The third article I've recently read is by Christine L. Borgman, who reasons that with the ongoing digitisation of sources and journals, the days of humanities scholars spending months and years trawling solo through archives will become rarer, as collaboration and digital study could become the dominant force in humanities research this century. With an increasing number of journals becoming available online, due to demand from academics and students, information is becoming much more easily available, allowing for a greater likelihood of individuals doing the same research at the same time. Collaborative work would help reduce duplication of the same work and allow for greater development in field research, a distinct advantage over the old method of individuals working on their own.
Borgman identifies a problem with the way digital research is viewed and used by students and lecturers in the humanities, citing that concerns over publishing and promotion of one's work, as well as insecurity over tenure positions in universities, means that humanities scholars are more guarded about their work, and less willing to collaborate with colleagues, or to engage with new means of researching. University libraries allow the perpetuation of a cycle by continuing to stock printed books and journals, which humanities scholars continue to use. Borgman does not blame librarians for this, arguing that scholars should be responsible for breaking this cycle, and demand a change in the way they, and their students, access material. From what limited experience I have with administration, this demand from academics alone would be insufficient. There is a need to convince heads of departments and the upper echelons of universities that digital research is not only important, but something which they should ignore at their peril.
As the author points out, there is a mental block among humanities scholars to accept digital publishing and the collaboration which goes with it. Arts students are groomed into accepting that work must be done individually, that we are competing against our colleagues. Collaboration is a dirty word, little better than plagiarism. Large classes are broken down into smaller tutorial groups, but the message remains that we are individuals walking along our own paths and aiming for our own goals, apart from the rest of the group. I personally find it very difficult to engage in any form of collaborative work because of this engrained feeling that doing so diminished my effort. The fact that collaboration as a result of increased digital resources will become more commonplace means that I will have to address this.
Science and medicine have taken more readily to digital research than the humanities, perhaps because of the importance the data created in those fields have. Searching for cures to serious diseases is a preoccupation of many scientists around the world, with pooled information leading to quicker discoveries. I'm unable to think of the last time a single individual won one of the scientific or medical Nobel prizes, while the humanities prizes are frequently won by individuals.
The key question I have about the future of digital research in the humanities is how do senior academics and the upper rungs of university management be brought around to the idea that this is the trending way of research, that the old days of slowly going through archives is not just old-fashioned, but inefficient? I've been fortunate to complete a thesis already, and I can honestly say that while I did access books in the traditional manner, from university libraries, I did not access a single journal in its traditional printed format. Within the next generation, students will demand greater availability of information online, and digital study will become the dominant form of humanities research.
2 comments:
I agree with many of the points in your post and the article, but the one thing I take issue with is the discussion of collaboration. I think Borgman exaggerates the image of the lone scholar or phd student studying among the dusty books in an archive. In fact, though most humanities books are published by one single author, they usually contain a section of acknowledgments with quite a list of people who contributed input to the work. Historians talk to their colleagues, students (such as ourselves) talk to our advisers, and so on. I certainly value the input I receive from others, whether lecturers or friends who read my essays and tell me what does or doesn't make sense. So, yes, the research is still ultimately authored by one person, but it is not created in isolation. However, I do agree that digital tools have the potential to impact the humanities in a positive way by aiding collaboration.
The image of the lone historian going through the archive might be slightly exaggerated, but I think it's still very common, since that's where most of the information pertaining to their subject lies.
Acknowledging people for input doesn't mean the same as collaboration though, so while people frequently ask for opinions or input into their research, it isn't the same as collaboration; with input, the author can choose to accept or reject it while with collaboration, one has to facilitate an alternative standpoint or perspective. I think that's really his concern with the lack of collaboration in the humanities.
Post a Comment