Introduction
| Agenda | Previous Work | Current
Best Examples
|
Proposal Writing
PREVIOUS WORK
Building Blocks builds
on two seminal projects conducted by the J. Paul Getty Trust
1985-1988: Getty Trust/Brown
University:
Object, Image, Inquiry:
The Art Historian at Work
In 1985, while discussing
areas of mutual interest, the Getty Art History Information Program
and the Institute for Research in Information and Scholarship (IRIS)
at Brown University realized that there was no study of how research
was actually done that might guide the application of computer technology
to research in the humanities: "if our [mutual] aim is to foster
procedures, systems, and user environments that will enhance the
way scholars work in the future, should we not know a great deal
about existing research practices? How can we aspire to satisfy
the needs of scholarship and to marshal automated resources without
better knowledge of what researchers do now?"
The resultant study,
an in-depth examination of the research process of a small group
of art historians, was published in 1988 as "Object, Image, Inquiry:
The Art Historian at Work," and showed its participants "immersed
in a rich matrix of interactions (with objects of study, with colleagues,
with institutions, with resources and professional tradition) as
well as portraying the obstacles and contradictions, the attitudes,
intellectual strategies and emotions" of doing research.
There were many lessons
in the study and its directors trusted that they would be wisely
considered. They understood the temptation for those responsible
for technical development would be "to focus on discrete applications
that conform to today's computer tools or that affirm developers'
existing directions." Rather what seemed more appropriate to them
was an understanding of the overarching objectives and thinking
that condition research practices, the contexts of researchers'
subject matter, attitudes and politics and the different dynamics
at work at different stages of a scholar's work. What was needed
was software that could promote the transfer of knowledge through
various stages of research.
This study was an "initial
exploration of the ways knowledge can be acquired and communicated"
and called for further work "to inform and guide us in applying
new technology to the work of scholars."
That report surely inspired
much of the subsequent work of the Getty Information Institute in
developing digital tools for art historians, although no specific
ostensible follow-up was made to that study. We believe that Building
Blocks takes up many of the lessons and challenges of that study--extending
them across the academic disciplines.
1995-1996. Getty Trust:
Research Agenda for
Networked Cultural Heritage
Almost a decade later,
the Getty Information Institute attacked this issue in a different
way and with a more ambitious scope by orchestrating a call to scholars
to consider what should be on a research agenda for arts and humanities
computing. Eight critical areas were selected and papers were commissioned
on each of these. The papers were then opened for discussion online
to a private list and then to an open list in the summer and fall
of 1995. A Report, "Research Agenda for Networked Cultural Heritage,"
edited by David Bearman, was then published by the Getty Trust in
1996. The eight papers, organized in chronological order from the
beginning of the scholarly or creative process through to the archival
life of its products, were as follows: "Tools for Creating and Exploiting
Content" (Robert Kolker and Ben Schneiderman); "Knowledge Representation"
(Susan Hockey), "Resource Search and Discovery" (Gary Marchionini);
"Conversion of Traditional Source Materials into Digital Form" (Anne
Kenney); "Image and Multimedia Retrieval" (Donna Romer); "Learning
and Teaching" (Janet Murray); "Archiving and Authenticity" (David
Bearman); and "New Social and Economic Mechanisms to Encourage Access"
(John Garrett).
Again, although the papers
and the report were broadly influential, and certainly captured
the state of research on these critical issues at the time, no research
agenda was actually created and no specific follow-up to this extensive
investigation was undertaken. However, there is much valuable material
in this report, and much that can be built on as Building Blocks
works to create its own Research Agenda.
It is particularly interesting
to note the following observations made as part of several "Research
Agenda Issues" in the editor's "Overview and Discussion Points"
introduction to the essays in this volume:
If existing mechanisms
for reporting on humanities computing issues could be made more
responsive to the specific needs of humanities disciplines rather
than to technological opportunities, the research agenda could
be advanced substantially. A major focus of any concerted research
agenda should be to create such a structure.
A lack of agreement
on the fundamental characteristics of the fields constituting
the arts and humanities precludes the conditions for successful
systems development and evolution. A research agenda that does
not address how the arts and humanities can become the object
of systemic study will have little long-term impact in the state
of tools, methodologies and analytic frameworks for support
of these fields.
1997-1998. Council
on Library and Information Resources/American Council of Learned
Societies: Scholarship, Instruction and Libraries at the Turn of
the Century
In 1997-98, the Council
on Library and Information Resources together with the American
Council of Learned Societies established five task forces to "understand
how technology is changing the nature of scholarship and teaching"
by looking at the special requirements posed by different media:
visual materials; manuscript materials; audio materials; monographs
and journals; and area studies materials. The focus of the sessions
and of the conclusions, however, was primarily directed at present
needs and how they could be served by librarians. The five basic
conclusions of the study can be summarized as follows:
1. There is a need for
a national collaborative collections development program to counterbalance
the trend towards collections that resemble each other, to the detriment
of unique, special collections.
2. Institutions must
invest fiscal and other resources to make unique or special collections
more broadly accessible. Faculty are urged to make increased use
of primary source materials to develop critical thinking in students.
3. Library organizations,
universities and learned societies should explore the possibilities
of exploiting and managing intellectual property to yield greater
benefits to the scholarly communities.
4. Institutions of higher
education and research should place more emphasis on training and
support for faculty use of information and instructional technologies.
5. Better communications
between the library and scholarly communities can enable the scholarly
community to participate in the philosophical and policy issues
arising from the use of information technology in research and teaching.
1998-1999. Arts and
Humanities Data Service:
Scholarly Exploitation
of Digital Resources: Identifying & Responding to End-Users'
Information, Support and Training Requirements <http://ahds.ac.uk/old/users/study.html
>.
Similar in focus to the
CLIR/ACLS Study was a report published by the Arts & Humanities
Data Service (AHDS) in 1999 on a series of five workshops conducted
by AHDS on defining the needs of users of digital resources in the
humanities. Five discipline-specific workshops were held (in archaeology,
history, literary and linguistic texts, the performing arts and
the visual arts) together with a "National Expert Workshop."
Recommendations were
similarly cast in present-day terms: For example the Visual Arts
workshop report recommended increased infrastructure investment
to allow for greater use of digital resources; long-term investment
in national agencies that support digital resource creation (as
institutional support is rare); co-development of print and digital
resources; an awareness of the slowness of information culture and
of academic research and teaching to embrace the digital; the need
for widely available examples of the use of digital resources to
provide practical exemplars of use; good documentation of projects
to enable future resource creators the benefit of their wisdom (and
mistakes); the need for academic recognition of, and standards for,
the development of scholarly resources in digital form. There was
a strong call for training and a recognition of the different kinds
of training (skills-based, discipline-based and resource-based)
and information about where to obtain such training.
Both of these last two
investigations were about improving current services and activities.
Still needed are explorations of deeper and more long-term needs
of researchers and teachers. It is the ambition of the Building
Blocks project, while conscious of such present-based studies, to
build on the deeper investigations of the earlier Getty reports
cited above in creating a workable research agenda on which humanists
and computer scientists can collaborate in a concerted and far-reaching
way.
|