“There are now many online, digital resources in the humanities, and their creation is funded by various governmental, academic, and philanthropic sources. What happens to these resources after completion is very poorly understood. No systematic survey of digital resource usage in the humanities has ever been undertaken—and the factors for use and non-use of digital resources are unknown. The LAIRAH (Log Analysis of Internet Resources in the Arts and Humanities) Project is a 15-month long study into the factors which determine long-term use and neglect of digital resources in the Arts and Humanities. Using quantitative Deep Log Analysis techniques to understand real-time user behaviour and qualitative user workshops to gain an understanding of user approaches to digital resources in the arts and humanities, the study identifies factors that may predispose a digital resource to become used or neglected in the long-term. This article provides an overview of the techniques used in the LAIRAH project, and presents some preliminary results that may be of use to both the creators of digital resources in the humanities, and the funders of these projects, to ensure that significant intellectual effort and time, and financial resources, are not wasted in the creation of projects that are then neglected by the user community.”
Yesterday I attended a very last-minute lecture by Professor Michael Moss, of the University of Glasgow and HATII, at the Llanbadarn campus of Aberystwyth University. The content of the lecture was taken from a joint paper he wrote with James Currall for the Tokyo Digital Humanities Symposium, organised by Tokyo University (details of the content of that symposium can be found here, having been transcribed live by Geoffrey Martin Rockwell of the University of Alberta, Canada).
Professor Moss talked about the idea that hitherto, the digital humanities have been isolated projects with short-term funding; a “bespoke industry” which doesn’t learn from projects being developed around them. Data isn’t re-used or maintained, despite expectations from the user that the assets are continually refreshed and updated. Very few projects have a continued life. And ultimately, these bespoke projects have had little impact on the way we conduct humanities research.
Bigger, better maintained projects are changing the way we research. Professor Moss cited Google Books and Ngram viewer, which searches the entire corpus for specific words and provides a visual representation of where the words are used and the precise location of words within texts, as representing “a step-change”. If these tools are used appropriately they can transform the way we research.
However, within the scholarly community there are those who “affect to despise” such tools as Google Scholar, which they believe is “industrial-scale digitization for commercial gain”. This is allied to ”an ingrained suspicion of the amateur”, in which projects like Scotland’s People Centre, which focuses almost entirely on genealogy, are deemed as inferior to actual scholarly research. Professor Moss pointed out (quite rightly, in my opinion) that “the family history stuff” is often just as academically rigorous as anything produced within the academic community, and that the information gathered during these projects and the revenue it generates are increasingly relied upon by the scholarly community for their own research.
Robert Darnton, Director of the Harvard University Library, has profound concerns about Google Scholar and what he believes is Google’s “tremendous power over information”, and the “commercialisation and monopoly” of information. This interview with Darnton explains his opinion of books, ebooks, Google Books and the DPLA (Digital Public Library of America). “We are dealing with an extremely difficult area…it [is] a commercial speculation by a great company. However, libraries are not intended to make money. Our job is to get books to readers, free…”.
Humanities scholars are in danger of making themselves marginal by disdaining the digital and deifying the analogue. But what we need are resources that users can understand, without ambiguity. Moss commented that there also needs to be a resistance to the making of “new, incompatible islands”, as has been done in the past – what Michael Pidd of Sheffield University referred to as “digital silos”, so perhaps the answer to this is that assets should be made to conform to a specified standard? Professor Moss explained that The National Archives are regularly asked to take over digital assets but are unable to do so in most instances because the code used to develop the resources cannot be accommodated, or there’s a problem with the format.
Ultimately, Professor Moss suggested that the future for digital resources is “a move away from guardianship to dialogic methods”; from a “bespoke industry dependent upon elaborate mark-up”, with assets conforming to a specified standard. We should be moving towards user-generated content and exploiting the potential of the Cloud. Digital humanities components should be embedded at undergraduate level (although there is then an expectation that students learn skills which are not always necessary for their designated courses). There should also be a closing of the gap between the amateur and the scholar, a gap which Professor Moss believes has only developed in the last 60 years.
Whilst nothing particularly new was added to the current discussion on the digital humanities, Professor Moss was able to put the current debates across in a succinct, coherent way – which was helpful to one of my digital humanities colleagues here at Aber, who has only just embarked upon his PhD research. I also bumped into my unofficial supervisor and intermittent coffee date Dr Susan Davies (biography here at p.14) who, I was unsurprised to discover, knew absolutely everyone in the room, including Professor Moss. I periodically thank my lucky stars that she is so supportive, in spite of the fact she isn’t officially affiliated to my PhD project in any way. In fact, I am extremely lucky altogether in my designated supervisors, who seem quite unfazed by my momentary lapses into panic.
I’m feeling a sudden surge of energy after a few weeks of really struggling to get myself together effectively; this may manifest itself in a flurry of blog posts, so I apologise in advance!
“…the “myth” of the stand-alone, masterful author is exposed for the fiction it is by the new forms of communication — blogs, links, hypertext, re-mixes, mash-ups, multi-modalities and much more — that have emerged with the development of digital technology.
The effect of these technologies is to transform a hitherto linear experience — a lone reader facing a stable text provided by an author who dictates the shape of reading by doling out information in a sequence he controls — into a multi-directional experience in which voices (and images) enter, interact and proliferate in ways that decenter the authority of the author who becomes just another participant.”
A New York Times blog post (or “column”, depending on whether you’re happy to accede to Stanley Fish’s interpretation) which decries the “elimination of the individual” and suggests that the “new enlightenment” as envisaged by Jimmy Wales is a theological concept, and the digital humanities are “an insurgent humanities”.
As a slight deviation from the theme (but very much still keeping with the Aberystwyth vibe) I thought I would post some pictures that I’ve taken over the last few months back in Ceredigion. I hope you like them.