Determining Value for Digital Humanities Tools: Report on a Survey of Tool Developers

While the purpose and direction of tools and tool development for the Digital Humanities have been debated in various forums, the value of tool development as a scholarly activity has seen little discussion. As a way of filling this gap, the authors conducted an online survey of developers of digital humanities tools in March 2008. The survey focused on their perceptions of their work, how they felt their tool development fit into a structure of academic rewards, and the value of tool development as a scholarly pursuit. Survey results indicate that tool development is indeed considered a scholarly activity by developers, but recognition of this work and rewards for it lag behind rewards for traditional scholarly pursuits (such as journal articles and book publication). This paper presents a summary of the results of the survey, ending with some suggestions for further research. Tool development in the Digital Humanities has been the subject of numerous articles and conference presentations.[1] While the purpose and direction of tools and tool development for the Digital Humanities has been debated in various forums, the value of tool development as a scholarly activity has seen little discussion. This may be, in part, because of the perception that tools are developed to aid and abet scholarship, but that their development is not necessarily considered scholarship in and of itself. This perception, held by the vast majority of tenure review boards, dissertation committees, and our peers, may be an impediment to the development of the field of digital humanities. Indeed, as our survey results indicate, some tool developers also subscribe to this. A majority of respondents, however, consider tools development positively linked to more traditional scholarly pursuits. As one respondent indicated, I develop a tool as a specific means to an end, and the end is always pertinent to some literary question. Tool development is deeply informed by the research agenda and thus the tool development might be seen as analogous to other "research" activities. Archival research is one way of obtaining data. To get that data one must employ a methodology etc. The development of a tool is akin to this. Tool development as a methodological approach was considered no less rigorous and scholarly than other approaches: My field is the digital humanities, and some part of my research is on how computing affects (positively and negatively) scholarly activity. Building the tool — which expresses a particular intellectual stance on certain issues — is meant to be a research activity. Several major recent reports urge the academic community (particularly in the humanities) to consider tool development as a scholarly pursuit, and as such, build it into our system of academic rewards. The clearest statement of such a shift in thinking came from the recommendations of the ACLS Commission on DHQ: Digital Humani.es Quarterly: Determining Value for Digi... h8p://www.digitalhumani.es.org/dhq/vol/4/2/000083/0000... 1 of 8 31/07/2013 12:11