The respondents represented a broad cross-section of a broadly defined DH community of practice in Canada. As can be seen in Table 1, most respondents work in English and are affiliated with a university. Of those who indicated their gender, females were the larger group. The spread of academic rank and age was reasonable with 45% between the ages of 30 and 49, and 16% were at the Assistant Professor level, 17% at the Associate, and 17% at the Full Professor. Graduate students comprised 6% of the responses.

The respondents represented over 35 disciplines from the social sciences, humanities, library and information sciences, computer science and business. (Respondents could check more than one discipline.) The best represented disciplines were English (40%), Literature (25%), Humanities (15%), Culture and Language Studies (12%), and History (10%). Approximately 6% of the respondents identified humanities computing as their discipline, which suggests that DH is beginning a recognized discipline in its own right. An overwhelming majority of the respondents (80%) have undertaken research projects involving digital methods, technologies and resources. Those who answered “no” to this question still provided information on their research dissemination, professional development, and teaching and student development activities.

As the survey results show, Humanists and Social Scientists are actively embracing digital technologies and resources, and to a lesser extent, digital methods, in their research. In particular, they are using and creating software, databases, digital manuscripts and electronic resources within a traditional approach to research. For some, the digital has created new research avenues. The survey participants have been successful in accessing funding for their projects. They are also overwhelmingly using formal and informal electronic outlets to disseminate their scholarship. However, as a group, these participants are not generally presenting their digital-oriented research at conferences. Finally, they have received very little training in digital technologies, resources and digital methods.

Respondents were asked their expectations and understandings of the impact that their digital-oriented work will have on their professional development and career trajectory, particularly in relation to tenure, salary and promotion. As seen in Table 14, approximately 10% of respondents answered that their institutions had policies regarding electronic documents and publication and development and use of digital technologies, tools, and resources for purposes of tenure, salary and promotion. However, the majority did not know if their institutions had these policies, which means that scholars are undertaking their work without knowing how it will count in professional contexts.

When it comes to teaching and work with students, the survey respondents are actively including digital resources, methods and technologies in the classroom. This level of interaction is further supported by digital program development, particularly at the undergraduate level. Finally, the survey respondents suggested that their students were actively incorporating digital methods, technologies and resources into their course work and personal lives, something that was encouraging, or even pushing, instructors to do the same within their teaching.

At the end of the survey, the respondents were asked a series of open-ended questions regarding the future of DH and the supports required to develop capacity in this community.

The first question focused on the respondents’ use of their “crystal ball” to envision future directions of DH. Collectively, the respondents provided thoughts along a series of themes. Several respondents indicated that they foresaw DH moving beyond a narrow disciplinary focus into more collaboration and broader questions. For example, one suggested that there would be increased “cross-discipline work with computer science, library/information science and the fine arts in areas such as data mining and multimedia incorporation” while another foresaw the following activities: “Interconnecting researchers and building teams; archiving and analysis of large amounts of textual, audio, and visual data; working more closely with colleagues in other fields to solve problems rather than remaining within a purely disciplinary framework; new ways of relating text to image as the latter grows in importance; using resources to provide the public with informed, scholarly materials aimed at a popular audience.”

Others suggested that the field would be developing new tools, especially those that would “facilitate the migration of humanities scholars into digital environments.” For example, “DH appears to be tackling increasingly non-trivial computing programs. I see two future tracks of development: one in which these more challenging avenues are explored, and another in which the realized tools and techniques are repackaged and made more accessible to the less sophisticated late adopters within the humanities field.”

Another argued that they “believe one important strategic direction the digital humanities will take will be to develop tools, workflows, and expressive and attestive conventions to facilitate the migration of humanities scholars into digital environments. For such a migration to occur, digital humanities scholars will need to devise and test tools, workflows and scholarly conventions for communication.”

Finally, one foresaw “a shift away from the digitizing and tagging of primary materials toward the development of tools for integrating research tools, e.g. NINES.”

Another set of respondents focused on the likely development of additional online resources for research, dissemination and teaching. One individual envisioned “more use of digitized texts — wider access to instant answers from queries on historical and cultural issues...” while another suggested that within their field “...digital critical editions of significant but not widely distributed texts will become increasingly important for both scholarly and financial reasons.”

Finally, respondents suggested the DH will likely become more widely adopted. One individual articulated that they “think that it will become mainstream — everything that succeeds will be available through Google or its equivalent. Specialized sites with a high learning curve won't last.” Another echoed this with “(l)arge scale adoption” happening through “ubuiquity rather than conscious effort.” Another suggested that their “goal is for students to work seamlessly between the real and digital worlds and see that expanded workspace as integral to their learning, their research, their work and to their private and public lives.”

However, some concern was expressed that a digital divide may be created between those who already have the skills and those who cannot easily access training to develop them. As one respondent stated, “I am not a digital user unless required. It does save me time and it can be used widely. However, the problem is that there is [sic] no programs to allow faculty to develop their digital skills.”

In a second open-ended question, the respondents offered recommendations on the capacity needed to strengthen the DH community. First, they called for more infrastructure such as networks, labs, supply workstations, and computer programming. One individual stated that this included “computational infrastructure in the humanities, generally, that plus appropriate instruction, expertise, and support.” A key component is to ensure adequate research funding to both individuals and universities so that they can “keep digital technologies up-to-date and the infrastructure to support such technologies well into the future — this is the biggest problem at my institution.” Finally, there was also a call for maintenance and sustainability. As one stated, “increased funding is an obvious one, but not only for new projects. We need a system in place for ensuring project sustainability.” Besides more dollars, some respondents indicate the need to educate grant adjudicators and reviewers to ensure that they have the knowledge needed to effectively evaluate a digital-oriented application.

Beyond funds for digital projects, respondents suggested continued support and leadership from universities is required. Some recommended courses for students and faculty to learn the skills by “making available know-how: workshops, team-teaching programs, traveling seminars.” Rewards and recognition policies were also highlighted. As one suggested, “at the faculty level, collaborative research and publishing needs to be encouraged, recognized and rewarded. Interdisciplinary research also needs to be funded and encouraged.” Further, “(m)ore acceptance of/respect for publishing in online journals. This needs to happen not only at the level of official policies on hiring and promotion, but also in the attitudes of professors.”

A selection of the respondents argued that it is important to keep the digital development grounded within the humanities. While digital material and tools are important, one respondent suggested that “we still need know how to read, how to interpret, how to analyze and how to write.” Finally, “the interface between ‘the digital’ and ‘the humanities’ needs to be strengthened. Too few humanists (let alone administrators) understand what d.h. is.”

The respondents also saw the opportunity to develop new skills beyond traditional humanities skills. For example, “Digital Humanists will need to develop the skills required to conduct lab and field experiments. We will also need to develop methods to support such research.” There is also a recognition of the need for collaboration and cross-disciplinary work as there is a “shift from disciplinary to problem focused research; structures and funding that encourage cross-disciplinary work and team building; creation of physical spaces that allow for interactive work amongst researchers (not just individual scholars in individual offices)...”

At the same time, however, several respondents did not perceive the need to take concrete steps to increase academic capacity within the community. As stated, “the community is strong and our numbers are growing. ‘Digital Humanities’ is being recognized as a legitimate field of study.” Several suggested that change will be driven by students as articulated in this comment “Le renouvellement viendra des étudiants Peu de la génération des profs.” [10]

As a third open-ended question, respondents were asked to articulate the type of support needed to develop this capacity within DH. One key priority identified was continued leadership from deans, other administrators and colleagues. Policies to support publishing in electronic journals and recognition are needed because “the creation of digital repositories, thematic collections, etc. has to be viewed on an equal footing as publishing monographs.” Given the amount of time required to learn and utilize new technologies, several respondents also articulated a desire for more time to do this type of work. As one respondent articulated, they need “Funding, and time!!! Time is important — it takes a long time to learn and utilize new technologies and to be able to trouble shoot them.”

Echoing many of the comments already made, respondents recommended funding as well as the involvement from other disciplines, particularly computer scientists as researchers, rather than purely as programmers and developers. Further, there needs to be “greater support for research in the digital outside of ‘digital’ departments. That is, keep the research highly interdisciplinary.” Finally, one respondent suggested that the community of practice needs “more ‘hybrid’ individuals who are at home with the two cultures and who are committed to building a new hybrid culture within the academy.” With this, several respondents also suggested that infrastructure needs to be shared more, especially across a single campus. As one respondent stated, “We need infrastructure here badly. Otherwise, each research team needs to come up with their own server, designer, programmer, maintenance, etc. Lots of previous time and resources are lost that way.”

Finally, respondents were asked whether they recommend that untenured faculty undertake digital research and teaching. Their answers fall into three categories. First, a selection of respondents felt that untenured faculty could undertake digital research and teaching, but that it not be “at the expense of traditional research and teaching.” This caution recognized that “the academy does not yet take new methods seriously across the board.” Another echoed that “reality still dictates that '‘traditional’' scholarship be strong.”

The second category was “yes, but” with some overall caution since digital scholarship is not always recognized for tenure. As one stated, “it is vitally necessary that younger scholars take up digital research and teaching, but I would not ask someone to do so where it might not be recognized in retention and tenure decisions.” Another respondent suggested that an untenured faculty member undertake this work “but it has to be kept secret from older colleagues and especially the administration.” Another individual is encouraging the work “because we don't want valuable projects to be postponed to a time when faculty are ‘safe’... Some projects need several years to gain momentum and achieve results.” Finally, in recognition of the amount of time required to learn the skills, one untenured faculty member stated, “Since I happen to be untenured at this point — and I undertake digital research and teaching — my answer is yes, with one proviso. That proviso is that the given faculty member have those skills prior to their entry into a tenure-track position. If they don't have those skills, they will not have the time to acquire them in the five or so years they are untenured. Such a person would be better served completing whatever teaching, research and service requirements they need to acquire tenure before learning a new digital skill.”

Finally, a third group provided an unqualified “yes.” One suggested “Yes — I think there is rich terrain there for publication and experience, and often junior faculty have more experience with these methods in their PhD programs, so the trajectory seems natural.” Another stated “yes, because by the time they acquire tenure, they will be familiar with the process and more likely to incorporate it and mentor new faculty into it.” One more individual recommended “Yes, at this stage, my department (regardless of what it might say) couldn’t imagine bringing anyone in for a career with us unless they were aware, and incorporating, digital methods in their work — even if it wasn’t the focus of their own research endeavour.” Several respondents highlighted that the number of faculty positions positioned within both the humanities and DH are increasing.

Some respondents also provided a practical reason for the incorporation of digital methods, tools and resources. They suggested that faculty do not have much choice in this regard given the importance of keeping ahead of students. As one stated emphatically, “Absolutely. Tenured or untenured shouldn't really make any difference, but it's a greater expectation that younger colleagues can keep up with their students and will have the know-how to make time-efficient use of technology to help in course-management and democratizing the learning process.” Finally, “Yes. It is the way of the future, and the way to keep ahead of and in tune with students.”

This survey provides a snapshot of DH capacity within the Canadian context. These opportunities and ongoing challenges are, however, not unique to Canada, but reflect issues in the larger DH community.

First, these results suggest much reason for optimism regarding the growing acceptance of digital methods, resources, and tools and electronic dissemination, particularly at the associate professor rank and 40–49 age group. From an overall perspective, as can be seen in Table 18, since the larger academic community has been asked questions about the incorporation of electronic resources into their work [Archer 1990], [Siemens et al. 2002], a steady increase in use and acceptance can be seen. This trend is reinforced by the fact that many publishers and libraries have moved from print journals and books to print and electronic materials and solely digital ones, as well as efforts to digitize materials such as newspapers, government documents and archival material [Schonfeld and Housewright 2010]. Further, over the past decade, several projects which make access to online materials easier have started and grown in size and acceptance, including initiatives such as the Public Knowledge Project (http://pkp.sfu.ca/), the Open Journal System (http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ojs), Synergies (http://www.synergiescanada.org/), NINES (www.nines.org), and other open access and open source projects.

This trend is also carrying through to an acceptance of research dissemination and teaching materials through various electronic outlets, especially compared to Archer [Archer 1990] and Rockwell/Siemens [Siemens et al. 2002]. As can be seen in Table 19, individuals are incorporating materials into the classroom and an increasing number are publishing in refereed electronic outlets and using broad electronic dissemination methods.

Second, respondents have embraced broader methods of dissemination beyond the traditional print journal. Many faculty, staff, students and projects have webpages which provide links to research and journal articles [Harley et al. 2010]; [Research Information Network 2010]. Further, blogging has become popular among digital humanists with examples such as Lisa Spiro’s “Digital Scholarship in the Humanities” (http://digitalscholarship.wordpress.com/), Bethany Nowviskie’s musings (http://nowviskie.org/), and Dan Cohen’s Digital Humanities Blog (http://www.dancohen.org/) to name but a few. And of course, twitter has taken off in the community as evidenced by the numerous accounts and hash tags related to all things DH, such as @DHAnswers, @RayS6, @nowviskie, @dhinstitute, @unsworth, #dh11, #teifuture, #thatcamp, and many others [Kirschenbaum 2010].

Third, the consideration of digital is creating a diverse range of research, both within 'traditional' fields and those created by the technology itself. The new generation of scholars and alternative academic professionals are demonstrating high comfort levels with digital tools, methodologies, and resources and incorporating these into all aspects of their professional and personal lives. These individuals are also likely to strongly encourage others to accept these in their efforts to stay current. Further, many faculty are drawing upon this potential by employing students within their digital-oriented research. The additional training opportunities are providing additional support and skill development.

Further, these results suggest that a new generation of scholars, who may not build or develop a tool, database or digitized manuscript, but will instead incorporate these resources into their research and teaching. From this, new opportunities for scholarship will occur which will, in turn, likely contribute to ongoing discussions of who is actually a “digital humanist” (For example, see [Hoover 2011]; [McCarty 2011]; [Reside 2011]; [Ramsay 2011a]; [Ramsay 2011b]. In the future, will a person need to have encoded their own document, created their own database or even written their own software code to be accepted into this community of practice, as argued by some [Ramsay 2011a]; [Ramsay 2011b]? The answer to this will then inform the direction that DH will proceed. Should more creators of these digital methods, technologies and resources be developed? Or should users be trained to be become creators? Or finally, should the community work to accomplish both options while creating more general acceptance of digital methods, technologies and resources? The answers to these questions will drive many aspects of determining the type of support that is needed — whether funding, tools, training, infrastructure and others — to increase academic capacity. For example, if the goal is to attract more users, then perhaps the response is the creation of more “tools for the novice” [Flanders 2009] or “killer apps” [Juola 2008]. If the goal is to develop more creators, more training in these skills and knowledge will be required.

Despite these opportunities, challenges still abound for those who wish to undertake this type of scholarship. For example, these results suggest the most active Digital Humanist is an associate professor and likely between the ages of 40–49. This group appears to be the most active in terms of making their research available electronically, presenting on their digital-oriented research at both discipline-specific and digital-focused conferences, and employing these materials in the classroom, a finding echoed by [Harley et al. 2010]. If this is the case, despite the growing acceptance of things digital, then more work needs to be done to ensure that graduate students and pre-tenured faculty feel confident to embrace the digital methods, technologies, and resources and to incorporate these into their professional portfolio [Harley et al. 2010]; [Schonfeld and Housewright 2010]; [Schonfeld and Housewright 2010]; [Babeau 2011]. Some of this reluctance on the part of the community’s junior members may be explained by the apparent lack of headway that has been made in the valuation of these within the salary, tenure and promotion process, especially when compared against past surveys. As can be seen in Table 20, while the number of respondents who said “yes” that their institution has policies related to the evaluation of digital resources, methods and tools has increased and the percentage of “no” has decreased, the percentage of respondents who do not know has increased. This trend comes despite work done over the past decade following examples from other institutions [Price and Walter 2010] and work by organizations such as the MLA ([Modern Language Association 2002], [Modern Language Association 2003]). In particular, Schreibman and Hanlon [Schreibman and Hanlon 2010] have identified tool development as one area where more work is required to value this activity for the purposes of employment, professional advancement and tenure.

Significant change may be slow to come in the short term. The more senior scholars do not appear to be pursuing digital-oriented research, disseminating electronically or employing digital resources in the classroom. Given their roles as researchers, administrators, decision makers, and grant reviewers, if this group does not support DH’s potential, efforts on the part of graduate students and pre-tenured faculty to employ these methods may be stalled.

Another challenge identified by these results is the apparent hesitation for individuals to present their digital-oriented research at discipline-specific and digital-oriented conferences. Perhaps, given the growing ubiquity of digital materials, many respondents may not think of presenting at digital-oriented conferences or identify these as parts of their paper at discipline-oriented conferences, such as the Modern Languages Association (MLA) and Renaissance Society of America (RSA). Alternatively, the younger scholars may be reluctant to identify themselves in this manner, particularly at those conferences which are an important contribution to the CV of a starting scholar. More work will need to be done to understand this trend.

As always, issues of funding for both initial development and ongoing sustainability and relevance of digital resources remains unresolved and may become more critical in the future. Unlike books where an expectation of updates does not exist, this community will need to work with granting agencies to create new funding models that will support not only the development of these resources, but changes and updates that come with advances in both technology and scholarship [Kretzschmar 2009]. Given the amount of resources needed for many DH projects, every effort should be made to ensure ongoing sustainability [McKie and Thorpe 2002].

The following conclusions and recommendations are designed to support the already strong efforts that are in place to develop and strengthen academic capacity in Digital Humanities both within Canada and beyond.

First, given that most respondents appear to be learning digital methods, technologies and resources on their own rather than through more formal settings, more opportunities for the development of training and skill development opportunities must be created. For example, departments, faculties and universities need to continue their plans for additional undergraduate and graduate courses and degrees, combining skill and knowledge development in traditional disciplinary methods with digital and project management skills. Further thought should also be given to certificate programs that could be taken in parallel to traditional graduate programs or in addition to these [Spiro 2010]. The recently launched Praxis Program at the Scholars’ Lab ([Scholars' Lab 2011]) at University of Virginia is one example of this type of program. It would also be beneficial for students to have hands-on experiences through internships with libraries and DH centres, to the benefit of the students and the projects [Conway et al. 2010]. At the same time, individuals who are interested in developing their skills can take advantage of the growing number of courses, such as DHSI (dhsi.org), THATCamp (thatcamp.org), One Week|One Tool (oneweekonetool.org), the Advanced Topics in Scholarly Text Encoding [WWP] and many others.

As indicated by these respondents and in other forums, such as a recent DH funding conference panel [ADHO 2011], DH projects continue to need funding and often on a scale that is not typically seen within the Humanities. Lobbying efforts with various funding agencies should continue, not only for resources to support the creation of new digital resources and tools, but also for the ongoing maintenance and sustainability as technology and scholarship advances. Users expect that these will stay current and survive changes in hardware and software and not “gather dust” like a book on a shelf, particularly given the sometimes large amounts of money that was invested to create the resource at the outset. The DH community may also need to look beyond traditional funding sources to include alternative revenue models, some of which may be borrowed from the private sector [Guthrie et al. 2008]. For example, while the success of these efforts still have to be determined, the Internet Shakespeare Editions has moved in this direction with cooperative advertising and click-through ads with AbeBooks.com and Amazon.com [Internet Shakespeare Editions 2010].

To support these ongoing calls for additional funding, DH community members need to continue to educate colleagues, administration, and granting agencies so that these individuals understand how DH supports and extends Humanities and Social Sciences research by answering traditional questions as well as forming new ones. Associate professors can play an important role in this regard as they move into positions of decision making and leadership within their institutions and disciplines as a whole. In addition, as associate professors, they have the security of position which allows them to take these types of risks to use and promote digital methods, tools and resources [Hackett 2005]. Further, Digital Humanists can support these efforts by making the “digital” more visible within their discipline-specific conference presentations and articles. At the same time, the DH associations need to continue their membership recruitment efforts among graduate students, faculty and alternative academics. As is often said, strength comes with numbers and larger membership bases will give these associations more credibility when engaging with administration, granting councils and other key stakeholders. Finally, efforts to both write and ensure awareness of policies regarding digital methods, technologies and resources for the purposes of employment, tenure and promotion must continue. With these in place, graduate students, untenured faculty, and alternative academics will be more likely to invest their efforts in the creation and application of DH.

As the results from this survey suggest, the acceptance and use of digital methods, tools and resources within research and teaching are increasing within the Canadian context and beyond. The above recommendations are intended to support the ongoing efforts to move DH from “emergent” to the mainstream.

This section will focus on your expectations and understanding of the impact that your digital work will have on your professional development and career trajectory.

2.1 Does your institution have a policy concerning how electronic documents are to be evaluated in tenure, salary, and promotion procedures?

2.2 Does your institution have a policy concerning the consideration of electronic publication in cases of promotion and tenure?

2.3 Does your institution have a policy of the consideration of development and use of digital technologies, tools and resources in cases of promotion and tenure?

3.1 Using your crystal ball, what do you envision the future directions in digital humanities to be? Please explain.

3.2 What kind of capacity needs to be developed to strengthen the digital humanities community? Please explain

3.3 What kind of support would help the digital community develop this capacity? Please explain

3.4 Do you recommend that untenured faculty undertake digital research and teaching? Please explain.

This information will allow us to better understand the digital humanities community

4.1 Working Language:

4.2 Gender:

4.3 Affiliation:

4.4 Role:

4.5 Age:

4.6 Academic Discipline:

4.7 Level of Academic training:

Cette section portera sur le financement, le développement, la présentation et la diffusion de la recherche qui comprend des méthodes numériques, technologiques et des ressources.

Cette section mettra l’accent sur vos attentes et la compréhension de l’impact que les médias interactifs auront sur votre développement professionnel et votre cheminement de carrière.

2.1 Votre institution a t-elle une politique sur la façon dont les documents électroniques doivent être évalués en ce qui concerne la titularisation, le salaire, et les procédures de promotion?

2.2 Votre institution a t-elle une politique qui considère les publications électronique en cas de promotion et titularisation?

2.3 Votre institution a t-elle une politique qui considère le développement et l'utilisation des médias interactifs, d’outils et de ressources électroniques en cas de promotion et titularisation?

Cette section mettra l’accent sur l’intégration des médias interactifs dans les sciences humaines au sein de votre enseignement, ainsi que plus généralement au sein de votre établissement.

3.1 Selon vous, comment envisagez-vous l’orientation future de l’enseignement des sciences humaines en fonction des médias interactifs et des développements des communautés/ la communauté des sciences humaines en ligne? Veuillez expliquer.

3.2 Quels types de capacités doivent être développés pour renforcer la communauté des sciences humaines en ligne? Veuillez expliquer.

3.3 Quel type de support permettrait la communauté des sciences humaines en ligne de développer ces capacités? Veuillez expliquer.

3.4 Recommandez-vous que des enseignants non-permanents développent l’enseignement et la recherche en médias interactifs? Veuillez expliquer.

Cette information nous permettra de mieux comprendre le développement de la capacité d’enseignement des sciences humaines dans l’étude des médias interactifs/ la communauté des sciences humaines en ligne.

4.1 Langue de travail:

4.2 Sexe:

4.3 Affiliation:

4.4 Rôles (veuillez cocher une case):

4.5 Age:

4.6 Discipline Académique (veuillez cocher toutes les cases qui s’appliquent):

4.7 Plus haut niveau de formation universitaire: