Dr. Lynne Siemens is Assistant Professor with the School of Public Administration, University of Victoria, with research and teaching interests in academic entrepreneurship, project management, and team development. She leads workshops on Project Management at University of Victoria's Digital Humanities Summer Institute, University of Leipzig's European Summer School on Culture and Technology, and other locations and serves as a facilitator/consultant to several research teams.
This is the source
Despite DH’s long history, it is still perceived as a relatively emergent academic discipline which has several implications for its ongoing development and acceptance. In order to understand its role in supporting the field’s development and acceptance, SSHRC commissioned a survey of the larger Humanities and Social Science’s community to understand the issues related to DH’s development and acceptance and the types of activities that should be funded. The survey results suggest there is reason for optimism regarding the growing acceptance of digital methods, resources and tools and electronic dissemination as instructors, researchers, and students are using and publishing in digital outlets and creating and employing digital recourses, methods and tools andventuring into new research fields. This trend is likely to continue as students and younger scholars continue to embrace the digital in all aspects of their personal and professional lives. However, this optimism should be tempered to some extent as students and junior faculty are still less likely than associate professors to present and publish their digital-oriented research for a variety of reasons. The field’s more senior faculty can mentor their junior colleagues and students to this end and shape salary, tenure and promotion policies to recognize and reward these efforts. Finally, issues remain around the amount of funding required for the initial development and ongoing sustainability and relevance of digital resources and may become more critical over time. Granting agencies will need to evaluate their funding role in this regard.
Growing acceptance of DH but work still needs to be done.
Despite Digital Humanities’ (DH) long history, it is still perceived as a relatively
emergent academic discipline, rather than an established one traditional
scholars and graduate students to create and use digital tools, resources and
methodologies. Finally, digital humanists, administrators, and granting agencies
alike continue to struggle with age-old questions about the type and amount of
resources, including but not limited to computing infrastructure and funding, needed
to support and grow DH’s academic capacity.
Within this larger context, Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
(SSHRC) is evaluating its role in the ongoing development and acceptance of DH within
Canada and beyond. Historically, SSHRC’s primary financial support was through the
Image, Text, Sound and Technology (ITST) fund with some additional funding through
discipline-specific committees and some strategic grants, such as the Digging into
Data Challenge
Briefly, the survey results suggest there is reason for optimism regarding the
growing acceptance of digital methods, resources and tools and electronic
dissemination within Humanities and Social Sciences in Canada. Instructors at all
levels, researchers, and students are using and publishing in digital outlets and
creating and employing digital resourses, methods and tools. Further, a diverse range
of research, both within traditional
fields and those created by technology
itself are being undertaken. This trend is likely to continue as students and younger
scholars continue to embrace the digital in all aspects of their personal and
professional lives. However, this optimism should be tempered to some extent.
Students and junior faculty are still less likely than associate professors to
present their digital-oriented research at both discipline-specific and
digital-focused conferences and to publish these results. Further, despite progress
made, it remains unclear how this digital-oriented research is treated for salary,
tenure and promotion. As a result, the more senior faculty can play an important
mentoring role with the junior ones and students to encourage them to present and
publish their digital-oriented work while continuing to shape salary, tenure and
promotion policies to reward these efforts. Finally, issues for funding both initial
development and ongoing sustainability and relevance of digital resources remain
unresolved and may become more critical over time as more digital resources and tools
are created. Funding agencies will need to continue to evaluate their role in this
regard while individual projects explore alternative funding mechanisms.
This paper is structured as follows. First, the context for this study will be
discussed. Then, the survey methodology will be outlined followed by a detailed
discussion of the survey results with the implications both for the Canadian DH
community and beyond. It will conclude with recommendations to support the ongoing of
larger DH community
As a community of practice, DH has had a long history with its roots in the work of
Roberto Busa, who developed a machine-generated concordance with IBM pivotal moment
and, with the
right support and argument for funding and professional acceptance, the field can
transition to an established discipline
This raises the question about the nature of that right
support needed to
enable the field to become more mainstream. To this end, several barriers have been
identified. First, given the reliance on technology and computing power, the Digital
Humanist needs computers and cyberinfrastructure, accessible from their desk, within
their institution and across organizational and national boundaries. Further to this,
the researcher also needs access to data in electronic form and the tools that allow
them to analyze, re(interpret) and otherwise visualize that data for new
understandings. Of course, this requires more money than the traditional humanities
researcher who has been traditionally seen to rely solely on their books and pencils.
This funding is needed not just to start projects but to subsequently maintain and
sustain them, an expectation not often applied to books. Finally, researchers,
particularly those in traditional academic positions, need the support of their peers
in order to be able to disseminate their research in discipline-approved venues and
ultimately receive tenure
Despite these challenges, progress has been made on a variety of fronts to the
community’s strength. First, various national granting agencies and non-profit
foundations have provided funding for digital initiatives, including programs such as
individual projects
As the DH community makes this transition to a more established discipline, it is
important to measure the progress made thus far and the impact of past initiatives in
order to recommend next steps. Within Canada, two studies have measured changes in
the acceptance in electronic resources and publishing within the Humanities and
Social Sciences
It is within this context that SSHRC requested this environment scan of the Canadian DH academic capacity in order to understand where the community currently stands and to determine required next steps to strengthen the field within Canada and beyond. In particular, the funding agency wanted to understand the type of funding programs which were needed. This survey is intended to provide recommendations in this regard.
This survey was developed in January 2009 and focused on three components of academic
capacity: research activity and dissemination, professional development, and teaching
and student development. Given the broad audience for this survey, the term
digital methods, technologies and resources
was used in place of Digital
Humanities or Humanities Computing for several reasons. First, the broader term was
intended to capture those who may not consider themselves to be a Digital
Humanist,
but yet undertake that type of work using and creating databases,
analytical tools, digital manuscripts, electronic resources, and others. (A list of
these digital-oriented methods, technologies and resources can be seen in Table 2.)
Second, the DH community as a whole itself is debating the skills and knowledge
required to be a Digital Humanist,
as evidenced by blog postings (For example,
see
In order to provide some comparison to earlier surveys related to the credibility of
electronic publishing and determine if attitudes to electronic resources and
materials have changed over the past 10 years
The survey was distributed in May and June 2009 with data collection closing on June
19. In an attempt to reach the full Humanities and Social Sciences community in
Canada, it was distributed through the emailing lists of the Society for Digital
Humanities/Société pour l'étude des médias interactifs, the Canadian DH society, the
Digital Humanities Summer Institute to the attention of Canadians, and email messages
to the associations which comprise the Canadian Federation of Social Sciences
The survey data was analyzed through the use of Excel and SPSS in order to gain
statistical information. The open-ended questions were analyzed through a grounded
theory approach which focuses on the themes that emerge from the data. This analysis
is broken into several steps. First, the data is organized, read and coded to
determine categories, themes and patterns. These are tested for emergent and
alternative understandings, both within a single interview and across all interviews.
This is an iterative process, involving movement between the data, codes and
concepts, constantly comparing the data to itself and the developing themes
The following section will explore the results from the survey, including demographic information, research activity and dissemination, professional development, and teaching and student development. (This order reflects the survey’s structure.) The fuller implications of these results along with recommendations will be discussed in the paper’s final sections.
The respondents represented a broad cross-section of a broadly defined DH community of practice in Canada. As can be seen in Table 1, most respondents work in English and are affiliated with a university. Of those who indicated their gender, females were the larger group. The spread of academic rank and age was reasonable with 45% between the ages of 30 and 49, and 16% were at the Assistant Professor level, 17% at the Associate, and 17% at the Full Professor. Graduate students comprised 6% of the responses.
The respondents represented over 35 disciplines from the social sciences,
humanities, library and information sciences, computer science and business.
(Respondents could check more than one discipline.) The best represented
disciplines were English (40%), Literature (25%), Humanities (15%), Culture and
Language Studies (12%), and History (10%). Approximately 6% of the respondents
identified humanities computing as their discipline, which suggests that DH is
beginning a recognized discipline in its own right. An overwhelming majority of
the respondents (80%) have undertaken research projects involving digital methods,
technologies and resources. Those who answered no
to this question still
provided information on their research dissemination, professional development,
and teaching and student development activities.
As the survey results show, Humanists and Social Scientists are actively embracing digital technologies and resources, and to a lesser extent, digital methods, in their research. In particular, they are using and creating software, databases, digital manuscripts and electronic resources within a traditional approach to research. For some, the digital has created new research avenues. The survey participants have been successful in accessing funding for their projects. They are also overwhelmingly using formal and informal electronic outlets to disseminate their scholarship. However, as a group, these participants are not generally presenting their digital-oriented research at conferences. Finally, they have received very little training in digital technologies, resources and digital methods.
As stated above, 80% of respondents indicated that their research projects involve digital methods, technologies and resources at some level. As seen in Table 2, databases, software, webpages, digital manuscripts, and electronic resources were used most regularly. Approximately one-third of respondents use analytical tools, authoring tools, bibliographic software, and wikis and blogs in their research.
As evidenced in their responses to an open-ended question about their research focus, respondents are involved in both the creation of these digital methods, technologies and resources and their application. They are also grounding their research in traditional Humanities and Social Sciences research approaches and within new fields of studies such as virtual worlds, interface design and online gaming. Further, they are using digital methods, tools and resources to facilitate and enhance collaborations.
By way of example and to name but a few, the creators
are creating
online scholarly annotated editions and digital editions, preparing and then
using electronic versions of historic texts
with
the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), building a database
that will be a scholarly reference work,
developing search tools and
building a digital library of illustrations and books from
the 1860s.
Further, the users
draw upon digitized images,
manuscripts, and other materials, encoded texts, electronic editions and
databases, online journals, websites, and software such as TEI, googledocs,
Zotero, and authorship attribution. For others, the digital has created new
opportunities such as examining social media
researching best
practices,
game studies, the development of
synthetic worlds and experiential simulations,
and undertaking
in-game ethnography of virtual worlds.
There is some variation among age groups on the use of these methods, technologies and resources. In particular, the younger age groups were more likely to use Facebook and social networking. Approximately 34% of the 20–29 age group and over 25% of the 30–39 age group indicated that they were regular users of Facebook/Social Networking. This is in contrast to the 40–49 age group (14.5%), 50–59 age group (0%), and 60 and older (18.5%).
The respondents also indicated the type of electronic resources that they used within their research. As seen in Table 3, they primarily draw upon electronic versions of previously paper resources, such as journals, government resources, newspapers and archival materials. However, they do not appear to be using tools such as TAPoR, OJS and Conftool, tools that can make some aspects of academic life easier to coordinate. Further, sizable portions of respondents (up to 10% in some cases) do not appear to be aware of these types of resources.
At one level, the respondents suggest an of course
perspective with
regard to their use of digital tools, methods and resources in their research.
As one respondent said about the research in which they are involved, Loci of research are: (1) scholarly editing &
bibliographical work, for which the development and use of digital tools is
necessary & commonplace; (2) historical research, whose data sets are
often of a size to make manual management hard, so digital tools (e.g.
databases) are a necessity: (3) literary-critical projects.
For another respondent, they had difficulty even answering the question. As
they commented, I'm having trouble here because I'm not
sure what you mean by digital methods, technologies and resources. Broadly
speaking, ALL of my research involves this because it's all written on
computer, submitted to publishers electronically, and typically the data
collection and analysis is done on computer as well. I don't think there's
much of a dividing line between digital and non-digital anymore.
Given the size and scope of many DH projects, research funding is a necessity. Just under half (47%) of the respondents have applied for funding for their digital-oriented research in the last 10 years. As can be seen in Table 4, most of those seeking funding generally applied and received funding as graduate students, postdoctoral fellows or faculty members, either from SSHRC or their own university.
Respondents provided guidance on the type of granting program they felt was
needed to support digital-oriented research. First, a segment of respondents
recommended more funding from SSHRC. This included a request for an independent
application category for DH/Humanities Computing scholarship while another
suggested an extended Image, Text, Sound and Technology program...but we definitely need infrastructure here in Canada, e.g., something
like surveymonkey, space for setting up interactive web sites for
participant engagement. Right now, each team and each university reinvents
the wheel, leading to a huge waste of precious resources. Researchers should
have a service for digital humanities research to go to that includes design
and software experts, etc.
Further, several respondents called for renewal-based funding programs for
ongoing research agenda, similar to that seen in the sciences. As one
respondent argued, programmes permettant un financement à
plus long terme pour financer l'embauche de personnels techniques;
programmes permettant la mise en place de digital humanities centers
(acceptant la dimension hybride de services et de recherche).
Finally, some respondents argued for grant funding for maintenance and
renewal of existing projects. One respondent commented that funding is needed
Programs that allow longer term funding
to finance the hiring of technical personnel; programs to establish
digital humanities centres (which accept a hybrid of service and
research)
to ensure that we can continue to update and improve
the resource. But funding bodies (perhaps understandably) want to support
new digital projects, rather than helping to make existing ones continue to
be relevant and cutting edge.
Amongst the calls for additional funding was the recognition that digital
projects experience challenges that are often not associated with traditional
forms of scholarship, such as long term usability, sustainability, quality
standards and training. For example, one respondent called for more funding for projects that involve substantial work on
conservation, archiving and upgrading digital collections and research
databases for ongoing work that keeps research data and archival collections
in useable form.
Another argued for additional support for online archiving of rare materials, which probably includes
support for continued training (a bigger problem in DH than in other
branches of scholarship) and access to sophisticated technologies for
rendering manuscripts in high def or under different kinds of light,
etc.
At the same time, a portion of the respondents suggested that additional
support from colleagues and knowledgeable grant adjudicators and reviewers were
just as important as funding. One commented that they think
digital projects should be treated exactly as other research projects are
treated, and judged on their own merits. As long as we have knowledgeable
SSHRC committees who understand the place of digital tools, resources and
practices in humanities research, we should be able to compete on a level
playing field with other grant applicants.
Another echoed that I'd like to see it incorporated more
into the
normal
grant processes, rather than it being a
special
thing to use digital methods.
The respondents are actively disseminating their research through electronic means with over 72% of all respondents having made their scholarship available in some digital form. This suggests the use of electronic dissemination is increasing, albeit with some variation among age groups. As compared to the younger age groups, older respondents were more likely to have made their scholarship available electronically, as seen in Table 5.
The respondents are disseminating their research electronically through a variety of formal and informal channels. In terms of other electronic outlets, respondents are publishing in electronic journals (both open access and pay-per-view), online conference proceedings and electronic books, and through inclusion in research databases as well as distributing through websites, email, listserves, blogs and wikis. In terms of refereed electronic outlets, almost 40% have published in this type of outlet. Again, some variation among age groups and roles exists. As shown in Table 6 and Table 7, both the 40–49 age group and Associate Professors are more likely to have published in a refereed electronic outlet than other age groups and roles. At the same time, the youngest age group and graduate and doctoral students were least likely to have published in a refereed electronic outlet.
While they are disseminating electronically, respondents appear to be hesitant to present their digital-oriented research at conferences. Only 37% have presented their digital-oriented research at discipline-specific conferences. A still smaller number (21%) have presented at a digital-oriented conference. Of those who have, they have presented primarily at Society for Digital Humanities/Societe pour l'étude des médias interactifs (7%), Digital Humanities (6%) and Canadian Symposium on Text Analysis (5%). Other venues named include Text Encoding Initiative Annual meeting, International Conference on Electronic Publishing, Digital Resources in the Humanities, Digital Games Research Association, Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium, and Association for History and Computing. Following the trends highlighted above, the 40–49 age group and Associate Professors tend to be the most active in this regard, as can be seen in Tables 8 through 11.
Only a small percentage of respondents are members of DH associations. Approximately 9% are members of the Society for Digital Humanites/Société pour l'étude des médias interactifs, 7% are in the Association for Computing in the Humanities and 6% are members of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing.
The final set of questions within this category related to training. Less than one-third of respondents have attended digital methods institutes, workshops or courses for skill development. Of those who indicated that they had, over 50% named the University of Victoria's Digital Humanities Summer Institute (DHSI) and its courses including text encoding, digitization, text analysis, and project management. Respondents also mentioned other institutes and workshops such as Nineteenth Century Scholarship Online (NINES), Digital Humanities Observatory (Royal Irish Academy), University of Illinois Urbana Champagne Software Environment for the Advancement of Scholarly Research (SEASR). The respondents also noted that they have taken courses in website development, graduate courses and programs, computers and composition, and media applications. As seen in Tables 12 and 13, the 40–49 age group and associate professors are more likely to have undergone training of some nature.
Overall, the respondents are actively incorporating the digital within their research activity and disseminating through electronic means. However, at the same time, they are not as involved in conference presentations on their digital-oriented work or in receiving formal training in digital methods, resources and tools.
Respondents were asked their expectations and understandings of the impact that their digital-oriented work will have on their professional development and career trajectory, particularly in relation to tenure, salary and promotion. As seen in Table 14, approximately 10% of respondents answered that their institutions had policies regarding electronic documents and publication and development and use of digital technologies, tools, and resources for purposes of tenure, salary and promotion. However, the majority did not know if their institutions had these policies, which means that scholars are undertaking their work without knowing how it will count in professional contexts.
When it comes to teaching and work with students, the survey respondents are actively including digital resources, methods and technologies in the classroom. This level of interaction is further supported by digital program development, particularly at the undergraduate level. Finally, the survey respondents suggested that their students were actively incorporating digital methods, technologies and resources into their course work and personal lives, something that was encouraging, or even pushing, instructors to do the same within their teaching.
Over 80% of respondents are actively incorporating electronic resources into their teaching. As outlined in Table 15, the most popular digital methods, technologies and resources incorporated include electronic resources, webpages, course management systems, digital manuscripts, and databases. At the time of the survey, respondents were not incorporating web 2.0 technologies, such as second life and Facebook and other social networks, though this may be different today.
As above with other questions, some variation exists among age groups. As seen in Table 15, the use of electronic resources within courses tended to increase with each age group, peaking with the 40–49 age range.
In terms of university programs, approximately 40% of respondents indicated that their university has programs with a digital focus within their faculties of Humanities, Arts, Social Sciences and Information Sciences, primarily at the undergraduate level (35%), with fewer at the masters (24%) and PhD level (14%). Approximately 41% indicated that their universities had plans to develop courses or programs at the undergraduate (33%), the masters (22%) and PhD (15%) levels. This growth is expected to be in the longer term with 26% indicating this development will likely occur in the next few years.
Respondents were also asked about whether students use digital methodologies, tools and resources. Perhaps not surprisingly, as seen in Table 17, many students were perceived to be actively incorporating digital methodologies, tools and resources in their course and thesis work, teaching assistantships, research assistantships and particularly their social lives.
Further, approximately 50% of respondents indicated that their departments encourage students to use these in their course work. At the same time, 21% did not know if this was the case.
These results suggest that undergraduate and graduate students are learning and using digital tools, methods and resources within various aspects of their student, professional and personal lives.
At the end of the survey, the respondents were asked a series of open-ended questions regarding the future of DH and the supports required to develop capacity in this community.
The first question focused on the respondents’ use of their crystal ball
to
envision future directions of DH. Collectively, the respondents provided thoughts
along a series of themes. Several respondents indicated that they foresaw DH
moving beyond a narrow disciplinary focus into more collaboration and broader
questions. For example, one suggested that there would be increased cross-discipline work with computer science, library/information
science and the fine arts in areas such as data mining and multimedia
incorporation
while another foresaw the following activities: Interconnecting researchers and building teams; archiving and
analysis of large amounts of textual, audio, and visual data; working more
closely with colleagues in other fields to solve problems rather than remaining
within a purely disciplinary framework; new ways of relating text to image as
the latter grows in importance; using resources to provide the public with
informed, scholarly materials aimed at a popular audience.
Others suggested that the field would be developing new tools, especially those
that would facilitate the migration of humanities scholars
into digital environments.
For example, DH appears
to be tackling increasingly non-trivial computing programs. I see two future
tracks of development: one in which these more challenging avenues are
explored, and another in which the realized tools and techniques are repackaged
and made more accessible to the less sophisticated late adopters within the
humanities field.
Another argued that they believe one important strategic
direction the digital humanities will take will be to develop tools, workflows,
and expressive and attestive conventions to facilitate the migration of
humanities scholars into digital environments. For such a migration to occur,
digital humanities scholars will need to devise and test tools, workflows and
scholarly conventions for communication.
Finally, one foresaw a shift away from the digitizing and
tagging of primary materials toward the development of tools for integrating
research tools, e.g. NINES.
Another set of respondents focused on the likely development of additional online
resources for research, dissemination and teaching. One individual envisioned
more use of digitized texts — wider access to instant
answers from queries on historical and cultural issues...
while another
suggested that within their field ...digital critical
editions of significant but not widely distributed texts will become
increasingly important for both scholarly and financial reasons.
Finally, respondents suggested the DH will likely become more widely adopted. One
individual articulated that they think that it will become
mainstream — everything that succeeds will be available through Google or its
equivalent. Specialized sites with a high learning curve won't last.
Another echoed this with (l)arge scale adoption
happening through ubuiquity rather than conscious
effort.
Another suggested that their goal is for
students to work seamlessly between the real and digital worlds and see that
expanded workspace as integral to their learning, their research, their work
and to their private and public lives.
However, some concern was expressed that a digital divide may be created between
those who already have the skills and those who cannot easily access training to
develop them. As one respondent stated, I am not a digital
user unless required. It does save me time and it can be used widely. However,
the problem is that there is [sic] no programs to allow faculty to develop
their digital skills.
In a second open-ended question, the respondents offered recommendations on the
capacity needed to strengthen the DH community. First, they called for more
infrastructure such as networks, labs, supply workstations, and computer
programming. One individual stated that this included computational infrastructure in the humanities, generally, that plus
appropriate instruction, expertise, and support.
A key component is to
ensure adequate research funding to both individuals and universities so that they
can keep digital technologies up-to-date and the
infrastructure to support such technologies well into the future — this is the
biggest problem at my institution.
Finally, there was also a call for
maintenance and sustainability. As one stated, increased
funding is an obvious one, but not only for new projects. We need a system in
place for ensuring project sustainability.
Besides more dollars, some
respondents indicate the need to educate grant adjudicators and reviewers to
ensure that they have the knowledge needed to effectively evaluate a
digital-oriented application.
Beyond funds for digital projects, respondents suggested continued support and
leadership from universities is required. Some recommended courses for students
and faculty to learn the skills by making available know-how:
workshops, team-teaching programs, traveling seminars.
Rewards and
recognition policies were also highlighted. As one suggested, at the faculty level, collaborative research and publishing needs to be
encouraged, recognized and rewarded. Interdisciplinary research also needs to
be funded and encouraged.
Further, (m)ore
acceptance of/respect for publishing in online journals. This needs to happen
not only at the level of official policies on hiring and promotion, but also in
the attitudes of professors.
A selection of the respondents argued that it is important to keep the digital
development grounded within the humanities. While digital material and tools are
important, one respondent suggested that we still need know
how to read, how to interpret, how to analyze and how to write.
Finally, the interface between
the digital
and the
humanities
needs to be strengthened. Too few humanists (let alone
administrators) understand what d.h. is.
The respondents also saw the opportunity to develop new skills beyond traditional
humanities skills. For example, Digital Humanists will need
to develop the skills required to conduct lab and field experiments. We will
also need to develop methods to support such research.
There is also a
recognition of the need for collaboration and cross-disciplinary work as there is
a shift from disciplinary to problem focused research;
structures and funding that encourage cross-disciplinary work and team
building; creation of physical spaces that allow for interactive work amongst
researchers (not just individual scholars in individual offices)...
At the same time, however, several respondents did not perceive the need to take
concrete steps to increase academic capacity within the community. As stated,
the community is strong and our numbers are growing.
Several suggested that change will be driven by students as
articulated in this comment Digital Humanities
is being recognized as a legitimate field of
study.Le renouvellement viendra des
étudiants Peu de la génération des profs.
The renewal comes from the
generation of students, not of the professors.
As a third open-ended question, respondents were asked to articulate the type of
support needed to develop this capacity within DH. One key priority identified was
continued leadership from deans, other administrators and colleagues. Policies to
support publishing in electronic journals and recognition are needed because
the creation of digital repositories, thematic
collections, etc. has to be viewed on an equal footing as publishing
monographs.
Given the amount of time required to learn and utilize new
technologies, several respondents also articulated a desire for more time to do
this type of work. As one respondent articulated, they need Funding, and time!!! Time is important — it takes a long time to learn and
utilize new technologies and to be able to trouble shoot them.
Echoing many of the comments already made, respondents recommended funding as well
as the involvement from other disciplines, particularly computer scientists as
researchers, rather than purely as programmers and developers. Further, there
needs to be greater support for research in the digital
outside of
Finally, one respondent suggested that the community
of practice needs digital
departments. That is, keep the research highly
interdisciplinary.more
With this, several respondents also
suggested that infrastructure needs to be shared more, especially across a single
campus. As one respondent stated, hybrid
individuals who are at
home with the two cultures and who are committed to building a new hybrid
culture within the academy.We need infrastructure here
badly. Otherwise, each research team needs to come up with their own server,
designer, programmer, maintenance, etc. Lots of previous time and resources are
lost that way.
Finally, respondents were asked whether they recommend that untenured faculty
undertake digital research and teaching. Their answers fall into three categories.
First, a selection of respondents felt that untenured faculty could undertake
digital research and teaching, but that it not be at the expense of traditional
research and teaching.
This caution recognized that the academy does not yet take new methods seriously across the board.
Another echoed that reality still dictates that
'
traditional
' scholarship be strong.
The second category was yes, but
with some overall caution since digital
scholarship is not always recognized for tenure. As one stated, it is vitally necessary that younger scholars take up digital
research and teaching, but I would not ask someone to do so where it might not
be recognized in retention and tenure decisions.
Another respondent
suggested that an untenured faculty member undertake this work but it has to be kept secret from older colleagues and especially
the administration.
Another individual is encouraging the work because we don't want valuable projects to be postponed to a time
when faculty are
Finally, in recognition of the amount of
time required to learn the skills, one untenured faculty member stated, safe
... Some projects need several years to gain
momentum and achieve results.Since I happen to be untenured at this point — and I undertake
digital research and teaching — my answer is yes, with one proviso. That
proviso is that the given faculty member have those skills prior to their entry
into a tenure-track position. If they don't have those skills, they will not
have the time to acquire them in the five or so years they are untenured. Such
a person would be better served completing whatever teaching, research and
service requirements they need to acquire tenure before learning a new digital
skill.
Finally, a third group provided an unqualified yes.
One suggested Yes — I think there is rich terrain there for publication and
experience, and often junior faculty have more experience with these methods in
their PhD programs, so the trajectory seems natural.
Another stated
yes, because by the time they acquire tenure, they will be
familiar with the process and more likely to incorporate it and mentor new
faculty into it.
One more individual recommended Yes, at this stage, my department (regardless of what it might say) couldn’t
imagine bringing anyone in for a career with us unless they were aware, and
incorporating, digital methods in their work — even if it wasn’t the focus of
their own research endeavour.
Several respondents highlighted that the
number of faculty positions positioned within both the humanities and DH are
increasing.
Some respondents also provided a practical reason for the incorporation of digital
methods, tools and resources. They suggested that faculty do not have much choice
in this regard given the importance of keeping ahead of students. As one stated
emphatically, Absolutely. Tenured or untenured shouldn't
really make any difference, but it's a greater expectation that younger
colleagues can keep up with their students and will have the know-how to make
time-efficient use of technology to help in course-management and democratizing
the learning process.
Finally, Yes. It is the way
of the future, and the way to keep ahead of and in tune with students.
This survey provides a snapshot of DH capacity within the Canadian context. These opportunities and ongoing challenges are, however, not unique to Canada, but reflect issues in the larger DH community.
First, these results suggest much reason for optimism regarding the growing
acceptance of digital methods, resources, and tools and electronic dissemination,
particularly at the associate professor rank and 40–49 age group. From an overall
perspective, as can be seen in Table 18, since the larger academic community has
been asked questions about the incorporation of electronic resources into their
work
This trend is also carrying through to an acceptance of research dissemination and
teaching materials through various electronic outlets, especially compared to
Archer
Second, respondents have embraced broader methods of dissemination beyond the
traditional print journal. Many faculty, staff, students and projects have
webpages which provide links to research and journal articles
Third, the consideration of digital is creating a diverse range of research, both within 'traditional' fields and those created by the technology itself. The new generation of scholars and alternative academic professionals are demonstrating high comfort levels with digital tools, methodologies, and resources and incorporating these into all aspects of their professional and personal lives. These individuals are also likely to strongly encourage others to accept these in their efforts to stay current. Further, many faculty are drawing upon this potential by employing students within their digital-oriented research. The additional training opportunities are providing additional support and skill development.
Further, these results suggest that a new generation of scholars, who may not
build or develop a tool, database or digitized manuscript, but will instead
incorporate these resources into their research and teaching. From this, new
opportunities for scholarship will occur which will, in turn, likely contribute to
ongoing discussions of who is actually a digital humanist
(For example, see
tools for the novice
killer apps
Despite these opportunities, challenges still abound for those who wish to
undertake this type of scholarship. For example, these results suggest the most
active Digital Humanist is an associate professor and likely between the ages of
40–49. This group appears to be the most active in terms of making their research
available electronically, presenting on their digital-oriented research at both
discipline-specific and digital-focused conferences, and employing these materials
in the classroom, a finding echoed by yes
that their institution has policies
related to the evaluation of digital resources, methods and tools has increased
and the percentage of no
has decreased, the percentage of respondents who
do not know has increased. This trend comes despite work done over the past decade
following examples from other institutions
Significant change may be slow to come in the short term. The more senior scholars do not appear to be pursuing digital-oriented research, disseminating electronically or employing digital resources in the classroom. Given their roles as researchers, administrators, decision makers, and grant reviewers, if this group does not support DH’s potential, efforts on the part of graduate students and pre-tenured faculty to employ these methods may be stalled.
Another challenge identified by these results is the apparent hesitation for individuals to present their digital-oriented research at discipline-specific and digital-oriented conferences. Perhaps, given the growing ubiquity of digital materials, many respondents may not think of presenting at digital-oriented conferences or identify these as parts of their paper at discipline-oriented conferences, such as the Modern Languages Association (MLA) and Renaissance Society of America (RSA). Alternatively, the younger scholars may be reluctant to identify themselves in this manner, particularly at those conferences which are an important contribution to the CV of a starting scholar. More work will need to be done to understand this trend.
As always, issues of funding for both initial development and ongoing
sustainability and relevance of digital resources remains unresolved and may
become more critical in the future. Unlike books where an expectation of updates
does not exist, this community will need to work with granting agencies to create
new funding models that will support not only the development of these resources,
but changes and updates that come with advances in both technology and scholarship
The following conclusions and recommendations are designed to support the already strong efforts that are in place to develop and strengthen academic capacity in Digital Humanities both within Canada and beyond.
First, given that most respondents appear to be learning digital methods,
technologies and resources on their own rather than through more formal settings,
more opportunities for the development of training and skill development
opportunities must be created. For example, departments, faculties and
universities need to continue their plans for additional undergraduate and
graduate courses and degrees, combining skill and knowledge development in
traditional disciplinary methods with digital and project management skills.
Further thought should also be given to certificate programs that could be taken
in parallel to traditional graduate programs or in addition to these
As indicated by these respondents and in other forums, such as a recent DH funding
conference panel gather dust
like a book on a shelf, particularly given the
sometimes large amounts of money that was invested to create the resource at the
outset. The DH community may also need to look beyond traditional funding sources
to include alternative revenue models, some of which may be borrowed from the
private sector
To support these ongoing calls for additional funding, DH community members need
to continue to educate colleagues, administration, and granting agencies so that
these individuals understand how DH supports and extends Humanities and Social
Sciences research by answering traditional questions as well as forming new ones.
Associate professors can play an important role in this regard as they move into
positions of decision making and leadership within their institutions and
disciplines as a whole. In addition, as associate professors, they have the
security of position which allows them to take these types of risks to use and
promote digital methods, tools and resources digital
more visible within their discipline-specific conference presentations and
articles. At the same time, the DH associations need to continue their membership
recruitment efforts among graduate students, faculty and alternative academics. As
is often said, strength comes with numbers and larger membership bases will give
these associations more credibility when engaging with administration, granting
councils and other key stakeholders. Finally, efforts to both write and ensure
awareness of policies regarding digital methods, technologies and resources for
the purposes of employment, tenure and promotion must continue. With these in
place, graduate students, untenured faculty, and alternative academics will be
more likely to invest their efforts in the creation and application of DH.
As the results from this survey suggest, the acceptance and use of digital
methods, tools and resources within research and teaching are increasing within
the Canadian context and beyond. The above recommendations are intended to support
the ongoing efforts to move DH from emergent
to the mainstream.
This section will concern funding, developing, presenting, and disseminating research that includes digital methods, technologies and resources.
1.1 Do your research projects include digital methods, technologies and resources?
If yes, please describe your research.
1.2 What digital methods, technologies and resources do you incorporate in your research?
1.3 Do you ever incorporate the following electronic resources into your research?
1.4 Do you work in teams to undertake your research?
1.5 How often do you work in teams to undertake your research?
1.6 The teams that I research with consist of (Check all that apply)
These questions will focus on funding for your research.
1.7 Have you applied for funding for your research incorporating digital methods, technologies and resources?
1.8 To which grant programs have you applied to fund digital-oriented research in the past 10 years (Please check all that apply)
1.9 Was your digital-oriented application successful (please check all that apply)
1.10 What sort of grant program would you like to see to support digital- oriented research?
These questions will concern the dissemination of your research in publications and at conferences.
1.11 Have you ever made your scholarship available electronically in any way?
1.12 Please briefly describe the ways you have made your scholarship available electronically.
1.13 Have you published or attempted to publish any item of scholarship in a refereed electronic outlet?
1.14 If yes for either, please describe the outlet.
These questions will concern the dissemination of your research in publications and at conferences.
1.15 Have you presented research with a digital focus at a discipline specific conference?
If Yes, indicate which ones. If No, why not?
1.16 Have you ever presented research at a digital content oriented conference?
1.17 If yes, please indicate digitally focused conferences at which you have presented (Check all that apply):
1.18 Are you a member of a digital association (Check all that apply)
1.19 Have you attended a digital methods institute/workshop or course?
1.20 If yes, please list the institute/workshop and/or course(s)
This section will focus on your expectations and understanding of the impact that your digital work will have on your professional development and career trajectory.
2.1 Does your institution have a policy concerning how electronic documents are to be evaluated in tenure, salary, and promotion procedures?
2.2 Does your institution have a policy concerning the consideration of electronic publication in cases of promotion and tenure?
2.3 Does your institution have a policy of the consideration of development and use of digital technologies, tools and resources in cases of promotion and tenure?
These questions will concern the use of digital methods, technologies and resources within your teaching
2.4 Have you integrated electronic resources into any of the courses that you teach?
2.5 Please indicate the digital methods, technologies, and resources that you incorporate into your teaching.
This section will focus on the incorporation of digital humanities within your teaching and more generally at your institution
These questions will concern the use of digital methods, technologies and resources at your institution
2.6 Does your university have programs with a digital focus within the Faculties of Humanities, Arts, Social Sciences and Information Sciences?
If yes, please list the programs
2.7 At which academic level are these programs?
2.8 Does your university have plans to develop courses or programs with a digital focus within the Faculties of Humanities, Arts, Social Sciences and Information Sciences?
2.9 At which academic level will these programs be?
2.10 Please specify when these programs are likely to be developed
These questions will concern student use of digital methods, technologies and resources
2.11 Are your students or students in your institution incorporating digital methodologies, tools and resources:
2.12 Does your department encourage students to use digital methodologies, technologies and resources in course work?
3.1 Using your crystal ball, what do you envision the future directions in digital humanities to be? Please explain.
3.2 What kind of capacity needs to be developed to strengthen the digital humanities community? Please explain
3.3 What kind of support would help the digital community develop this capacity? Please explain
3.4 Do you recommend that untenured faculty undertake digital research and teaching? Please explain.
This information will allow us to better understand the digital humanities community
4.1 Working Language:
4.2 Gender:
4.3 Affiliation:
4.4 Role:
4.5 Age:
4.6 Academic Discipline:
4.7 Level of Academic training:
Cette section portera sur le financement, le développement, la présentation et la diffusion de la recherche qui comprend des méthodes numériques, technologiques et des ressources.
1.1 Est-ce que vos projets de recherche incluent des méthodes numériques, technologiques et des ressources?
Si oui, veuillez décrire votre recherche:
1.2 Quelles méthodes numériques, technologiques et des ressources intégrez-vous dans votre recherche?
1.3 Es-ce qu’il vous arrive d’incorporé des ressources électroniques dans votre recherche?
Type de ressources électroniques:
1.4 Travaillez-vous en équipe pour faire votre recherche?
1.5 Travaillez-vous en équipe pour faire votre recherche?
1.6 Les équipes avec qui je fais de la recherche consistent en (Cochez tout ce qui s’applique):
Ces questions porteront sur le financement de vos recherches.
1.7 Avez-vous sollicité du financement pour vos travaux de recherche qui intègrent les méthodes numériques, technologiques et des ressources?
1.8 Pour quels programmes de subventions avez-vous appliqué pour financer votre recherche basée sur des médias interactifs au cours des 10 dernières années? (Prière de cocher tout ce qui s’applique).
1.9 Est-ce que votre demande d’application a été acceptée? (Prière de cocher tout ce qui s'applique)
1.10 Quel type de programme de subvention aimeriez-vous voir pour soutenir la recherche orientée vers les médias interactifs (Digital Humanities)?
Ces questions concernent la diffusion de votre recherche dans des publications et à des conférences.
1.11 Avez-vous déjà mis votre recherche ou les articles qui en découlent?
1.12 Veuillez décrire brièvement le format dans lequel vous avez mis votre recherche/ érudition en ligne.
1.13 Avez-vous publié ou avez-vous tenté de publier un ou plusieurs travaux de recherche dans un forum arbitré en ligne?
1.14 Si oui pour l’un ou l’autre, veuillez décrire le contexte :
Ces questions concernent la diffusion de votre recherche dans des publications et à des conférences.
1.15 Avez-vous déjà présenté votre recherche/ érudition avec un focus sur les médias interactifs à une conférence ayant pour thème une discipline spécifique?
Si oui, veuillez indiquer les conférences spécifiques. Si non, pourquoi?
1.16 Avez-vous déjà présenté à une conférence ayant comme thème principal les médias interactifs?
1.17 Si oui, veiller indiquer les conférences sur les médias interactifs auxquelles vous avez présenté (Veuillez cocher toutes les réponses qui s’appliquent):
1.18 Êtes-vous membre d’une association de médias interactifs (Veiller cocher tout ce qui s’applique):
1.19 Avez-vous déjà visité une école d’été ou avez-vous participé à unatelier ou cours?
1.20 Si oui, veuillez énumérer le(s) institut(s) / atelier(s) et / ou cours
Institut:
Atelier:
Cour:
Cette section mettra l’accent sur vos attentes et la compréhension de l’impact que les médias interactifs auront sur votre développement professionnel et votre cheminement de carrière.
2.1 Votre institution a t-elle une politique sur la façon dont les documents électroniques doivent être évalués en ce qui concerne la titularisation, le salaire, et les procédures de promotion?
2.2 Votre institution a t-elle une politique qui considère les publications électronique en cas de promotion et titularisation?
2.3 Votre institution a t-elle une politique qui considère le développement et l'utilisation des médias interactifs, d’outils et de ressources électroniques en cas de promotion et titularisation?
Cette section mettra l’accent sur l’intégration des médias interactifs dans les sciences humaines au sein de votre enseignement, ainsi que plus généralement au sein de votre établissement.
Ces questions concernent l’utilisation des médias interactifs, de la technologie et des ressources dans votre enseignement.
2.4 Avez-vous intégré des ressources électroniques dans l’un des cours que vous enseignez?
2.5 Veuillez indiquer les médias interactifs, la technologie et les ressources que vous intégrer dans votre enseignement
Cette section mettra l’accent sur l’intégration des médias interactifs dans les sciences humaines au sein de votre enseignement, ainsi que plus généralement au sein de votre établissement.
Ces questions concernent l’utilisation des médias interactifs, la technologie et des ressources dans votre enseignement.
2.6 Est-ce que votre université offre des programmes qui mettent l’accent sur les médias interactifs dans les facultés de lettres, arts, sciences sociales et sciences informatiques?
Si oui, veuillez énumérer les programmes
2.7 A quels niveaux académiques sont offerts ces programmes?
2.8 Est-ce que votre université a des plans pour développer des cours ou des programmes avec un accent sur les médias interactifs dans les faculties de lettres, arts, sciences sociales et sciences informatiques?
2.9 A quels niveaux académiques seront offerts ces programmes?
2.10 Veuillez préciser (ou estimer) quand ces programmes seront développés
Ces questions porteront sur l’utilisation des médias interactifs, la technologie et les ressources par les étudiants
2.11 Est-ce que vos étudiants ou les étudiants de votre établissement d’enseignement intègrent les méthodologies de médias interactifs, les outils et les ressources?
2.12 Est-ce que votre département encourage les étudiants à utiliser les méthodologies de médias interactifs, les outils et les ressources dans leurs cours?
3.1 Selon vous, comment envisagez-vous l’orientation future de l’enseignement des sciences humaines en fonction des médias interactifs et des développements des communautés/ la communauté des sciences humaines en ligne? Veuillez expliquer.
3.2 Quels types de capacités doivent être développés pour renforcer la communauté des sciences humaines en ligne? Veuillez expliquer.
3.3 Quel type de support permettrait la communauté des sciences humaines en ligne de développer ces capacités? Veuillez expliquer.
3.4 Recommandez-vous que des enseignants non-permanents développent l’enseignement et la recherche en médias interactifs? Veuillez expliquer.
Cette information nous permettra de mieux comprendre le développement de la capacité d’enseignement des sciences humaines dans l’étude des médias interactifs/ la communauté des sciences humaines en ligne.
4.1 Langue de travail:
4.2 Sexe:
4.3 Affiliation:
4.4 Rôles (veuillez cocher une case):
4.5 Age:
4.6 Discipline Académique (veuillez cocher toutes les cases qui s’appliquent):
4.7 Plus haut niveau de formation universitaire:
Rome Wasn't Digitized in a Day: Building a Cyberinfrastructure for Digital Classics.