Advertisement

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 19, Issue 3–4, pp 309–334 | Cite as

Transforming Scholarly Practice: Embedding Technological Interventions to Support the Collaborative Analysis of Ancient Texts

  • Grace de la Flor
  • Marina Jirotka
  • Paul Luff
  • John Pybus
  • Ruth Kirkham
Article

Abstract

e-Research and Cyberinfrastructure programmes actively promote the development of new forms of scientific practice and collaboration through the implementation of tools and technologies that support distributed collaborative work across geographically dispersed research institutes and laboratories. Whilst originating in scientific domains, we have more recently seen a turn to the design of systems that support research practices in the social sciences and the arts and humanities. Attempts to embed large-scale infrastructures into research settings has brought to the fore the necessity of understanding the knowledge, skills and practices of researchers within a variety of disciplines that might use these technologies. In this paper, we consider an approach to gathering requirements through the introduction of various technical interventions for relatively short term periods so that we may come to an understanding their impact on routine work practices. Drawing upon an analysis of the detailed ways in which classicists work with digital images, we discuss the requirements for systems that support them as they collaborate in the interpretation of particular types of images. We discuss implications for the development of infrastructures to support research collaboration in this area and conclude with reflections upon the experiences gained from conducting naturalistic studies in parallel with design interventions.

Key words

e-science e-research cyberinfrastructure workplace studies digital humanities requirements engineering 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Alan Bowman, Mike Brady, Charles Crowther, Roger Tomlin, Melissa Terras and Segolene Tarte of the VRE for the Study of Ancient Documents (VRE-SDM) and the e-Science and Ancient Documents (eSAD) projects. This research was supported by Embedding e-Science Applications—Designing and Managing for Usability project. Grant No. EP/D049733/1.

References

  1. Atkins, D. et al. (2003). Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation. Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. National Science Foundation Report, http://www.nsf.gov/od/oci/reports/toc.jsp [accessed 01 July, 2008].
  2. Atkins, D. et al. Building a UK Foundation for the Transformative Enhancement of Research and Innovation. Report of the International Panel for the 2009 Review of the UK Research Councils e-Science Programme, (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
  3. Blomberg, J. L., Suchman, L., & Trigg, R. (1996). Reflections on a work-oriented design project. Human-Computer Interaction, 11, 237–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowman, A., & Tomlin, R. (2005). Wooden stilus tablets from Roman Britain. In A. Bowman & M. Brady (Eds.), Images and artefacts of the ancient world (pp. 7–14). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bowman, A., Crowther, C., Kirkham, R., & Pybus, J. (2008). Virtual research environment for the study of documents and manuscripts. The Oxford e-Research Conference, 11–13 Sept. 2008. Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Bowman, A., Tomlin, R., & Worp, K. (2009). Emptio Bovis Frisica: The ‘Frisian ox sale’ reconsidered. Journal of Roman Studies, 99, 156–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, B., & Perry, M. (2002). Of maps and guidebooks: Designing geographical technologies. In Proc. of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 28–32).Google Scholar
  8. Crabtree, A., Hemmings, T., & Rodden, T. (2002). Pattern-based support for interactive design in domestic settings. In Proc. of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 265–276).Google Scholar
  9. de la Flor, G., Luff, P., Jirotka, M., Pybus, J., Kirkham, R., & Carusi, A. (2010). The case of the disappearing ox: Seeing through digital images to an analysis of ancient texts. In Proc. 28th ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2010, Atlanta GA, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Dourish, P. (2006). Implications for design. In Proc. of ACM CHI 2006, (CHI ′06) (Montreal, Ontario, April 22–27, 2006), pp. 541–550.Google Scholar
  11. Foster, I., & Kesselman, C. (Eds.). (2004). The grid: Blueprint for a new computing infrastructure. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  12. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingston, E. (1981). The work of discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11(2), 131–158.Google Scholar
  14. Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hey, T., & Tefethen, A. (2003). e-Science and its implications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 361, 1809–1825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W., Westerlund, B., Bederson, B. B., Druin, A., Plaisant, C., et al. (2003). Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. In Proc. of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, (pp. 17–24). Ft. Lauderdale: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jirotka, M., Procter, R., Hartswood, M., Slack, R., Simpson, A., Coopmans, C., Hinds, C., & Voss, A. (2005). Requirements for collaboration and trust in healthcare innovation: the eDiaMoND case study. International Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14(3), 369–398.Google Scholar
  18. Keeler, M. (2002). The place of images in a world of text. Computers and the Humanities, 36, 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (Eds) (2000). Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing system design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Luff, P., Heath, C., Kuzuoka, H., Yamazaki, K., & Yamashita, J. (2006). Handling documents and discriminating objects in hybrid spaces. In Proc. of ACM CHI 2006, (CHI ′06) (Montreal, Ontario, April 22–27, 2006), pp. 561–570.Google Scholar
  21. Molton, N., Pan, X., Brady, M., Bowman, A., Crowther, C., & Tomlin, R. (2003). Visual enhancement of incised text. Pattern Recognition, 36, 1031–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Plowman, L., Rogers, Y., & Ramage, M. (1995). What are workplace studies for? In Proc. of the European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW′95), Stockholm, Sweden, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  23. Roued-Cunliffe, H., Tarte, S., Terras, M., Brady, M., & Bowman, A. (2009). Towards an interpretation support system for reading ancient documents. Digital Humanites′09 July 2009, pp. 237–39.Google Scholar
  24. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures in conversation: Volumes I and II. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Sharrock, W., & Coulter, J. (1998). On what we can see. Theory and Psychology, 8(2), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Swan, L., Taylor, A. S., & Harper, R. (2008). Making place for clutter and other ideas of home. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 15(2), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tang, J. C., & Minneman, S. L. (1991). VideoDraw: A video interface for collaborative drawing. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 9(2), 170–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tarte, S. (2009). Papyrological investigations: Transferring perception and interpretation into the digital world, Working paper.Google Scholar
  30. Taylor, J. (2001): News from the e-Science Programme: First phase of the programme. RCUK website, (available at: [http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/escience/news/firstphase.htm]; last accessed 16 March 2010).
  31. Terras, M. M. (2006). Image to interpretation: Towards an intelligent system to aid historians in the reading of the Vindolanda texts. UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Unsworth, J., Courant, P., Fraser, S., Goodchild, M., Hedstrom, M., Henry, C., Kaufman, P., McGann, J., Rosenzweig, R., & Zuckerman, B. (2006). Our Cultural Commonwealth: The Report of the American Council of Learned Societies Commission on Cyberinfrastructure for the Humanities and Social Sciences http://www.acls.org/cyberinfrastructure/OurCulturalCommonwealth.pdf and the Bamboo Planning Project http://projectbamboo.org/.
  33. vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2001). Exhibiting interaction: Conduct and collaboration in museums and galleries. Symbolic Interaction, 24(2), 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ware, C., & Lewis, M. (1995). ‘The DragMag image magnifier’, CHI 1995, Denver, pp. 407–408.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grace de la Flor
    • 1
  • Marina Jirotka
    • 2
  • Paul Luff
    • 3
  • John Pybus
    • 2
  • Ruth Kirkham
    • 2
  1. 1.Oxford University Computing LaboratoryOxfordUK
  2. 2.Oxford e-Research CentreOxfordUK
  3. 3.King’s CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations