMlab and associated cyberinfrastructure is that access is not restricted to specific groups and that the lab is open to students, faculty and staff as well as outside participants (a consequence of the basic idea of meeting place). Hence there is no exclusive focus on research, rather a continuous cross-fertilization between education, research and development work. HUMlab was designed to allow several simultaneous activities, and normally, a single activity cannot monopolize the lab. For instance, this means that a teacher using HUMlab for a class cannot ask other people to leave the lab (unless they are obviously disturbing the teaching), and that interaction between groups and individuals is encouraged. The difference between a regular classroom and HUMlab is quite pronounced, while some teachers may initially be uncomfortable with HUMlab as learning environment, most seem to appreciate the dynamics and energy of the lab. A common reaction if you enter the lab for the first time – not least students – is one of (positive) surprise and some bewilderment.
The interrelation between the space, technology and design is key to the actual
implementation of a digital humanities environment whether it be physical or digital.
Space and design cannot be divorced from technology and intellectual milieu (cf.
The physical lab space of HUMlab was originally an examination hall and is situated in
the oldest part of the university – below the university library and the central
rotunda. The basement location gives the lab a certain atmosphere (cf.
The foundational function is further evidenced through 24 pillars and the rotunda,
whose protruding base forms one of the inner walls. The ceiling height is not the same
throughout the space and in general, the space is fairly irregular. The original lab
space is about 280 m2 (3000 square feet). It contains a
closeable inner space with large windows and the lab’s computer workstations are mainly
organized around pillars (as
Although a rather untraditional lab environment, the old part of the space has some
elements associated with traditional computer lab spaces, including the computer
workstations described above. When HUMlab was expanded in 2008 with an additional 220
m2 (2400 square feet), the new space was designed with
considerably more flexibility than the old part. In a way, the two parts represent
fairly different implementations and concepts within a common framework. The function of
an open meeting place is quite pronounced in the new space. At the center is
These public screens are simultaneously individual and part of the screenscape, and
they structure and break up the space in certain ways. Participants in the space can be
situated in relation to individual screens or in the context of the full screenscape, as
well in ongoing activities or conversations. Serial spectacles on overhead screens both symbolically join spaces
together in long-distance communication and fragment the social atmosphere of their
immediate environments. The connotations of public address that come with the
convention of overhead screen placement suture the conversing spectator into (at
least) two places at once.
While the screens in the HUMlab screenscape are not placed in an overhead position (but rather mid-level), they certainly both fragment and join the space together. The space and technical setup encourage experimentation with different configuration and uses.
Behind the screen perimeter there are a number of workplaces and workstations for different research areas and for visiting scholars. Here the large screens mounted on pillars help separate the screenscape from the more private area behind the pillars, while maintaining a sense of communication in between the more public and the more private zones. One of the sections behind the pillars has a combined whiteboard and projection screen that is not part of the screenscape and which allows a small research group to collaboratively and semi-privately use the screen and associated technology.
There can be no doubt that the ways cyberinfrastructure is constructed and implemented
have direct bearing on knowledge production and the epistemic scope of such
infrastructures, and that space, physical and digital, is often a carrier of
cyberinfrastructure. There is rich meaning to how space and infrastructure are
configured, juxtaposed and used far beyond the purely functional or technical properties
of the infrastructure. The following set of quotes illustrates this point in relation to
a traditional humanities infrastructure - the library. I'm
surprised to realize how much my identity as a humanist at MIT is tied to Building
14, how strong its symbolic importance as a space for humanities books and
humanities teachers. I think that a Humanities Library should be a kind of intellectual hub for
humanities scholars and students. It should house books, of course, but also
humanities events, humanities computing resources, etc. Humanists should be able
to gather there to exchange ideas. The library is our lab. And our food trucks,
minus the food. The best place for writing for me is by the big windows in the Humanities
Library, with the network drop nearby. All I ask for is some newer tables, and
maybe more ergonomic chairs. The Humanities Library is an oasis in an otherwise inhospitable desert. It
provides the Humanities with a dignity that is not accord else on this campus, and
therefore sustains me in my sense of intellectual and academic worth on a
day-to-day basis.
These comments were collected in the beginnings of the 2000s, when there was a discussion of the future and location of the humanities library at MIT. The comments mainly come from faculty, and here we get a sense of the richness and interconnectedness associated with conceptual grounding (the library as idea, meeting place and hub), design (e.g. the big windows and the network drop), location, personal engagement with the infrastructure, power structures and disciplinary perspectives.
It is thus important to carefully consider how we design these spaces or
infrastructures and how they relate to both the technological level of infrastructure
and conceptual grounding. This may be where we find the kind of articulation and
A rich full-length study of the complexities of cyberinfrastructure in relation to
space and conceptual notions can be found in Reinhold Martin's analysis of corporate
architecture in the United States after the Second World War displace (or dissimulate) the social hierarchies written into white collars and
gray flannel, in the name of
While IBM represented itself as a mere maker of business
machines and
These arrangements clearly have rich meaning, and it could be argued that such a reflective mode and sense of history and ideational grounding also helps us to better understand cyberinfrastructure for the humanities.
Conceptual cyberinfrastructure can be seen as a set of underlying ideas that provide
the ideational grounding of a particular instance of research infrastructure. In the
case of HUMlab, facilitating cross-sectional meetings is such an underlying idea. In the
model presented here, these basic ideas can be related to design principles. For
instance, the design principle of translucence (to facilitate both
In practice the flow will be iterative, and for instance, it is rarely the case that new space and infrastructure can be built without any constraints imposed from existing systems, architecture and research infrastructure, as well as existing funding regimes and/or policies at the administrative level. Such constraints (and possibilities) need to be presented and negotiated throughout the process.
While this model may seem ambitious for small installations and for conventionalized
infrastructure (such as a traditional classroom intended to be used
Importantly, since the digital humanities maximally but not necessarily, incorporates many different disciplines, disciplinary pathways, modes of engagement, perspectives and outside pressures, it is quite important to be conscious of epistemic traditions and be deliberate about the process, vision and implementation. It is also important, however, to acknowledge that arriving at a conceptual foundation and implementation often is a complex, iterative and exploratory process, and that there are many possible paths.
In the case of HUMlab, it is quite clear that there has been a set of conceptual underpinnings that have shaped the emerging cyberinfrastructure from the beginning, although some of these may not have been articulated until quite late in the process. Other parts of the conceptual foundation have developed and changed over the years. Below, three significant examples are given, one of which is discussed at more length. Additionally, individual design principles are detailed in the subsequent section.
In a discussion of the initiative for software studies and associated cultural
analytics research at UC San Diego, Lev Manovich points to how having access to the
visualization environment HIperSpace at CALIT2 has made new ideas or directions
possible: HIperSpace is the reason why I am able to think of
being able to map and analyze global cultural patterns in detail. I would not ever
think about it if I just worked on my laptop screen.
While facilities such as HIperSpace and HUMlab are very flexible and will generate
ideas, uses and experiments beyond what could be envisioned at the start, it is also
true that users and uses are constrained by the way these infrastructures have been
thought up and set up. This could be said to be part of the conceptual
cyberinfrastructure. HIperSpace is a very large tiled display made up of many small
screens - basically a large, rectangular screen with internal mullions (caused by the
frames of the individual screens). It is seen as a front end to an optiputer and the
main overarching goal is to examine a
The visual
(and aural and haptic) displays that immerse the user in the virtual world and that
block out contradictory sensory impressions from the real world;
In some ways, the distributed screenscape of HUMlab is the opposite of such virtual
reality manifestations. In HUMlab, sensory impressions from the in a sense, view things from inside the
scene
There would be no screen between the user and the
information and no way for the user to step back and contemplate the screen at a
distance, because she would be wearing the screens as eyepieces that completely
covered her field of view.
HUMlab attempts to bring together multiplex frames (digital screens that contain separate elements such as windows) and multiple digital screens in a held-together screenscape. Each screen can be run individually in the screenscape, be part of a large 'computer desktop' or be part of a video-signal level desktop or extended space (which can include video, computer and other sources). The screenscape as a whole is part of a large studio space with a seminar table in the middle of the room. In this way a range of practices and possible uses can be supported, spanning from traditional seminars (with no or little technology used), to individual researchers using their workstations with one or several screens, to research groups using the large high-resolution touch screen collaboratively and in a distributed fashion with remote data sets and researchers, to student use of three screens to discuss different solutions to an assigned problem, and even to large interactive art installations that use screens, different kinds of sensor technology and spatial audio.
Let us look at a few examples more directly in relation to various humanities based uses of the kind of environment that is described above (excluding uses that do not use any or little technology). As digitalized material becomes increasingly available, a screenscape can help philologists and art historians to display and interact with a number of manuscript pages or pictures. Researchers in environmental archeology can pull together large data sets, diverse materials and visualized data models in one space, and use a large, high-resolution screen to work with the data model (zooming, modifying, interrelating the model with data sources) locally or together with remote research centers. Site-specific art installations can be created in the space. Students who have built virtual exhibitions in Second Life can show their individual or their group’s slices of their virtual world on screens. Events such as an indie game evenings can make use of all the screens to allow people to interact with a range of games, and in an associated presentation, individual games can be moved to the large screen and juxtaposed as part of a comparative and analytical process. Other events may bring in remote researchers through different types of virtual environments and through visualized data sets. Thematic screenings of films can be facilitated in the space. An upcoming seminar with an international guest speaker can be contextualized through a curated selection of images, video clips, texts and web pages. More generally and visionarily, complex scholarly environments for humanistic research can bring together analytical tools, distributed materials, representations and ways to tackle central research challenges in a studio space such as in the aforementioned descriptions, as well as in associated online spaces.
There is certainly an interesting interrelation between the humanities and technology
supported visualization and representation, and hopefully the above description shows
that associated cyberinfrastructure comes with certain epistemic commitments, but also
that uses grow from the actual implementation and experimentation. Looking at the
conceptual cyberinfrastructure associated with new part of HUMlab, we have seen that
multiplexity and framing are critical factors. HUMlab is different from virtual reality
manifestations where there is ideally no frame (once you are The Windows
interface is a postcinematic visual system, but the viewer-turned-user remains in
front of (vorstellen) a perpendicular frame.
This view is challenged by the increased use of many linked but individual screens
(available on MACs from the late 1980s and on Windows since the mid-nineties).
Interestingly,
The HUMlab setup explores the importance of having multiple screens and multiplex frames at the same time and how this relates to the essence of the Humanities - rich cultural and historical context, heterogeneous qualitative and quantitative materials, different modes of representation and presentation, shared presence and multiplex perspectives.
Design principles provide a layer in between the layer of conceptual cyberinfrastructure just discussed and the actual implementation. In the case of HUMlab, a number of central design principles have emerged in the course of the development of the lab. While these principles naturally are situated in a specific context, they also have some more general applicability.
Design principles can be seen as a way of connecting the ideational level with material cyberinfrastructure, and as facilitating a means of discussing and articulating infrastructural projects without getting caught up only in detailed infrastructure and/or the abstract visions typical of the discourse on cyberinfrastructure (cf. Part I). The principles are seen as being anchored in both these levels. In the following, I will discuss a number of suggested design principles for HUMlab as an infrastructural project. The seven principles in question are translucence, flexibility, memory and context, multiplexity, non-linearity and messiness, engagement, and adaptability and co-evolution. While these are not all-inclusive or unchanging, they suggest an anchored and systemic-level foundation for HUMlab as infrastructure.
In designing the space of HUMlab, an important design principle has been
Awareness involves knowing who is
HUMlab takes as its point of departure the organization of collaborations across
physical-digital boundaries. For instance, seminars primarily take place in the physical
space, but they are almost always streamed live, and sometimes there is a secondary
screen showing remote participants interested in participating in the discussion.
Earlier this was done through a text-based chat client, and later with video based
software. The list of remote participants on the screen (which is visible to the
physical participants) can support a sense of shared presence and increased awareness.
Similarly, a tweet visualization with local and distant tweets in relation to an ongoing
seminar helps create a back channel with shared awareness. An important point in
relation to Dourish and Bly’s article is that designing for awareness and translucence
is quite important also in physical space, and that many current spaces are
In the physical lab, screens (both public and semi-private ones) play an important role in representing ongoing work and in bringing in external worlds and materials (portholes). Activities can thus go on in both sub spaces and still retain a sense of co-presence and co-location without unnecessarily disturbing each other. Moreover, this arrangement opens up space more generally and helps coordinate collaboration. In the open part of HUMlab, translucence is supported through many separate, semi-private sections as well as through the way screens are positioned to allow a sense of ongoing work. The translucent nature of dividers (e.g. half-tall bookcases, hanging absorbents, pillars and screens, and an aquarium) allows dialogue, co-presence and some over-hearing between sections.
Another relevant parameter is
One of the things which distinguishes a studio space from a meeting room or most
classrooms is that there is a strong sense of ongoing work and activities. There is a
richness to such spaces which partly comes from the
While each and every piece of among the multitude of
material objects that appear in a progressive design studio seldom by itself has a
strong or even explicit link to an aspect of the project at hand, they as a
collection seem to conspire to create the rich environment needed to stimulate
creativity and create novel ideas.
In his discussion of artistic studio spaces,
While lab spaces typically allow more exclusive use of the space than regular
classrooms they tend not to be as obviously untidy and processual as studio spaces.
Indeed,
An important but somewhat illusive parameter is the sense of personal investment,
energy and attractiveness that may be associated with a space and its people, activities
and direction. Some spaces seem to lend themselves to
Regardless of the time and money invested into planning and designing a learning or lab
space, and regardless of the amount of flexibility built into the space, a space cannot
be said to be finished when it has been installed. Beyond any extended installation
phase or regular long-term maintenance plan, there is a need to think about space as a
dynamic and evolving entity that is intrinsically linked to users and inhabitants of
that space as well as any underlying ideational grounding. Actual use of a planned space
can be predicted and simulated, but use of space is contextual, social and, at least
sometimes, unpredictable. It may be possible to make a distinction between flexibility
(basic
As indicated above, a basic presumption is that in most cases, it is not possible to
create a totally flexible space, and that there is a tension between a very high degree
of flexibility and a grounded, context-specific ideational basis. In HUMlab, an example
of flexibility (
After the corner space was redesigned into this more
As we have seen in this article, research infrastructure for the humanities is diverse, multi-level and often distinctly material and highly abstract at the same time. With an inclusive definition of research infrastructure, almost anything needed to carry out research in the humanities could be included: ranging from paper, pens, books, furniture and people to database structures, grid computing facilities, visualization centers and libraries. We saw in Part I how cyberinfrastructure can be seen as a science and engineering project associated with funding mechanisms, policy making and high-cost research equipment of national or international interest. In Part II, a specific humanities infrastructure was presented and analyzed, and related to design principles and an ideational level, called conceptual cyberinfrastructure.
If we regard cyberinfrastructure as a system, it could be argued that the humanities
needs to look at its own existing and future infrastructure in systemic terms. Through
arguing for a diversified but conceptually unified infrastructure, it may be possible to
both match the epistemic scope of the humanities and incorporate elements that would be
difficult to incorporate if the focus is on isolated pieces of equipment. For instance,
if we see a centrally located seminar table as important to a planned instance of
humanities infrastructure
In this article, it has been argued that it is vital that the humanities engage in
conversations about research infrastructure and articulation of possible infrastructural
needs. It seems reasonable to see the
It would seem sensible to let the process from idea to actual implementation take time
given the often high cost of research infrastructure and the relative lack of
established infrastructural framing for the humanities. Rockwell argues that we should
support research infrastructure experiments
One common assumption, sometimes even a defining criterion, evident in the discourse on
cyberinfrastructure is that research infrastructure is distributed. Not just in the
sense of data or tools being located elsewhere, but in the sense of a shared vision of a
distributed research space. When discussing virtual organizations, Cummings et al. say
that through coordinated infrastructure, scientists and
engineers can work together in environments that allow scientific integration,
greater access, efficient problem solving, and competitive advantage
laboratories without wallsas a major emergent development
As we have noted, a related assumption is that technology included in
cyberinfrastructure needs to be high-capacity, top-of-the-line and advanced. Grid
computing is much more likely to be incorporated in this kind of discourse than, say,
Zotero and non-massive datasets. The NSF Blue-ribbon report on cyberinfrastructure advanced
and 21
instances of the collocation advanced cyberinfrastructure.
It is
pointed out that [b]y advanced we mean both the
highest-performing technology and its use in the most leading-edge
research
Q: Has Twitter done more as DH cyberinfrastructure than
any dedicated effort to date?
We will now briefly look at some issues that have been quite important to establishing HUMlab as infrastructure, which have more general applicability: the framing of cyberinfrastructure, the importance of owning the port, the humanities pushing the technological envelope and why we need to speak up.
Funding is a central concern for most infrastructural projects. Here the humanities often find themselves in a position where sources of funding are mainly adapted to other areas. At one point, HUMlab attempted to apply for research infrastructure funding of a fairly traditional science and engineering kind although this focus was never made fully explicit. One problem in this application was matching the funding agency’s expectations of infrastructure with the planned implementation. For instance, the call in question made it clear that applications should be for functional units and that these units are normally quite costly (this category of funding was for expensive equipment). The type of infrastructure envisioned had some high-cost parts, but was much more diverse and distributed than what was clearly expected in this context – anchored in the idea of a fairly broadly conceived humanities and technology lab. The prototypical candidate for this kind of call was probably an expensive microscope, spectrometer or high performance computing unit; all functional and physical units of considerable cost. The application was not successful, but it was a useful exercise in that it made it clear to us that we needed to frame the cyberinfrastructure of the lab – not necessarily to conform with the expectations of the funding agencies, but rather to make a convincing argument for a different type of infrastructural need based on a different epistemic scope. The framing that developed from this process emphasized multiplexity (the need for many different kinds of perspectives, technology and infrastructure), local and distributed collaboration (partly through shared presence and materials), experimentation (the need to try infrastructure out together with humanists), openness (the infrastructure would attract humanities researchers but also many others) and a high degree of access to the infrastructure (24 hours all year).
There were some important decisions made at an early stage that shaped HUMlab’s basic
infrastructure and that were also partly a result of good relations with the
university-wide computer central. For instance, at the point at which HUMlab was started
the most logical choice would probably have been to make the network proxy-based like in
most of the student laboratories. However, this would have made the lab network more
closed and it would have been difficult to make use of some software requiring specific
network ports to be open (such as some virtual world software and some systems for
streaming media). The fact that HUMlab was given the kind of network connection used in
faculty and staff offices was important and allowed experimentation that would not have
been possible, or at least difficult, otherwise. This particular issue would probably
not be very relevant in relation to present-day installations, but there are many other
choices and considerations that may similarly create obstacles or possibilities (some of
which are so-called
Another low-level technology example concerns a rather inconspicuous metallic box mounted on one of the HUMlab walls. The box contains six pairs of optical fiber connected to the university computer central and the virtual reality lab. Without good support from the central university administration this installation would not have happened, and one general experience is that it is important to get as much done as possible at the point of installation. The box has never actually been used, although there were some fairly feeble attempts to connect HUMlab to the virtual reality laboratory at one point. Thus, this is clearly a failed investment on one level. The original rationale was for connecting high-level visualization facilities, and for future (largely undefined) use. Even though the connection has not been used in the 10 years since it was installed, it might be argued that it has provided high-level bandwidth and connective possibilities (although unrealized). Of course this non-use is not optimal, but it can also be seen as part of providing a good base level infrastructure. There is also often a window of opportunity when initial investments and construction work are being done. Certain installations can often be done fairly easily done as part of a larger construction project. And when looking at future expansion plans and creating portals between HUMlab and HUMlab-X, and between HUMlab and several international digital humanities centers there has indeed been renewed interest in the dedicated optical fiber connection.
Most digital humanities cyberinfrastructures are likely to incorporate technology to at least some, but often considerable, extent, and going from idea and concept to actual implementation is not always a simple or fast process. If all it takes is a number of standard workstations, or a standard database server, there will most likely not be a problem, but larger and non-standard installations are often complex. This is true generally speaking, and it is important to have a clear vision and to be able to communicate with technology experts in a dialogic and informed fashion. In the case of humanities infrastructures, which may be built on different epistemics, there may be problems that stem from the differentness of the envisioned installation. In such situations, it is quite important to be knowledgeable and communicative enough to be able to work the planning and implementation processes.
Returning to the screenscape in HUMlab, this installation did not fit the template in several ways. For instance, the standard multiple screen scenario combines screens to create larger, seamless displays. Having screens spread out at the periphery of a large space is less common. Several participants in the design process argued in favor of one large screenscape which connected the screens seamlessly (rather than having them separate). Installing the 11 large screens was not a major technical problem, however, rather the complexity lay with how they are controlled and made accessible. Also, the screenscape included a 4K projector with very high resolution, which added an additional layer of complexity. The basic idea of rich contextualization, humanities-based representation and flexibility was implemented through a complex system where the total screenscape can be run through dedicated computers (one computer per screen), from one computer with an 11-screen desktop or through a video signal level system (where 24 sources irrespective of type can be placed in the screenscape). This is obviously not an off-the-shelf system, and it is critical to be able to not lose track of epistemic grounding and the basic idea while discussing implementation with researchers, experts and others, and when carrying out the implementation. HUMlab’s screenscape is an example of a humanities infrastructural installation pushing the technical boundaries - and this is a recurring experience. When the head of one of the computer functions at the university described HUMlab at one point he said that it is the most interesting technology space on campus. The point here is that it is quite possible for the humanities to create a functional and highly visible platform, and that epistemic commitments of the humanities disciplines can make for interesting technological challenges that will often attract students and experts from the fields of technology and engineering.
Implementing large, and also often smaller, infrastructural projects in a university context is typically a fairly complicated processes with many people, competencies, sub-processes and different levels of decision and policy making involved. The degree of control and expected involvement depends on many different factors, but in any case, anyone involved in this kind of process as a main agent will have to take part in any number of meetings, negotiations and concerns about low-level technical and constructional details. Speaking up is important. Here design principles can be useful as a kind of intermediate language and, in the case of HUMlab, working with a 3D model of the planned new part of the lab turned out to be very useful. Partly because the model allowed the exploration of different possibilities, but also because the "finished" model served very well when planning the actual implementation with international experts, contractors, the property owner and university administration.
In Figure 4, the right hand side of the visualization represents the existing part of the lab (as of the beginning of 2006) and left hand side represents the planned addition. The end result did not turn out quite as planned, but the basic conceptual grounding and the layout are very clear in the actual implementation. Apart from still visualizations, associated animations were also created, and these proved quite useful in general presentations of HUMlab and when discussing the project with funding agencies.
As has been noted, seemingly small decisions can have significant impact. It is often useful to follow the implementation process quite closely and to talk to the people involved in the actual implementation (construction workers, engineer, programmers etc.) continuously. This allows you to ensure everyone has a sense of what the installation is about, learn from each other, and react if there are any misunderstandings. Sometimes there might be very different views on the impact of certain decisions. On one occasion in the planning of the new part of HUMlab, there was a meeting with most of the contractors, university administration and the property owner, where one point of disagreement was the new cooling and ventilation system for both parts of the lab. As mentioned previously, upgrades of existing infrastructure are often easier when you are doing new installations.
The plan that had been decided on included partially lowering the ceiling in the old part of the lab. Even if this may seem like a fairly significant change, it had not been communicated verbally, and even if HUMlab had had access to the relevant drawings, they would have been difficult to decipher for laymen. The point here is that to the contractors this was not a major change. They needed to fit large pipes above the ceiling and the most reasonable way to do this would be to lower the ceiling – a matter of implementation. At this point, only the HUMlab representative (among 15 people) spoke up and articulated the importance of the varying ceiling heights of the lab, and how it would be very unfortunate to implement this change. The argument was not functional in a strict sense but rather aesthetic and about the energy and sense of the space. Through support from the university administration the contractors were asked to see if there were any alternative solutions (although it had been said earlier that there was only that one possibility). When the rationale had been communicated the contractors found an alternative solution, and eventually a way was found to keep the ceiling intact. Also, the intricacies of the ceiling scape (above the visible ceiling) became much clearer to the HUMlab representative.
Another interesting point of negotiation concerned wallpapering four pillars with a green, leafy pattern in order to help create a sense of a room without the walls, where the proposal (partly a result of working with interior decorators) was deemed impossible or not suitable no less than three times. This may partly have been a gendered experience as the two interior decorators were women proposing an atypical use of wallpaper to a totally male dominated work and management group. The issue was resolved after HUMlab made it quite clear that the wallpaper was very important to the whole expansion. It turned out that one rationale for the initial unwillingness to wallpaper the pillars (for the workers) was that it would not be possible to do high-quality wallpapering on the round but multi-faceted pillars. Afterwards, everyone involved agreed on the success of the wallpapered pillars as concept and implementation. A general finding here is that intense collaboration and talking are critical, and that there is real value to clearly articulating what we, as part of the core operation of the university (research and teaching), need in order to carry out or work.
Speaking up must be done on many levels. At a workshop on humanities cyberinfrastructure at UC Irvine in 2006, there was an appeal (or maybe request) from Dan Atkins, then head of the NSF Office of Cyberinfrastructure, that the humanities and social sciences step up and show leadership in relation to the issue of future cyberinfrastructure. This article can partly be seen as a response to this request in the sense of suggesting a model grounded in core humanities challenges, the conceptual cyberinfrastructure to tackle those challenges (if any), as well as in design principles and as exemplified in implemented cyberinfrastructure. We need to reflect critically on cyberinfrastructure, explore ideational and technological visions, and think about the future of the humanities. The call is arguably ours.
I draw on dialogue and collaboration with a great many people, and I would like to particularly acknowledge extensive and valuable feedback from Matthew Ratto, Erica Robles, Jenna Ng and two anonymous DHQ reviewers. Stephanie Hendrick checked the text and argumentation carefully, and Emma Ewadotter assisted me with practical research issues. The article also benefited from feedback given after a talk at UCLA, Nov 10, 2009, hosted by Johanna Drucker and the Department of Information Studies.