Shut all our websites down

Craig Bellamy has the right idea. If we can get established experts--who do not need the written exposure for advancement--to post significant findings or original ideas or comments, we can get on the track for establishing digital work as worthy of citation. When I was a Human Resources Management specialist in the USA Federal Government, I advised Medical Research Service on the amount of citation made on the work of persons being considered for hire or promotion. To do this, I used a periodical called Citation Digest--or someting to that effect. It not only listed who and what was cited but who did the citing--a useful tool that enabled me to point out that one applicant's extensive citation list consisted primarily of his citing his own work and to establish that another applicant with only two articles had several hundred citations that past year alone by a number of different authors. Unless and until professionals in position of influence make the value of digital citations known, only then can we get such citation digests to include digital citations.

Scott Catledge

Although this thread has gone quiet, it is worth adding some information from a discussion which took place at a recent workshop held by the the 1641 Depositions Project at Trinity College Dublin. When this issue came up in discussion one of the participants mentioned that in the history of science there has been a complete reversal in favour of citing the digital reference. Even in cases where a researcher has gone to the original, they cite the digital resource if one is available (as well as the original, one assumes). If this is in fact the case it would be extremely valuable to know how this sea change has come about, and what steps, if any, were taken in order to encourage this to the extent that it is now accepted practice.

In some respects I feel this discussion has missed the point. I am less concerned about getting credit for the sources created, than I am with the failure of scholarship involved. Citing the specific edition of the source actually used, whether digital or hard copy, is simply honest academic practise. The failure of most scholars to cite the sources they consult (preferring the pretence that they are getting dusty in the library) is a reflection of a significant decline in the standard of modern academic behaviour. Traditionally, you would expect an academic monograph or article to give full details of the edition of a source being used, or the location of a manuscript. One of the major reasons to footnote anything, is to ensure that other scholars can retrace your footsteps. The failure to do so, just because the edition involved is online, is an absolute abrogation of two years of academic practise.

Rather than close down digital resources, why not simply expose a few senior scholars for the academic charlatans they are. A simple comment (appropriately worded) in a review in THE would start a discussion, that would precipitate change.

Er, by the same logic, shouldn't all the libraries close for a week to demonstrate how valuable they are? Not a good way to make friends. Even when online repositories become the main means of access to digitized works, it will always be the analogue originals that deserve the citation. Born-analogue works deserve to keep their conventional citation.

That said, there's no good reason why a digital EDITION should not be cited as such. I can't see any good way of getting around the fact that digital research infrastructure is working at its best when it's least intrusive.

Are there any archivists out there who are radical enough to make primary sources available online only, rather than merely replicating online what is already available in the archives? Would it ever be possible to move away from the box and folder format in physical archives and create a new system for digitized primary sources? Wouldn't a new system of organizing information in the digital realm force historians to change their habits and formats of citation?

Hi,

Why are citations, in particular, so important? You can publish papers about the resources themselves. Surely those get cited in the appropriate communities. You can track how a particular resource is being used and do surveys to establish its value. Seems, according to this reasoning every scholar should be citing Google or their OS manufacturer.

Is there something I'm missing?

Best,
-- Duane

It is a good question and a good idea. Withdrawing the fruits of ones labour to address injustice has worked a treat for the labour movement for over a century and a half now. Academic labour should be no different.

Still, what I see as one of the best means to promote digital resources is perhaps not through large scale collectivist strike action (as much as I agree with this), but thorough the promotion of 'significance'. If a digital item is significant to a field and the questions that are addressed within that field, then the digital item will be seen as significant. Unfortunately if it is a mere facsimile of an original, then the original will perhaps be seen as more significant (and the researcher will cite the original as they perhaps don't want to appear to be lazy). It is when the digital item becomes a work of scholarship in itself through annotations, the use of tools and scholarly interpretations etc. (or it is a 'born digital' work), then it becomes a work of scholarship in itself and thus more 'significant'. It is then about finding significant questions to ask of this significant resources and fining innovative ways to communicate the results (citations is part of this).

Now, what are the significant questions we can ask of these resources?

I am about to read a book on the history of the institutional English Department. Perhaps a significant history for digital resources would be the history of the institutional computer centre.

Kind regards,

Craig

Hi Torsten,
This is a very good question. The HRI's Old Bailey Online is used extensively by many researchers but rarely cited, despite the presence of a citation guide. In one sense we see this as a good thing: that maybe Old Bailey Online is accepted as a fundamental tool of research in much the same way as the OED and DNB. After all, we don't cite the OED every time we consult it. However, this can also make it difficult to assess impact and formally demonstrate its value.
Mike