Rome Wasn't Digitized in a Day - Council on Library and Information ...

229
Borgman argues, however, that, each of these dis<strong>in</strong>centives aga<strong>in</strong>st shar<strong>in</strong>g has some potential
solutions. The reward structure for publish<strong>in</strong>g rather than shar<strong>in</strong>g is the most universal dis<strong>in</strong>centive,
Borgman granted, but she also argued that this environment is beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g to shift. In terms of datadocumentation
challenges, Borgman proposed new partnerships between humanities scholars and
<strong>in</strong>formation professionals. For the other dis<strong>in</strong>centives, Borgman recommended short- and sometimes
long-term embargoes of data and publications that could protect scholars’ rights for a time while
ensur<strong>in</strong>g others will eventually have access to the data. Borgman acknowledged that many scholars
would also like to prevent access to their sources of data until after they have published. Nonetheless,
she concluded that:
As data sources such as manuscripts and out-of-pr<strong>in</strong>t books are digitized and made publicly
available, <strong>in</strong>dividual scholars will be less able to hoard their sources. This effect of digitization
on humanities scholarship has been little explored, but could be profound. Open access to
sources promotes participation and collaboration, while the privacy rules of libraries and
archives ensure that the identity of <strong>in</strong>dividuals us<strong>in</strong>g specific sources is not revealed (Borgman
2009).
Borgman ultimately proposed that any <strong>in</strong>frastructure developed for the humanities should “err toward
openness” <strong>in</strong> order to advance the field more quickly.
While the future of digital scholarship, even with<strong>in</strong> the smaller realm of digital classics, is beyond the
scope of this report, the challenges of ga<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g acceptance for digital classics projects and
demonstrat<strong>in</strong>g how they <strong>in</strong> many ways can enhance traditional scholarship, as well as support new
scholarship, were well illustrated by the overview of digital classics projects earlier <strong>in</strong> this report.
Despite the scholarly distrust of many digital publications highlighted by Edmond and Schreibman
(2010) and Borgman (2009), peer review and the vett<strong>in</strong>g of data were important components of many
digital projects such as SAVE, Suda On L<strong>in</strong>e, Pleiades, and IDP.
Challenges of Humanities Data and Digital Infrastructure
“Central to the notion of cyber<strong>in</strong>frastructure and eScience is that “data” have become essential
scholarly objects,” Borgman observed, “to be captured, m<strong>in</strong>ed, used, and reused” (Borgman 2009).
Various types of data exist <strong>in</strong> both humanities and scientific research, and Borgman listed several k<strong>in</strong>ds
of them, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g observational (surveys), computational data (from models or simulations),
experimental data (laboratory work), and records (government, bus<strong>in</strong>ess, archival). While it is this last
form of data that is used most frequently by humanists, Borgman suggested, a fuller understand<strong>in</strong>g of
the nature of humanities data is a significant research challenge fac<strong>in</strong>g the designers of any
cyber<strong>in</strong>frastructure. Despite the belief that data <strong>in</strong> the sciences are very easy to def<strong>in</strong>e, Borgman cited
research from her own experience <strong>in</strong> environmental science where there were many “differ<strong>in</strong>g views of
data on concepts as basic as temperature”(Borgman 2009).
Borgman criticized the fact that there have been no significant “social studies of humanities” that
would help better def<strong>in</strong>e the nature of data <strong>in</strong> humanities research:
Lack<strong>in</strong>g an external perspective, humanities scholars need to be particularly attentive to
unstated assumptions about their data, sources of evidence, and epistemology. We are only
beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g to understand what constitute data <strong>in</strong> the humanities, let alone how data differ from
scholar to scholar and from author to reader. As Allen Renear remarked, “<strong>in</strong> the humanities,
one person’s data is another’s theory” (Borgman 2009).