The Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO) is an umbrella organization whose goals are to promote and support digital research and teaching across arts and humanities disciplines, drawing together humanists engaged in digital and computer-assisted research, teaching, creation, dissemination, and beyond, in all areas reflected by its diverse membership. For more information, please visit https://adho.org/
This is the source
The annual, international Digital Humanities conference is what originally brought ADHO (the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations) together. Many see it as a cornerstone of our collective identity which enables collaboration, networking, and the international dissemination of scholarship in the field. This response to
We thank
Many thanks to Laura Estill, Jennifer Guiliano, Élika Ortega, Melissa
Terras, Deb Verhoeven, and Glen Layne-Worthey for taking the time to
formulate their analysis and offer these insights and recommendations,
drawing on their extensive service to ADHO, in particular as Program
Chairs for several conferences between 2014 and 2020. ADHO has long
grappled with the significant issues associated with representation,
diversity, multilingualism, and labor
an ongoing conversation that welcomes new voices and encourages
reflection on our scholarly and community practices
In our response we take up the authors’ call for ADHO to improve its
processes and practices surrounding the conference by describing the
work that has been done to date, and initiatives we are now
undertaking. The long ramp-up to each conference,
We know and readily acknowledge that neither ADHO’s structures nor we who work within them are perfect, and that there will be failures and inconsistencies as there have been in the past. But we do hope to learn from them with humility, as well as to learn from other organizations similar in structure to ADHO such as IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions). This response certainly cannot address all of the concerns raised in the article, nor can it define a complete roadmap for the future; rather, we hope that it can be another element in a continuing process of dialogue and improvement. Based on the discussions spurred by this article as well as ADHO’s ongoing internal review processes, ADHO plans to undertake the following work, as described in greater depth in this response:
We recognize that much work remains to be done in reimagining the conference to better serve the DH community, and we are grateful to
ADHO is keen to address the lack of diversity evident in major missteps
like the gender imbalance in the allocation of the 2014 bursaries as
well as on the stage for the 2015 opening ceremonies, the latter of
which took the shape they did despite gender parity (five women and
four men) among CO
representatives on the Steering Committee at the time.
ADHO is, fundamentally, an organization of organizations. Representation
within ADHO is crucially and entirely dependent on its COs. Whom do
the COs nominate for positions within ADHO? Do CO representatives
express their own opinions on behalf of their organization, or do they
engage their members on important issues and bring to ADHO a more
nuanced, broadly-based view? The diversity of opinions within
individual COs can be challenging in larger organizations; the
decision of Digital Humanities im
deutschsprachigen Raum (DHd) to apply to become an ADHO
CO as an organization separate from EADH is one approach to addressing
the situation, but other resolutions are possible. The nature of ADHO
in its current instantiation – as an umbrella organization of
organizations – has had a significant effect on its funding, its
staffing, and its mission. Beyond the conference, awards, and infrastructural services, there is little that ADHO
itself does, other than through actions taken by COs. Improving
representation in ADHO must, therefore, start with the COs – and such
a shift in representation would have an impact on the organization at
several levels and in many ways.
ADHO’s Multi-Lingualism and Multi-Culturalism Committee (MLMC) could, in
principle, be another mechanism for supporting representation at the
ADHO level, but, once again, the historical requirements for its
constitution (one member per CO) have impacted its priorities. It has
historically focused more on the multilingual aspect of its name than
the multicultural one, and despite frequent and passionate advocacy
about linguistic matters, its most consistent visible contribution has
been managing the translation of the CFP into the official languages
of ADHO.
Recognizing that the need for thoughtful consideration of diversity,
equity, and inclusion go beyond the remit of any extant organizational
structure, in 2021 ADHO put out a call for volunteers to serve on an
anti-racist, anti-discriminatory task force, formed in 2022 as the
Intersectional Inclusion Task Force (IITF).
In this same spirit, we believe that for ADHO to rethink the point of
the conference through the perspective of diversity, equity, inclusion
and decolonization
justice rather
than merit, equity rather than innovation, polyvocality rather than
canons, differences rather than standards, and inclusion rather than
gatekeeping
Many of the article’s suggestions for things such as accessibility audits or a study of the labor associated with the conferences are excellent. Indeed, the labor implications associated with greater transparency are one of the greatest challenges faced by ADHO as an organization led and run by volunteers. Relatedly, the Conference Protocol reflects attempts to clarify gray areas of responsibility, in an endeavor to reduce the labor involved in negotiating those guidelines individually, year after year. This attempt to reduce labor in one way has had the consequence of increasing it in another way, through the need to read, understand, and follow a set of protocols of considerable complexity.
Some suggestions, for instance the development and implementation of a preservation policy, have been
recognized as highly desirable for years. Significant progress has
been made with respect to the book of abstracts, with abstracts being
indexed from 2006 onwards in the Index of Digital
Humanities Conferences (a labour of love
seed-funded by
ADHO but built entirely by volunteers). Other aspects are more
challenging and, given the financial realities of ADHO, they are
unlikely to be realized without significant volunteer engagement.
There is interest among members of the COB to develop policies on data
gathering and analytics; on public sharing of reports, going forward;
and on data management, beyond the published abstracts, related to the
conference. This is another area that requires negotiation across
different sets of cultural expectations and practices, in addition to
legal matters, since privacy regimes and intellectual property
considerations vary across the world and are difficult to solve after
the fact for legacy data. While it may be possible to agree on a new
set of practices for conferences moving forward (and note here, again,
a possible significant lag time for changes to become visible),
retroactively applying those practices to previous years’ data would require additional labor. Even once a new set of policies
are in place, if they represent more work on top of what is already
done (e.g. through preparing the book of abstracts), we will need to
consider where the labor comes from to implement those policies year
after year. It is likely to involve ongoing data stewardship
responsibilities to handle issues such as takedown requests,
name-change requests, and similar needs.
As the article highlights, one of the most intractable issues here is the amount of volunteer labor, over a significant period of time, involved in producing the conference – a timeframe considerably longer than what is involved in offering a more local or regional conference. There has been awareness of this for some time and an attempt to deal with it in the current protocol particularly with regard to PC chairs and CCC chairs. Attempts to ensure people taking on these roles are aware of the workload and confirm that they have institutional support only go so far, informing volunteers of the conference’s heavy demands on time, but not doing much to mitigate them. ADHO’s requirement that the organizers must have institutional support does limit those who can take on the role, but seems like the only ethical stance given the demands of the conference.
Looking toward other large organizations – including organizations-of-organizations like the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) – we see more paid staff and the use of professional organizers to reduce the volunteer burden in running the organization and putting together the conference. This is made possible through (sometimes considerably) higher fees both for membership and conference registration. While DH2019 was criticized for its high registration fees (€375 for ADHO members), IFLA’s fees were significantly higher (at €605 for IFLA members).
The alternative to higher fees is other sources of income, and the revenue from paid subscriptions to
Some aspects of conference organization are inherently more rewarding than others. Shaping conversations within the field, bringing together a community, and cultivating both the current and the next generations of scholars should be invigorating and satisfying on some level. However, academic service is a gendered activity within and beyond ADHO and is pervasively devalued, a challenge further intensified when those performing service are women. ADHO is very limited in what it can do to change the culture around service where it matters most for people: within their disciplines, fields, and institutions. Nonetheless, if the net impact on the organizers of so many instantiations of the ADHO conference is the degree of dissatisfaction and alienation described by the authors of the article, then ADHO must both take responsibility and take action, at the level where its organizational and financial decisions will have consequences for future organizers.
Although we recognize that the focus of the article is on systemic practices and policies, we want to also acknowledge the personal, often gendered, experiences of bullying, harassment, and denigration mentioned in it that have contributed to the sense of alienation, burnout, and of negative personal and professional impacts from involvement in the organization of the conference. Such oppressive behaviors are completely unacceptable. While the article highlights the downsides of ADHO’s organizational tendency to address problems by adding more policies, the lack of conflict-resolution and appeals mechanisms within ADHO’s expansive policies is an oversight that must be addressed promptly. We aim to develop and implement such a policy as soon as possible. We also aim to broaden the code of conduct, in consultation with the IITF, and to include a conflict resolution mechanism.
As an increasingly global organization dedicated to the promotion of DH across different cultures – ever more widespread geopolitical local cultures and quite diverse academic cultures – ADHO faces the challenge and the exciting prospect of negotiating among diverse perspectives to establish priorities and advance initiatives. As the article illustrates, the process of change within ADHO has been a slow and an uneven one, in part because of considerations like governance structures and available volunteer time, but in part also because of the recognition that there is not one single right position on every matter nor a single position that will satisfy every CO, or every member of the DH community, equally.
For instance, the question of multilingualism is a very vexed one on which there are very strongly held, divergent views as to the right course. Some believe passionately that ADHO conferences should have substantial multilingual components; others feel that the present policy, which allows for paper proposals and presentation in English, French, Spanish, Italian and German, introduces a hierarchy, in privileging these over other languages, that is more problematic than a monolingual conference, given the increasing availability of conferences in these languages.
These and other views are reasoned and principled perspectives emerging from different intellectual frameworks, local contexts, and cultural histories. When ADHO is confronted with such controversial matters, time and care are required to negotiate among real, legitimate differences amongst COs and to seek ways forward that, while in some cases not equally acceptable to all, are acceptable enough that the Alliance can continue. These discussions are slowed further if COs take the time to engage their membership, rather than reflecting the voice of only the CO’s representative to ADHO. Since those members may someday also step into the role of CO representative, taking time to build a broader consensus in the community is essential.
Dialogue and careful listening, as well as sound governance structures, solid processes, and checks against abusive behavior, are all required to negotiate differences respectfully within a global alliance of diverse organizations. Although in ADHO’s current financial situation these require people to come forward and invest substantial time and care, the need to negotiate difference is in itself a sign of increasing diversity. The COB, EB, and other officers are working to make ADHO a space in which diversity and other aims can be advanced for the DH community globally, and we are working together to better articulate those aims and our values. Aware that ADHO’s policies and processes are far from perfect, we hope to learn how to do better from the COs, from the broader DH community, and from other organizations similar in structure to ADHO, in order to continue to offer our communities the benefits of the conference while minimizing negative effects on volunteers.
We are deeply grateful to those past and present who have stepped forward to give generously of their time to ADHO as an organization, and, in particular, to the co-authors of this article who have shared their insights into the important challenges and opportunities for improvement in the conference that their particular experiences have afforded. We are also thankful to those who have stepped forward and shared the positive experiences they have had working for a DH conference and the ways that work has contributed to their professional growth. We are committed to taking steps from our positions within ADHO to ensure that the conference better serves the global DH community, and that ADHO does right by those who are willing and able to volunteer as organizers.
In closing, we extend to the reader an invitation to reframe their
conception of ADHO as a distant them
that produces and adheres to a
complex set of rules and processes, and instead think of it as a
revolving cast of us,
since many individuals have held multiple roles in ADHO
over the years.
There is very little of ADHO that exists as a separate bureaucracy –
rather, ADHO is an attempt to coordinate and collaborate across the
cultural and linguistic gaps that separate COs, which are themselves
made up of regional, linguistic, or structural groups of us.
ADHO
can and will strive to become a more transparent, inviting, and
rewarding space in which to collaborate with others in shaping the
international DH community, but ultimately it can only do better if
COs engage in making it better. COs can only engage with ADHO if
people in their communities advocate for that involvement, and can
offer the time to make it happen. On one hand, it would be vastly more
straightforward if ADHO were a clear group of them
that could be
lobbied for change. At the same time, however slow the process for
getting there, the form ADHO takes in the future is in the hands of
the people who get involved and who together imagine and implement the
international DH organization they would like to see.
Originally conceived as a partnership between the North America-based
ACH and the European EADH (at the time ALLC) to host an international
conference, ADHO has grown rapidly in recent years, from 2 to 11
Constituent Organizations between 2005 and 2022, with several more
applications pending. An organizational structure appropriate for two
large sub-organizations is poorly suited to serve over five times that
number. Beginning with the decision in 2013 to undertake a strategic
review of our structure and governance, ADHO undertook a complete
organizational restructuring, the final implementation details for
which are scheduled to be completed by the end of 2022.
The near-completion of the reorganization and the clarification of roles and responsibilities within ADHO have created space for the ADHO COB to reflect on the issues with the conference as raised by this article, as well as other fundamental questions about ADHO, including who the organization is for, what we do, how we engage with COs and their members, and what ADHO’s values and priorities are. Even more broadly, ADHO’s role in running the international conference, sponsoring journals, and adjudicating awards comes with an implicit but ill-defined responsibility to the DH community made up of individuals within the COs, as well as those with no CO affiliation. As a step towards establishing and articulating a shared understanding of how ADHO should answer these fundamental questions, as of fall 2022 we have established an ADHO ad-hoc Identity Project that will begin by interviewing CO representatives about their perspectives on what ADHO is, what we should be doing, and how effectively the systems established by the reorganization distribute power throughout the Constituent Organisations.
As noted in the Background section (§17-§20) of the article, one of the
most challenging aspects of organizing the conference results from the
extensive policies governing it. The Conference Coordinating Committee (CCC) maintains these
policies and oversees their implementation in specific instances of
the conference. The Local Organizers are responsible for hosting,
logistical management, and finances, and the Program Committee (PC)
for the academic program. After conference bids have been prepared by
the prospective LOs and then refined in consultation with the CCC, the
COB (formerly the Steering Committee) selects the host institution and
hence the LO committee prior to the formation of the PC. The host CO
is usually
The coordination of roles and responsibilities associated with the
conference has been, as the article notes, rendered very challenging
by the fact that historically the Local Organizers (LOs), the Program
Committee (PC), and the CCC all ran in parallel with some
cross-representation. Recognition of the need to bridge the gap
between different activities has led to multiple changes including
deliberate overlapping and historical continuity in the composition of
the groups.