Advertisement

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 275–308 | Cite as

Digital Infrastructure for the Humanities in Europe and the US: Governing Scholarship through Coordinated Tool Development

  • Wolfgang KaltenbrunnerEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this paper, I provide a comparative perspective on current digital infrastructure policies for the humanities in Europe and the US. Thereby I mean to move beyond analyzing the shaping of technology within individual infrastructure projects and instead trace in a more encompassing way how dynamics at the institutional and policy level mediate the reorganization of disciplinary tool development. Drawing conceptual inspiration from the work of Sheila Jasanoff, I propose that digital infrastructure actually functions as a regulatory technology, i.e. as an interface through which the different actor groups (researchers, funders, policy makers) rearticulate their mutual relations. European initiatives, I argue, are based on a more centralizing, technology-driven vision of digital infrastructure that serves the European Commission’s policy goal of integrating national research systems in institutional and epistemic terms. This causes a certain disconnect between tool developers and prospective scholarly users who are often unfamiliar with digital approaches, but the emphasis on central coordination also ensures that no single community gains exclusive control over technology development. In the US, by contrast, the original impetus to adopt a concerted strategy for digital infrastructure has not been provided by science policy makers and administrators, but by researchers in the area of digital humanities. These scholars have successfully promoted a sociotechnical view of infrastructure as an emergent, evolutionary phenomenon, which also implies that conceptual and managerial authority should be situated at well-established digital humanities centers. While avoiding problems related to the implementation of technology in more traditional scholarly practices, this arrangement will tend to privilege the intellectual and technological preferences of existing elites within digital humanities over those of other research communities.

Key words

digital infrastructure cyberinfrastructure humanities digital humanities regulatory technology European research area infrastructure policy 

References

  1. ACLS (2006). Our Cultural Commonwealth: The Report of the American Council of Learned Societies Commission on Cyberinfrastructure for the Humanities and Social Sciences. New York: ACLS. http://www.acls.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Programs/Our_Cultural_Commonwealth.pdf. Accessed 2 December 2014.
  2. AHRC/JISC (2006). AHDS Review and User Survey. Invitation to Tender. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/funding/2006/05/ahds_review.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2014.
  3. Anderson, Sheila; Tobias Blanke; and Stuart Dunn (2010). Methodological Commons: Arts and Humanities e-Science Fundamentals. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 368, no. 1925, pp. 3779–3796.Google Scholar
  4. Atkins, Daniel E; Kelvin K. Droegemeier; Stuart I. Feldman; Hector Garcia-Molina; Michael L. Klein et al. (2003). Revolutionizing Science and Engineering Through Cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation blue–ribbon advisory panel on Cyberinfrastructure. Washington, D.C.: NSF. http://www.nsf.gov/cise/sci/reports/atkins.pdf. Accessed 12 September 2008.
  5. Barjak, Franz; Julia Lane; Zack Kertcher; Meik Poschen; Rob Procter; and Simon Robinson (2009). Case Studies of e-Infrastructure Adoption. Social Science Computer Review, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 583–600.Google Scholar
  6. Barjak, Franz; Kathryn Eccles; Eric T. Meyer; Ralph Schroeder; and Simon Robinson (2013). The Emerging Governance of E-Infrastructure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
  7. Bates, David (2006). Peer Review and Evaluation of Digital Resources for the Arts and Humanities. Swindon: AHRC. http://www.history.ac.uk/sites/history.ac.uk/files/Peer_review_report2006.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2014.
  8. Becher, Tony; and Paul R. Trowler (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Inquiry and the Culture of Disciplines, 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Boast, Robin (2009). Project Bamboo: Opportunities lost. Rescite. The blog of noise, interference and diversity. http://rescite.blogspot.co.at/2009/03/project-bamboo-opportunities-lost.html. Accessed 7 July 2014.
  10. Borgman, Christine L (2007). Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Borgman, Christine L (2009). The Digital Future is Now: A Call to Action for the Humanities. Digital Humanities Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 4. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/4/000077/000077.html. Accessed 15 July 2014.
  12. Borgman, Christine L (2015). Big Data, Little Data, No Data. Scholarship in the Networked World. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bos, Nathan; Ann Zimmerman; Judith Olson; Jude Yew; Jason Yerkie; and Erik Dahl (2007). From Shared Databases to Communities of practice: A Taxonomy of Collaboratories. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 318–338.Google Scholar
  14. Breschi, Stefano; and Lucia Cusmano (2004). Unveiling the Texture of a European Research Area: Emergence of Oligarchic Networks Under EU Framework Programmes. International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 747–772.Google Scholar
  15. Broughton, J., and Jackson, G.A (2008). Bamboo Planning Project. A Proposal to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. http://www.quinndombrowski.com/sites/default/files/blog/bamboo_planning_project_proposal.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2014.
  16. Busa, Roberto (1980). The Annals of Humanities Computing: The Index Thomisticus. Computers and the Humanities, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 83–90.Google Scholar
  17. Charmaz, Kathy (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. CLARIN (n.d.). Executive Summary. http://www.clarin.eu/executive-summary. Accessed 27 July 2014.
  19. Clarke, Adele (2005). Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Clement, Tanya; and Doug Reside (2011). Off the Tracks: Laying New Lines for Digital Humanities Scholars. media commons press. http://mcpress.media-commons.org/offthetracks. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  21. Cohen, D (2007, April 19). Digital Humanities Summit Wrap-up, Blog post. http://www.dancohen.org/2007/04/19/digital-humanities-summit-wrap-up. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  22. Harry M. Collins (1985). Changing Order. Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Collins, Ellen; Monica E. Bulger; and Eric T. Meyer (2012). Discipline Matters: Technology Use in the Humanities. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, vol. 11, no. 1–2, pp. 76–92.Google Scholar
  24. de la Flor, Grace; Marina Jirotka; Paul Luff; John Pybus; and Ruth Kirkham (2010). Transforming Scholarly Practice: Embedding Technological Interventions to Support the Collaborative Analysis of Ancient Texts. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 19, no. 3–4, pp. 309–334.Google Scholar
  25. DH Summit (2007a). Minutes. https://apps.lis.illinois.edu/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=22020. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  26. DH Summit (2007b). Minutes. https://apps.lis.illinois.edu/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=22020. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  27. Dombrowski, Quinn (2014). What Ever Happened to Project Bamboo? Literary and Linguistic Computing, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 326–339.Google Scholar
  28. Dutton, William H.; and Paul W. Jeffreys (eds) (2010). World Wide Research. Reshaping the Sciences and Humanities. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Edwards, Paul N.; Steven J. Jackson; Geoffrey C. Bowker; and Cory P. Knobel (2007). Understanding Infrastructure: Dynamics, Tensions, and Design. NSF Report of a Workshop on “History & Theory of Infrastructure: Lessons for New Scientific Cyberinfrastructures”. http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/49353. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  30. Edwards, Paul N.; Geoffrey C. Bowker; Steven J. Jackson; and Robin Williams (2009). Introduction: An Agenda for Infrastructure Studies. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 364–374.Google Scholar
  31. ESFRI (2006a). European Roadmap for Research Infrastructures. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/esfri/esfri_roadmap/roadmap_2006/esfri_roadmap_2006_en.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  32. ESFRI (2006b). Report of the Social Sciences and Humanities Roadmap Working Group. http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/esfri/esfri_roadmap/roadmap_2006/ssh-rwg-roadmap-report-2006_en.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  33. ESFRI (2010). Strategy Report on Research Infrastructures. Roadmap 2010. https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/esfri-strategy_report_and_roadmap.pdf. Accessed 26 March 2014.
  34. ESFRI (2011). Evaluation Report. http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/esfri_evaluation_report_2011.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  35. European Commission (2000). Towards a European Research Area, COM/2000/0006 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52000DC0006. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  36. European Commission (2007). The European Research Area: New Perspectives, COM/2007/161 final. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/era_gp_final_en.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  37. European Commission (2008). Developing World-class Research Infrastructures for the European Research Area (ERA). Report of the ERA Expert Group. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/ri_era-expert-group-0308_en.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  38. European Commission (2013). Assessing the Projects on the ESFRI Roadmap. A High Level Expert Group Report. http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/jd-final-aegreport-23sept13.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  39. Finholt, Thomas A.; and Jeremy P. Birnholtz (2006). If we build it, will they come? The cultural challenges of cyberinfrastructure development. In W. S. Bainbridge and M.C. Roco (eds): Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: Converging Technologies in Society. New York: Springer, pp. 89–101.Google Scholar
  40. Fry, Jenny; and Sanna Talja (2007). The Intellectual and Social Organization of Academic Fields and the Shaping of Digital Resources. Journal of Information Science, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 115–133.Google Scholar
  41. Funtowicz, Silvio; and Jerome J. Ravetz (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 735–755.Google Scholar
  42. Galison, Peter (1997). Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Gavin, Michael; and Kathleen M. Smith (2012). An interview with Brett Bobley. In M. K. Gold (ed): Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 61–66.Google Scholar
  44. Gieryn, Thomas F (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 781–795.Google Scholar
  45. Greenstein, Daniel (1998). The Arts and Humanities Data Service Three Years’ On. D-Lib Magazine, vol. 4, no. 12. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december98/greenstein/12greenstein.html. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  46. Hine, Christine (2008). Systematics as Cyberscience: Computers, Change and Continuity in science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Hockey, Susanne (2004). The History of Humanities Computing. In S. Schreibman; R. Siemens; and J. Unsworth (eds): A Companion to Digital Humanities. Oxford: Blackwell. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/companion/view?docId=blackwell/9781405103213/9781405103213.xml&chunk.id=ss1-2-1&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ss1-2-1&brand=default. Accessed 27 January 2014.
  48. Jackson, Steven J.; Stephanie B. Steinhardt; and Ayse Buyuktur (2013). Why CSCW needs science policy (and vice versa). In: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, February 23–27. San Antonio, Texas: ACM, pp. 1113–1124.Google Scholar
  49. Jankowski, Nicholas W (2007). Exploring e-Science: An Introduction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 542–569.Google Scholar
  50. Jankowski, Nicholas W. (ed) (2009). E-Research: Transformation in Scholarly Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Jasanoff, Sheila (1987). Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science. Social Studies of Science, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 195–230.Google Scholar
  52. Jasanoff, Sheila (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Jasanoff, Sheila (2007). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Karasti, Helena; Karen S. Baker; and Eija Halkola (2006). Enriching the notion of data curation in e-Science: Data managing and information infrastructuring in the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) network. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 321–358.Google Scholar
  55. Karasti, Helena; Karen S. Baker; and Florence Millerand (2010). Infrastructure Time: Long-term Matters in Collaborative Development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 19, no. 3–4, pp. 377–415.Google Scholar
  56. Kee, Kerk F.; and Browning, Larry D (2010). The Dialectical Tensions in the Funding Infrastructure of Cyberinfrastructure. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 19, no. 3–4, pp. 283–308.Google Scholar
  57. Kirschenbaum, Matthew G (2010). What Is Digital Humanities and What’s It Doing in English Departments? ADE Bulletin, vol. 150, pp. 55–61.Google Scholar
  58. Kirschenbaum, Matthew G (2012). Digital Humanities As/Is a Tactical Term. In M. K. Gold (ed): Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 415–428.Google Scholar
  59. Kok, Jan; and Paul Wouters (2013). Virtual Knowledge in Family History: Visionary Technologies, Research Dreams, and Research Agendas. In S. Wyatt; A. Scharnhorst; A. Beaulieu; and P. Wouters (eds): Virtual Knowledge: Experimenting in the Humanities and the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 219–250.Google Scholar
  60. Latour, Bruno (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Livari, Juhani; Hannakaisa Isomäki; and Samuli Pekkola (2010). The user – the great unknown of systems development: reasons, forms, challenges, experiences and intellectual contributions of user involvement. Information Systems Journal, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 109–117.Google Scholar
  62. Meijer, Ingeborg; Jordi Molas-Gallart; and Pauline Mattsson (2012). Networked Research Infrastructures and their Governance: The Case of Biobanking. Science and Public Policy, vol. 39, no. 4, p. 491–499.Google Scholar
  63. Meyer, Eric T.; and Ralph Schroeder (2015). Knowledge Machines. Digital Transformations of the Sciences and Humanities. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  64. Meyer, Eric T.; Tobias Hüsing; Simon Robinson; Franz Barjak; Oliver Bendel et al. (2010). The Role of e-Infrastructures in the Creation of Global Virtual Research Communities. Final Report for the eResearch2020 project. http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/the-role-of-e-infrastructures-in-the-creation-of-global-virtual-research-communities-eresearch2020--pbKK0413178. Accessed 16 March 2017.
  65. Michel, Jean-Baptiste; Yuan Kui Shen; Aviva Presser Aiden; Adrian Veres; Matthew K. Gray et al. (2011). Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books. Science, vol. 331, no. 6014, pp. 176–182.Google Scholar
  66. Millett, Bella (2013). Whatever happened to electronic editing? In V. Gillespie; and A. Hudson (eds): Probable Truth: Editing Medieval Texts from Britain in the Twenty-First Century. Turnhout, BE: Brepols, pp. 39–54.Google Scholar
  67. Moretti, Franco (2013). Distant Reading. Brooklyn, NY: Verso.Google Scholar
  68. Nowotny, Helga; Paul Scott; and Michael Gibbons (2001). Rethinking Science: Knowledge in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  69. NSF (2013). FY 2014 Budget Request to Congress. http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2014/pdf/EntireDocument_fy2014.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  70. Nyhan, Julianne; and Andrew Flinn (2016). Computation and the Humanities. Towards an Oral History of Digital Humanities Quarterly. SpringerOpen. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-20170-2. Accessed 16 March 2017.
  71. Olson, Gary M.; Ann Zimmerman; and Nathan Bos (eds) (2008). Scientific Collaboration On the Internet. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  72. Piersma, Hienke; and Kees Ribbens (2013). Digital Historical Research Context, Concepts and the Need for Reflection. BMGN. Low Countries Historical Review, vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 78–102.Google Scholar
  73. Ramsay, Stephen (2013). Bambazooka. Blog post, July 27. http://stephenramsay.us/2013/07/23/bambazooka. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  74. Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg (1997). Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Ribes, David; and Thomas A. Finholt (2009). The Long Now of Technology Infrastructure: Articulating Tensions in Development. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 375–398.Google Scholar
  76. Ribes, David, and Charlotte P. Lee (2010). Sociotechnical Studies of Cyberinfrastructure and e-Research: Current Themes and Future Trajectories. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 19, no. 3–4, pp. 231–244.Google Scholar
  77. Rizzuto, Carlo; and John Wood (2013). RAMIRI Handbook. http://www.ramiri-blog.eu. Accessed 1 December 2014.
  78. Shrum, Wesley; Joel Genuth; and Ivan Chompalov (2007). Structures of Scientific Collaboration. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  79. Smith, Kathleen M (2009). Q&A with Brett Bobley, Director of the NEH's Office of Digital Humanities (ODH). Hastac. https://www.hastac.org/blogs/kathleen/2009/02/01/qa-brett-bobley-director-nehs-office-digital-humanitiesodh. Accessed 7 July 2014.
  80. Star, Suzan L.; and Karen Ruhleder (1996). Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces. Information Systems Research, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 111–134.Google Scholar
  81. Textgrid (2014). Das Projekt. http://www.textgrid.de/ueber-textgrid/projekt. Accessed 15 July 2014.
  82. Unsworth, John (2007). Digital Humanities Centers as Cyberinfrastructure, Plenary Address, DH Summit 2007, Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities. http://people.brandeis.edu/~unsworth/dhcs.html. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  83. Vonortas, Nicholas S (2009). Scale and Scope in Research. In H. Delanghe; U. Muldur; and L. Soete (eds) European Science and Technology Policy. Towards Integration or Fragmentation? pp. 142–159. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  84. Voss, Alex; Matthew Mascord; Michael Fraser; Marina Jirotka; Rob Proctor et al. (2007). e-Research Infrastructure Development and Community Engagement. In: UK e-Science All Hands Meeting 2007, Nottingham, England, 10–13 Sep 2007, pp. 477–484. http://www.allhands.org.uk/2007/proceedings/papers/866.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  85. Whitley, Richard (2000). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Wisbey, Roy A (1962). Mechanization in Lexicography. The Times Literary Supplement, no. 30. Reprinted in: Freeing the Mind – Articles and Letters From the Times Literary Supplement, March–June 1962. London: The Times, pp. 15–18.Google Scholar
  87. Wissenschaftsrat (2011). Empfehlungen zu Forschungsinfrastrukturen in den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften. Berlin: Wissenschaftsrat. http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/10465-11.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2014.
  88. Wouters, Paul (2010). The agenda-setting role of e-research. In W. H. Dutton; and Paul W. Jeffreys (eds): World Wide Research: Reshaping the Sciences and Humanities. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 272–276.Google Scholar
  89. Wouters, Paul; and Anne Beaulieu (2006). Imagining E-Science Beyond Computation. In C. Hine (ed): New Infrastructure for Knowledge Production: Understanding E-Science. London: Information Science Publishing, pp. 48–70.Google Scholar
  90. Wouters, Paul; Anne Beaulieu; Andrea Scharnhorst; and Sally Wyatt (eds) (2013). Virtual Knowledge: Experimenting in the Humanities and the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  91. Wyatt, Sally; Andrea Scharnhorst; Anne Beaulieu; and Paul Wouters (2013). Introduction to Virtual Knowledge. In P. Wouters; A. Beaulieu; A. Scharnhorst; and S. Wyatt (eds): Virtual Knowledge: Experimenting in the Humanities and the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
  92. Žic-Fuchs, Milena (2013). Research Infrastructures in the Humanities: the Challenge of ‘Visibility’ and ‘Impact’. In A. Duşa; D. Nelle; G. Stock; and G. G. Wagner (eds): Facing the Future: European Research Infrastructure for the Humanities and Social Sciences. Berlin: SCRIVERO, pp. 121–133. Available at http://www.akademienunion.de/fileadmin/redaktion/user_upload/Publikationen/Tagungsbaende/FACING_THE_FUTURE.pdf (accessed 14 July 2014).
  93. Zorich, Diane M (2008). A Survey of Digital Humanities Centers in the United States. Washington, DC: CLIR. http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub143/contents.html. Accessed 14 July 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Munich Center for Technology in Society (MCTS)Technical University of MunichMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations