Technology, Scholarship, and the Humanities:
The Implications of Electronic Information
Comments by Participants
Susan Hockey: Group I members could have used a broader base of knowledge
regarding what is possible in technological research in the humanities,
especially since current uses of technology in the humanities are often 20
years out of date. Although some of us have long been disseminating this
information, it does not seem to reach the right people. If we do not address
this, we are in danger of reinventing the wheel by duplicating the work of
other groups.
Richard Lanham: Later conferences might provide some examples of existing
technology to bridge the knowledge and understanding gap among the many
participants.
Whitney Davis: There is an implication that humanists have not lived up to an
obligation to revolutionize their practice through technology. In reality,
many of us already feel that our practice is revolutionary, imaginative, and
responsive to the needs of our culture and society. Group II felt that this
gap was perceptual and that simple strategies, such as having undergraduate
programmers work with faculty members, could have major consequences.
Group III's call for an analysis of the meanings and cultural implications of
technological research suggested one area in which humanists would not sit at
the feet of technologists but would lead. In art history, communications,
English, and cultural studies departments, people have thought a great deal
about the cultural meaning of the new media, and the departments are well
prepared to interpret them to society as a whole.
Douglas Greenberg: Did Group I discuss what we would gain and lose during the
shift to technologically based scholarship?
Werner Gundersheimer: Not to the extent that Dr. Grabar's paper raised it. We
could certainly promote a cooperative approach to knowledge, which may
disturb a field that has traditionally celebrated scholarly autonomy and
individual authorship.
Kinshasha H. Conwill: Group III agreed that the humanities need greater
advocacy for the central role they play in our society. To accomplish this we
need breadth of collaboration. Humanists must reach beyond the university to
the people and institutions that translate scholarship to the larger public,
including artists, museum professionals, librarians, and others.
Jann Matlock: Group I raised this in regard to how the humanities' funding
priorities may change in light of technological advances. Funding new
databases may reduce funding for traditional research. Our group thinks that
we should lobby on behalf of increased resources for the humanities as a
whole, and not simply for greater technological investment.
Stanley Katz: The humanities have been traditionally excluded from public
support. Even with the establishment of the National Endowments, public
research funding is less than 2 percent of the total funding. Until the
public understands that it is in its interest to invest much more heavily in
the arts and humanities, we will not find the needed level of support for
humanities research among private funders.
Mary Case: I believe that there will be plenty of funding for projects such
as creating a national electronic library, which is analogous in scope and
vision to Kennedy's call in the 1960s to put a man on the moon. But this is
only possible if the humanities will act as a unified force.
David Bearman: We seem unable to identify a primary "driver" of fundamental
change. If we are, in fact, in an information economy, then humanists add
value to the natural resources driving that economy. Because we were
traditionally the only market for our own products, it has long been held
that these resources should be freely available. However, in an era when
public funding is being withdrawn, our attitudes toward this intellectual
property may have to change so that we "lease" rather than give away what we
own. If we do not take this role as "value-adders" seriously, even if this
sharply challenges long-held notions of "fair use," we will impoverish both
our constituents and ourselves for the rest of the century. We will either
become part of the economic system that is driving development or be taken
advantage of by it.
M. Stuart Lynn: Group IV agreed that open, if not free, access should be a
cornerstone of the humanities' approach to electronic information. We should
fund those who need it, and charge for their use of intellectual property
those who reap direct commercial advantage from humanities research.
Conwill: Coming from the arts community, which has been battered as badly as
the humanities community in recent funding cuts, I have a few cautionary
notes. One is that there is a perception that the arts and humanities do not
serve the broader public. Another is that arts institutions' entrepreneurial
approach has not diminished the need for public funds, partly because such
income is highly taxed. We must foster the idea that activities that develop
and flourish outside the market--as do the arts and humanities--serve the
public good. We must address both of these problems by reaching out to the
public and the government and convincing them of our importance to the
quality of life.
Susan Brynteson: Group III raised the important question of democratization
and information resources. Although humanists take freedom of expression for
granted, we should prepare to come under serious attack over what kinds of
information we decide to include in and exclude from information resources,
especially when such information involves controversial topics, such as
abortion, homosexuality, Holocaust revisionism, propaganda by White Citizens'
Councils, and so forth.
Mario Valdes: As a member of Group III, I want to emphasize how fundamental
accessibility of electronic resources to those not in the academy is to the
sociology of disseminating knowledge. If we do not address this, we will
exacerbate the existing gap between insiders and outsiders. Technology may
also either widen or narrow the resource gap between libraries in the United
States and those in less affluent parts of the world.
Thomas Reese: We invoke democratization, but is it a pipe dream? Since we
cannot afford to do everything, the values of technology and humanities
cultures are at odds. Do we want to support faculty research leaves, teaching
initiatives, and social experiments, or the technological revolution in our
resources? Do we fund collection development and acquisitions of new forms of
knowledge or cover the cost of getting online what we already know and have?
Czeslaw Jan Grycz: My recent work in Eastern Europe suggests that emerging
democracies and developing countries want to see the United States as
empowering others through information. We can serve an important international
function by linking people who are pursuing similar goals, yet have different
perspectives. The global implications of the virtual library and international
electronic information resources make this a peaceful, stabilizing activity.
Roger Bagnall: The Commission of Preservation and Access brought European and
Latin American countries into monitoring preservation films internationally.
That work offers a good model for involving these countries in the development
of an electronic virtual library.
Conwill: We can do much work in communities within this country--African-
American, Latino, Asian, and Native American. Historically, black colleges
and universities offer a great opportunity to build resources and access.
Oleg Grabar: These issues need to be seen from the point of view of the
practicing scholar, who is overloaded with information coming through normal
channels and kept from the real business of scholarship. We must not put the
cart before the horse, and we must remember that true scholarship is the
transformation of facts into ideas.
Valdes: This might be an appropriate stance for you to take, yet that is a
narrow view of scholarship, especially since many other scholars, particularly
those outside the United States, are continually hampered by a lack of
information that electronic technology could alleviate.
