Engage with digital learning and research
User login
forum: Future directions for the AHRC
Facing a changing research landscape and approaching its fourth anniversary on 1st April 2009, the AHRC has started a consultation process to determine future directions "as it takes an increasingly strategic approach to the support of arts and humanities research".
I think this is an important development and the digital arts and humanities community should really use the chance to make an impact, especially as there were some concerns about how the AHRC responded (or not responded) to feedback on the closure of the AHDS in 2008. In this context, the consultation process is even more significant as the AHRC is specifically asking for your opinions on what infrastructure will be needed for the future.
Obviously, it would be great if the community would agree on what we think the most pressing needs are. From a quick glance at the feedback document, these two questions seem to be key for the digital arts and humanities:
Please outline any broad research themes WITHIN the arts and humanities which should be considered a priority for AHRC funding.
Q4 Is there a need for the AHRC to provide capital funding for new national research facilities / infrastructure? (please note the "new", so getting the AHDS back may not be something we should hope for)
http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/About/Policy/Pages/FutureDirections.as...
What do you think? Is there something we all can agree on as really useful? Expanded funding for e-Science in the arts and humanities? A piece of infrastructure that would support our work? Or a national centre for digital research?
Re: Future directions for the AHRC
I think that we need a national centre or centres, for Research Training in Historical Computing. This/these could be established in places where there is existing expertise and could be used to train people in methods that could then be passed on elsewhere.
We also need to take a serious look at historical publishing and how it will be affected by technology.
Re: Future directions for the AHRC
Doctoral Training Centres are what they tend to be called in other subject areas -- I am not sure they should be solely IT focussed but certainly advanced IT should form a significant part (including e.g. development of data management plans; scholarly communications).
Re: Future directions for the AHRC
This, it appears, is a double-edged sword. Whilst strategic initiatives are important to address areas of national importance through the provision of an economic catalyst to address national research shortcoming (and certainly eInfrastructures are part of these); strategic initiatives also shift balances of power from a bottom-up research process, to the research councils themselves. The Digital Humanities, as an academic field, also successfully competes in 'responsive mode' research funding. http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/Opportunities/Respons...
It is also important to acknowledge the latter and balance this with the national strategic needs of the UK if they are not being met through the normal processes. Remember strategic initiatives may be yet another form of resurgent Keynesianism, and whilst this may be a forced response to the present financial crisis, it is also important to protect and advance academic freedoms at the very crucial historical juncture where these are needed.
Re: Future directions for the AHRC
The fundamental issue here is between a distributed model for the development of projects and expertise, or a more centralised one which pumps money into a single 'centre'. The AHRC does not have the money to support both. Despite the attractions of a 'centre', all our experience over the last thirty years is that these tend to create a small element of local advantage, at the expense of engagement with the broader community.
The real challenge in relation to digital humanities in the next ten years is to normalise the use of new tools and resources within everyday humanities practise. As a result, I for one, would be anxious to avoid pushing for more directed and centralised organisation at the expense of tool creation, or resource distribution.
If people want to create centres of excellence and good practise, this should be done on the back of teaching rather than research, and the AHRC should perhaps consider special funding for students undertaking an MA in digital humanities, or a ring fenced set of PhDs in e-Science for the Humanities.
Re: Future directions for the AHRC
Your comment reminded me of a recent discussion with representatives of funding bodies in Germany. Basically, they were very keen to support digital humanities, but they also felt that long term sustainability of infrastructure was something that universities and libraries had to guarantee - in the same way as they today provide desks, ethernet, books and journals to their staff and students. However, the funders said that they were also aware that significant initial investment was needed for that as well as continuous support for development projects.
I understand why Tim is critical of central institutions, especially as the fate of the AHDS showed us how easily they can disappear. However, funding of tools and resources in a less central way does also have a few problems: How can we ensure that resources are not built to (mainly) satisfy the builders but rather a wider group of researchers? How can we ensure the sustainability of tools and resources if there is no institution behind them? These questions are obviously linked - a larger user base will help sustainability.
So if we were to suggest to the AHRC that a responsive funding stream for tool and resource development is need, what would be the key fields of use for a wider group of researchers? And how could we convince the AHRC that training of students and not-research based development is what a research council should support? After all, they do still find development work if it is part of a research project...
--
Torsten Reimer
editor arts-humanities.net