0.26 Underpinnings of the social edition  (Page 26/32)

In the second instance, we found that the most valuable point of impact for our research work manifested in ways that our humanities disciplines could not readily understand, evaluate, and appreciate. Our research-related successes often involved (1) the identification of a key area of intervention pertaining to our larger program of research; (2) understanding this area and modeling it with the computer; (3) testing and refining the model until we achieved acceptable functionality in proof of concept; (4) delivering a conference paper on this as quickly as possible (because computational fields, their tools, and the possibilities they enable advance rapidly) and engaging in further discussions with those who were interested in carrying this work further; and either (5a) working with a partner who was interested in putting our research into production within their own work; (5b) watching others involved in adjacent programs of research implement similar features in their own work and advancing our own research in that way; or (5c) noting the adoption of our procedures without our involvement by other area stakeholders. As a progression from idea to point of impact, this is ideal in every way except one: our home disciplines in the humanities find it difficult to document this impact in professional terms. It simply does not fit the article- and book-focused publication and dissemination model favored by humanities scholarship, and most digital humanities venues do not integrate conference presentation and publication in a way that provides immediate publication on presentation (as is common in the sciences). As a result, work related to this project has, for the most part, been disseminated without publication, and is therefore largely unquantifiable in humanities disciplinary terms.

6.2. partnerships and collaborations

The second phase of our development of both REKn and PReE is at a crossroads. Over the course of some five years, we have been working on REKn and PReE in various ways. During this time we have presented our findings at conferences and discussed our methodology of modeling and prototyping with other research groups. The professional and pedagogical exercise of this work has been immense, driven at its core by a consistent aim to explore document-centered reading environments, and to work toward the production of a functional tool for a variety of professional readers. As with any project of this nature, our research experience has been (and continues to be) attended by successes and fraught with apparent dead-ends. However, as the preceding project narrative has made clear, even these seemingly inconclusive pursuits are in fact evidence of an active pedagogical process and a professional evolution in design and implementation—something privileged in all academic pursuit—where each step has led to a better understanding of how our overall research goals could be accomplished.

In light of the insights gained and lessons learned, our next steps are firmer and more secure, and we bring our experience to a series of very fruitful partnerships in which elements of our research are being extended in ways not initially considered. Moreover, we are incorporating our research experience into a large collaborative initiative, Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE), sponsored by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada MCRI program, as well as contributing to further developments associated with the Text Analysis Portal for Research (TAPoR).