[Humanist] 31.768 surveys, ideology, infrastructure, service
Humanist Discussion Group
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Fri Apr 13 09:15:22 CEST 2018
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 31, No. 768.
Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 08:02:34 +0000
From: "WARWICK, CLAIRE L." <c.l.h.warwick at durham.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: 31.765 surveys, ideology, infrastructure, service
In-Reply-To: <20180412071859.9AC658F1C at s16382816.onlinehome-server.info>
Dear Joris and Manfred,
I do agree with both of you. As anyone who’s ever heard me give a talk knows, my favourite response to the drive to definition is to repeat a slogan borrowed from a well-known international sportswear retailer.
Of course I do very much support the need to produce appropriate infrastructure, and of course, am an advocate of consulting users. But, am also worried that we keep repeating surveys without actually demonstrating that action has been taken as a result, that resources are appropriate or that levels of use have increased. I’ve come across this problem in the past. Resources are created, users don’t use or like them, but instead of making changes, it’s just easier to do another survey and ask the same questions, in the hope the users get it right this time. This rarely happens.
I’d like to see more exciting research projects funded by the EU, and more ERC fellowships in our area granted. If we make the comparison with, for example, physics, of course infrastructure is vital- the LHC, beamlines, HPC, telescopes etc but the physics community is also keen to ensure that EU funds also go into ERC personal fellowships, FP9 etc, because that’s the way that the most excellent research is made possible and the subject advanced. There’s a model here DH might pursue.
More information about the Humanist