Conclusion

Amid the radical changes in the nature and cost of basic research tools--primary texts, library collections, curricular materials--we see the potential for dramatic changes in how research, teaching and learning take place. A student or researcher given access to a substantial full-text collection with a powerful search interface, such as RWO/WWO, can accomplish far more in a given interval than with the same texts in print form. Compared with a textbook or course packet, the online collection offers the student entry into a far broader intellectual landscape; compared with a library, it dramatically reduces the logistical overhead of identifying and getting access to the desired text. And since we also provide for the printing of individual texts, the slow individual work of reading a text in detail is still possible--indeed, easier, because one is working with one's own printout rather than a fragile original. The combination of these two factors results in a reading and research experience which is profoundly different: one in which the text is always contextualized by the other documents in the collection, and in which avenues of reading may be pursued within a single text, a group of texts, or the collection as a whole. And for students as well as faculty, the advantage of access to rare and fragile texts opens up avenues of research which were simply not possible before. The issue for these people is thus not how to make digital resources a cheaper way of accomplishing the same thing, but rather how to make the most of their potential as a new technology.

Moving even faster than these changes are the expectations users bring to their work with these tools. Contrary to the assertion of Robinson and Taylor quoted at the beginning of this report, we see faculty developing higher expectations for the kinds of research they perform, and imagining new strategies for teaching. One has only to consult the abstracts from recent ACH/ALLC, and DRH conferences to see the immense amount of creative work in this area. And again, these faculty are increasingly looking to digital resources not to provide the same thing more cheaply, but to provide something new, something which expands the horizon of expectation. As little as five years ago, the WWP had difficulty getting faculty to imagine what online research would be like, or how they might use online tools. Within the past year, we have found that increasingly they are asking for features which not only exploit the digital medium, but far outstrip our current capabilities and look ahead to future technologies.

What conclusion should we draw from these rising aspirations, particularly since they represent (at least at present) a dramatic rise in the cost of providing an adequate research environment? It is tempting to call for a limitation on these costs, and perhaps a requirement that they be justified by clear, immediate gains in productivity or cost savings elsewhere in the system. At the WWP, our understanding of the current state of digital tools indicates that this is precisely the wrong moment to call for such a reckoning. These tools at present are experimental, and the technologies which show the most promise--rich text encoding, database technology, XML, and similar tools and methods--are only now reaching a point where their practical benefits are being explored and realised. The research costs associated with their development also appear somewhat high, although this point deserves more careful scrutiny. We need to see these costs in their true proportion: supporting not only the development of the individual project or product which has provided a local testbed (as in the case of the RWO collection), but also the much larger context of present and future products which are made possible by the development of these tools and methods. In ten years time the system of rich text encoding which the WWP and other projects are working to perfect may support an entire digital library of online full-text resources in the humanities. High as the development costs for these essential technologies appear, then, they must be amortized over both a long productive life and over a very wide range of projects and products.

Whatever the cost, though, the possibilities these tools offer only just keep pace with the expectations which faculty and students--the research community of the new century--are now articulating. If the university is to remain a place which responds to the intellectual needs of its community, it bears the responsibility for supporting the tools and resources that meet those needs. In a sense, the university has begun a long and difficulty odyssey by embarking upon the path of new technologies: it is not a path on which one can either turn back or go only a few steps and stop. It may not appear easy or cheap to continue, but again, we need to think of the real potential scope and longevity of the benefits we stand to gain; in the end the results will surely be worth the work. In assisting with the Women Writers Project's research, and with the development of resources like RWO and Women Writers Online, the Mellon Foundation has contributed greatly to achieving those results.

Next to References

Back to Academic Research and Electronic Publication