SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES IN INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES

Please also look at the complete set of questionnaire responses (viewable by field and by name) . You can also see the original questionnaire, "Working With Materials."

If nothing else, the responses solicited by the interdisciplinary committee were diverse. Although historians seemed to be the largest single group, a wide variety of approaches and fields were represented. Distilling so many viewpoints into a single document inevitably brings a loss of nuance. Perhaps the most interesting and enjoyable aspect of the responses are the individual perspectives, and these can only be appreciated by reading the responses themselves. But be that as it may, there are a range of common themes and issues that come out of a reading of the responses as a whole.

Sources

Most of the respondents seem to engage in what we would generally think of as "traditional" scholarship: They work in archives and libraries using manuscripts, government documents, personal papers, journals, newspapers, etc. Working with a wide variety of primary documents in order to build a complex reconstruction of events and processes seemed to be a common objective. Ideal conditions, for most respondents, require, above all, time--the ability to work unimpeded by everyday responsibilities--and location--an Italian archive, a village in Senegal, a municipal records office in Bolivia, a carrel in the Widener Library or simply the comfort of one’s own study. Since both time and location are scarce commodities, technologies are used in a variety of ways to compensate for one or the other. Creation and use of facsimiles, especially in the form of photocopies and microfilm are very common, and most respondents did not feel that this was inherently less acceptable than using the originals as long as the facsimile provided an accurate and precise reflection of the actual content of the document. A few people voiced a preference for working with original documents in which non-textual information (types of paper and ink, watermarks, traces of use, marginal notations, etc) may not be conveyed by facsimile. Published collections of documents got mixed reviews: for most, they are a practical necessity, but some respondents noted potential problems in the ways in which documents are selected and presented.

Access was an issue raised in many responses. Many noted the possibility and need for technological solutions. Digitization of source materials and creation of better and more widely available finding aids were common suggestions. The need to make computers more compatible with non-Roman scripts was voiced in several of the responses. Use of information technology for research was mixed. Many reported using search engines, on-line catalogues and other reference resources, but far fewer told of doing research with primary documents on the web.

Methods

The distinction between primary and secondary sources continued to hold sway for most respondents. Most gave strong preference to the use of primary sources, suggesting that secondary sources be used sparingly. A few writers, however, noted the importance of placing one’s work in an ongoing dialogue with other scholars. Respondents, for the most part, seemed to prefer to formulate research problems through a process of engagement in the sources. As scholars in the humanities, the respondents seemed to have little use for social-science approaches focusing on the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Use of theory was a controversial point. Some rejected theoretical literature as anachronistic (in that it imposes present day values and assumptions on historical materials), unnecessarily arcane and simply a waste of time. A few other writers, however, noted the value of theory in framing research questions and identifying critical issues. Data and theory, some suggested, should function in a dynamic relationship in which each side guides, checks and reinforces the other. Few of the respondents engage directly in the reconstruction of documents, but many regarded their work itself as a process of reconstruction: taking disparate pieces of information and creating a cohesive narrative.

Many writers reported in engaging in various forms of collaboration, from scholarly projects in which participants read and revise each others’ drafts to team teaching. Although a few people noted the difficulties of collaboration—insuring equal contributions, overcoming the divides between cultures and disciplines—most seemed to value the synergy derived from working together. Technology has provided powerful tools for facilitating collaboration (e-mail, on-line discussions, web sites, etc.) and these were noted accordingly in many of the responses. At the same time, there was a sense in several of the responses that scholarship at is most basic level is a solitary affair—the encounter between reader and text is inevitably one on one and it is up to each reader to formulate his or her own distinctive viewpoint.

Dissemination

Respondents expressed a considerable degree of dissatisfaction with the existing system of academic publication. Some criticized the commercialization of publishing. Too often publishers feel compelled to produce volume after volume of redundant and often mediocre work aimed a the general reader while more specialized and valuable studies are passed over. Others placed the blame on scholars themselves for producing for a minuscule audience arcane, jargon-laden, theory-heavy works that are absolutely inaccessible to ordinary people. The disconnect between academia and the broader public was an issue of concern in many of the responses. Some focused on education, where teaching on the K-12 level for the most part fails to reflect more sophisticated approaches evident in higher education and scholarship.

A considerable amount of interest was expressed in technological means to overcome problems with dissemination. Many writers brought up the prospect of on-line publishing as a promising development. But, they hastened to add, as long as conventional practices of tenure and promotion continue to hold sway, it is unlikely that scholars will begin to post their work on the web in large numbers.

Overall concerns

In this area respondents spoke with a striking degree of unanimity. What is most lacking for this group of scholars is time. The overall picture that emerges from the responses is that of scholars stretched thin, struggling to manage the conflicting demands of research, teaching and administrative work. Technology, in this context, can be as much a problem as a solution. Some complained about "information overload," while others reported not having enough time to learn to use the technology that is available. Many respondents, however, suggested ways in which technology might help to alleviate some of the tensions. Making documents more accessible to users was one common suggestion. Improving the quantity and quality of materials available on the web was another frequent request. Many were critical, however, of the present state of the web. The lack of a coherent system for vetting materials on the web, something equivalent to the process of peer review, was a common complaint. Others suggested that a better system could be developed for organizing and cataloging materials on the web.

In general, the questionnaires seemed to provide a fairly rich and nuanced snapshot of the hopes and frustrations of scholars in the humanities. Thoughts about technology seemed well within the range of currently existing projects and practices. If there are any dramatic new paradigms lurking out there regarding the intersection of technology and the humanities, the NINCH questionnaire has not managed to unearth them. But the questionnaires do point to a range of issues and problems that could serve as a starting point for further discussion.

Respectfully submitted,

Nathaniel Knight

American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies

Other Field Questionnaire Summaries:

History | Interdisciplinary Studies | Language and Literature | Performing Arts | Visual and Media Studies