Another vision?

Suppose there is to be another so-called broader vision of ‘computers in the humanities’ at this stage of development. In that case, there needs to be much more work done in terms of ‘research into research’ (i.e. especially into humanities research practices). The practical and urgent problems of science require many talented people to address them, partly with the tools of the digital age. Still, in terms of their adaptability to humanities research, there does need to be a lot more focused research undertaken to build an evidence base and set of convincing arguments.

Again, the present vision of eResearch may need to be clarified across the two great branches of knowledge: science and the humanities. The ‘eResearch vision’ for the humanities must be built on a convincing evidence base (i.e. research into humanities research), not good scientific practice (that is something else). There is nothing wrong with borrowing and adapting ideas from any field to a particular problem, but they do need to be helpful to the context in which they are adapted. And more ‘research into research’ will assist in this regard. And again, I think the eLearning community (ie. learning research) has done a pretty good job here.

eResearch is a challenging fix; the agencies involved do excellent work, and its mission is essential. It must be sustained in the longer term as the monumental problems addressed by eResearch will take time to solve. If it is not supported, we won’t be able to build upon its vision and make something of our own for the humanities. It is fair to say that much of the ‘digital humanities’ is emerging out of eResearch, which is not necessarily bad. But there is also nothing wrong with imagining something a little different to this, and to do this, we need to understand what we do a lot more (i.e. a trans-formative reflection). Again, we ignore the literature in the digital humanities at our peril.