Technology, Scholarship, and the Humanities:

The Implications of Electronic Information

---

Final Session: Remarks by Conference Sponsors (Summaries)

   Moderator:  Douglas Greenberg
               Vice President
               American Council of Learned Societies

   Panelists:  Paul Evan Peters
               Director
               Coalition for Networked Information

               John Haeger
               Vice President for Programs and Planning
               The Research Libraries Group, Inc.

               Michael Ester
               Director
               The Getty Art History Information Program
                
               W. David Penniman
               President
               Council on Library Resources

               Stanley Katz
               President
               American Council of Learned Societies

Remarks by Douglas Greenberg

The final session would be devoted to what the sponsors' representatives believed were the key conclusions of the conference and to the actions they would take in the months ahead. One primary goal of the organizers was to assemble representatives of core constituencies in the humanities and in technology who would not ordinarily have the chance to meet. Many model projects are already in the planning stages because of this gathering.

The speed and magnitude of technological change are growing because of systemic changes in our society. Whether this change is evolutionary or revolutionary is difficult to judge, but it is what historian David Hackett Fischer has called "deep change," a change in the rate of change. One thing missing at the conference was a sense of the scope and pace of what is already happening in electronic technology that could have a significant effect on the humanities. To address this lack of broad knowledge of scholarship that uses technological tools, the humanities must find more and better ways of disseminating information about what technology has helped them to achieve.

Another missing element was a discussion of the relationship between new methods of research and the recent changes in humanistic subject matter. While the papers alluded to these phenomena, the working groups did not analyze them substantively or propose further study. The groups also circumvented the questions of how technology will affect traditional reading, writing, and research and whether technology will foster collaboration or reinforce individualism in scholarly work.

Several themes emerged, however, as common concerns of all five working groups: the need for a coherent voice in the humanities to address technological issues and the call for an ongoing forum. While we may not be able to do the former, we can surely achieve the latter. Additionally, all five groups agreed that we need to act at the national level to continue the dialogue on electronic research in the humanities. Unsurprisingly, the complex, urgent financial issues facing humanities research were a key focus of all the working groups, as was the triad of related issues--access, democracy, and internationalization. These difficult issues clearly need more intensive discussion, and the reiterated theme of "empowerment" should prompt the critical question "Empowerment for whom and for what purpose?"

The working groups often mentioned the need for model projects, particularly those that connect technological development issues to humanities issues, for example, the question of the integration of knowledge and the relationship between teaching and research.

We did not discuss how technology may well foster not the collaboration we hope for, but even more individualistic research than we have had in the past, unless we control this development. "We need a baseline of knowledge about what we have now," an inventory of available information and programs to expand and raise the level of discussion on the impact of technology on scholarship. Humanists must also continue striving to adapt technology to fit their values as scholars and teachers, rather than permitting technology to reshape their values.

The humanities will not solve their problems unless they expand the dialogue through training and education to include people outside the humanities and their institutions. Participants should return to their home institutions with a long-range strategic vision that leaves them better prepared to act, more willing to enlist allies, and clearer about what they can do as individuals both to foster collaboration and to tackle the problems where they work and study.

Remarks by Paul Evan Peters

The Coalition for Networked Information believes that the network must be as diverse as possible, which means that control of the network must be widely distributed and flexible to avoid parochialism. As such, the network constitutes a "new ecology of thought and action," which generates a human community and allows new options and partnerships.

Four key recommendations generated during the conference fall within the scope and capacity of the Coalition. First, the Coalition could closely tie the projected digital library of 10 million volumes to existing preservation efforts that are not focused on microfilm. It should coordinate such a project with the development of new publication processes. Second, the Coalition will participate in advocacy efforts on behalf of electronic research and will work against the "zero-sum" approach now practiced by government funders. Third, the Coalition is interested in supporting summer programs and institutes for those who want to advance their understanding of electronic research in the humanities. Fourth, the Coalition will seriously discuss the recommendation that it structure the proposed ongoing forum on electronic information and the humanities, which should be highly collaborative. I will initiate preliminary meetings on this recommendation.

Remarks by John Haeger

The good news from this conference is that none of the relevant activities currently being supported or encouraged by the sponsoring organizations appears "seriously wrongheaded." The bad news is that the main questions RLG brought into the conference remain unanswered. There is no consensus whether computer assisted techniques and computerized resources will actually improve the quality of humanistic scholarship, or affect its economics in a positive way. Until this question can be answered positively, unequivocally, and enthusiastically, programs which aim to advocate increased investment in such technology will be compromised. It is also not clear how much provacative problem-solving and program planning humanists really want or need. Even the working groups which advocated proactive approaches to scholarship and technology relied on reactive rationales: "We need to ride the animal or get left behind." or "Change is inevitable, so we might as well get used to it." Judging from today's reports, the working groups paid more attention to incremental adjustments than to transforming solutions. While the idea of a "national digital library" is tantalizing, it is not yet persuasive.

As a result of this conference, The Research Libraries Group is unlikely to make major changes in its agenda. We will continue to increase the range of primary cultural data in our databases and to work on standards. We will follow with interest whatever consultative or coordinative apparatus may develop from our conversations here, and welcome individual conversations and initiatives which promise to improve access to information resources in the humanities.

Remarks by Michael Ester

One key insight gained from the conference was the tremendous need for better communication among scholars, including expanded opportunities for faculty members to learn about new technology that might have an impact on their work. One strong argument for the humanities' involvement in new technology was that the cost of doing research in an electronic world will rise beyond the means of individuals, which will demand collective and collaborative solutions among universities to create and share information resources. To the wider community in which the humanities participate, we must argue the value of the humanities to society as a whole. This is not an easy task, but it is a necessary part of the work of humanists.

Regarding the proposed electronic library, will it focus primarily on materials that are easy to scan and reproduce digitally? Might it exclude difficult materials in the art world, such as the building records of the Sistine Chapel? It was unreasonable to expect that the conference would be comprehensive or that it would speak definitively for those involved in the humanities and technology, but the event was a good beginning for a much more extensive process of investigation.

Remarks by W. David Penniman

At the beginning of this meeting, I stated my vision for the library of the future, which would play a major role in education and research. I was pleased to find my convictions reinforced by the conference and to hear of exciting initiatives that were currently under way. Little attention, however, was paid to something of personal interest: research on the role that browsing and serendipity play in the scholarly process and how technology would affect this phenomenon. Technology should actually enhance browsing by making it easier to explore the corners and unbeaten paths of research material.

The participants might ponder two questions: How do the conclusions of, and issues raised by, the conference alter the scheme of things? Since we must find ways to make the case for the humanities, how can technology add value to the basic resources now used by scholars? Perhaps we need to think creatively, even "crazily," about these issues to generate new ideas. I was particularly impressed with the work of Marilyn Lavin at Princeton, who uses technology to explore the "corners" of works of art more easily, as a metaphor for the promise of information technology and the scholarly process.

Remarks by Stanley Katz

Attending the conference was like eating an artichoke: there was "something wonderful" revealed after much unappealing and difficult work. While the meeting identified exciting prospects and opportunities, it was also clear that much difficult work still lies ahead. The larger agenda for this conference was a traditional one for the American Council of Learned Societies, in that it concerned scholarly communication.

One of the ACLS's central mandates is to promote new ideas about scholarly communication in the humanities and social sciences at the national level so that scholars can share the knowledge they create with other citizens in this society and with future generations. However, given current political and financial constraints, universities might "turn in among themselves," making it far more difficult to maintain the notion of a national and international scholarly community. Because the ACLS lacks any concrete institutional power, it can be effective only by reinforcing the links between institutions and working collaboratively, with an activist and unified humanities community to reinforce the common weal for the humanities. Conferences such as this one help the ACLS articulate the ultimate importance of the humanities and education in general to the success of a democratic society in the modern era. Technology provides us with a tremendous opportunity to think and create in new ways. By doing so, we rise to the challenge of being a global, intellectual, and democratic community and aim to achieve the highest intellectual and moral values in life in ways that were not possible for previous generations.

---