Advocacy Survey, Results & Analysis

RESULTS

SUMMARY

1. YOUR EXPECTATIONS When NINCH was in its formative stages, some people had general expectations of what NINCH would be doing, while others had more specific targets. If you had specific expectations/requirements of NINCH, what were they and how have they been met? AAM: To provide a forum to discuss and strategize on how arts and culture could guide/enhance/re-direct evolution of the information infrastructure. Beginning to be met now that organizational groundwork has been done. AAR: Archive resources; Link resources; Organize initiatives. Met with: online databases; ACLS initiatives ACH: -- Policy position formulation; federal promotion of interests; involvement in development of funding programs; ensuring representation on major national commissions, committees, etc. Initially good work at policy & funding levels; could be better. NSF connection particularly good. Roundtables very good (excellent paper produced). And Building Block effort brilliant -- and *very* important. ACLS: NINCH has moved from early-understood ambitions of being the " point-organization in the discussions of policies and protocols for the "information superhighway". It of course turns out that the forces affecting the Humanities in the electronic environment are much more varied than one discrete set of policies. NINCH has moved from the original conception but perforce moved into a much less defined situation. AHA: facilitate conversations/collaborations on IP policy and legislative issues; collaborations to broaden campus-based projects; find funding. Met with special projects (eg Town Meetings); the ACLS/NAS Initiative. ARL: Bring together interests of participating communities; develop action agenda of the issues and projects that should be addressed collectively. Beginning to see the concept pay off CAA: Coordination of information on new technologies; coordinating/focusing discussions on future of networked cultural heritage and opportunities. Working in a group with a leader. Ongoing Colorado UL: distribution mechanism and a forum through which to foster more understanding about networking issues, for both my library faculty and the other faculty on campus. This expectation is being met. H-Net:-- Play a role in national coordination of humanities groups working with new technology. Too Washington focused; does not take much advantage of the full range of its members. MCN: Help represent cultural heritage concerns in DC and to the wider world. NINCH has helped focus attention on the wide range of institutions that share common concerns. Visibility has helped us understand our own issues, other's issues, and the wider context in which we operate. NYU: make connections with similar projects elsewhere. Guidance on federal support for humanities computing (such as the digital libraries initiative), and looked to NINCH for consensus on issues like copyright. All our expectations have been met. NINCH has been an incredibly useful affiliation for the humanities computing group, and I believe for NYU as a whole. Smithsonian: Opportunity to discuss the impacts of the digital environment and economy within the cultural community; choices to be made by arts and humanities organizations in the face of changing technologies; challenges facing us as ways of learning change; meeting evolving public expectations of digitized collecting institutions. Through periodic meetings that address pressing issues, most notably copyright. Syracuse: -- representing the humanities in the networked environment; visibility; making clear the net is for humanities as well as for technical interests -- Moderately well, limited I think by resource issues. If you had more general expectations, what were they and how have they been met? ACH: Need better representation on federal comittees (e.g. NII-type; NEH council, etc.) ARL: Hoped the value of connecting the arts, humanities, libraries and networking would be seen as an important element in the evolution of the academy. Hard to say how this is being met. NYU: To develop a greater sense of the community of arts and humanities computing in the US, and to foster relationships within this community. These objectives continue to be met. Smithsonian: Opportunity for more general discussion (see topics above) on broad impacts of digital networking. Less directly; occasionally we touch on these issues during board meetings, within the context of more specific discussions and decision-making; but NINCH has been more public-policy oriented and academically oriented (speaking from a museum perspective). VRA-- Expected NINCH would inform its members of cultural heritage content documented in digital form. At the same time, we hoped that NINCH would advocate for the preservation of such content and for the continual conversion of analog cultural documentation to digital form. The VRA also expected that NINCH would establish broad guidelines for such a conversion. excellent job of informing members/community about digital repositories of cultural content (listervs and web site); has done as good a job as can be expected in advocating for access to cultural heritage material...; not as proactive as the Digital Future Coalition (DFC), it has maintained a reasonable stance on copyright issues. While NINCH hasn't established precise fair use and other Guidelines, it has established its "Core Values" and has strongly endorsed the NHA Principles.... NHA-- information on: special needs for scholars and others in the arts and humanities in digitized information; how humanities and culture are included in planning and access; and how to assure access and participation. Included in this expectation was the idea that NINCHwould serve as a focus for the wide variety of cultural organizations' standing in the digital age.

2. SCOPE Today, as NINCH is still evolving, is it specific and practical enough; adventurous and exploratory enough?: Member specific? adventurous? Comments AAM yes yes AAR yes yes Goals are good and strategy seems sound. ACH no no NINCH is great, and getting even better very fast. But we need: aggressive lobbying for representation and funding; and even more intellectually adventurous efforts like Building Blocks ACLS ? ? It may be that some of our societies -- their administrative leadership, membership and academic leadership -- need more practical, even "rudimentary" information than NINCH sometimes provides. Others naturally seek David and NINCH as a ready partner in the vanguard of new intitiatives. Having NINCH as an information resource and experience base is very useful. But this point turns on the question of the role of NINCH: is it to provide education, leadership, programs or all three? AHA yes yes Important not to be distracted by demands to "do" projects. NINCH should not replace innovators but connect them and help them succeed. ARL yes yes CAA yes yes The leadership vacuum, created by the demise of the Getty Information Institute, needs to be addressed. CLIR no yes I should like to see NINCH develop a more focused agenda Colorado UL yes yes H-Net: yes yes MCN yes yes MCN is not yet in a position to act on its own in this arena and we appreciate the wide range of information made available through NINCH and the awareness of other organizations its work has generated. As an organization championing many different organizations' agendas, it is perhaps not advisible to be too adventurous. NYU yes yes SP/SBL yes yes Smithsonian no yes NINCH is improving much in this area [specific/practical]-- and is an invaluable packager and distributor of information (about issues, conferences, online publications, etc.). Syracuse yes no Can NINCH get more programmatic or more initiatory of projects? VRA maybe maybe We hope NINCH becomes more specific and practical. But of course we should not expect that this would occur in the early stages of evolution, as the NINCH organization has obviously needed to build membership, assess the nature of the coalition, and find its moorings. But now that it has successfully grown through this stage, an effort to be more specific, practical, and yes more adventurous is indeed in order. The NINCH sponsored sessions at various conferences and NINCH's co-sponsorship of the Town Hall Meetings on Copyright have been very valuable. But we feel that perhaps NINCH can do more to sponsor and/or co-sponsor practical workshops [on preservation and access]... NHA yes yes TOTAL 12 yes 2 maybe 3 no 13 yes 2 maybe 2 no

3. PERFORMANCE At the heart of NINCH's initial strategy was the determination to distribute information and generate understanding of key digital networking issues. We have done this both on our listserv and on ourwebsite. How have we done and what do we urgently need to do next? In which areas has NINCH done well/not done well? Member Practical Advocacy Issues Events Connect Catalyze Comments AAM Not well Well Well Well Well Not well More work in best practices (see and critique MDLC work here). Need broader "translation" work with policy makers AAR well ? ? ? well ? Too much info on email sometimes. ACH ? well well well ? well ACLS ? ? ? ? ? ? The construction of this question illustrates two tendencies that may pose difficulties for NINCH. The first is a matter of rhetorical scale ("digital networking issues;" "across the cultural spectrum" ). Second, there is a perhaps overeager faith in technical solutions: the implicit assumption that a listserv and website might suffice to address these large issues. I may be unusual, but I go to websites to get urgently neeeded information I know I want. I don't cruise websites to acquire information I might not know is there. Listserves are also valuable for news bulletins, but any one busy person can only participate in one or two. The question is how NINCH can be that one or two. AHA ? ? ? ? ? ? Extremely useful source of conferences and reports we would otherwise not know about ARL Not well well well well Not well Not well CAA Not well well well well ? Not well -With Best Practices, need to go beyond information provision, leading and coordinating efforts. -Current activity hampering greater catalyzing new activity CLIR well ? well well ? ? These are the areas of greatest strength Colorado UL well well well well well well Ensure partnering with CNI task forces to guarantee our issues are being addressed in the applications research community. H-Net: well well well well Not well Not well Provides little more information than is already widely available through H-Net MCN ? yes ? well well ? Rachel Allen: Valuable in synthesizing information and highlighting concerns that bridge different cultural heritage communities..... NYU well well well well well well SP/SBL well well well ? well ? Smithsonian ? well well well ? well Best Practices: expected more recommendations from NINCH and members stepping up to the plate and researching "best practices," but to date we've primarily just talked about them, or learned of conferences where they will be discussed. Connecting: Very difficult to act as catalyst in decentralized, distributed environment; hope we'll see more of this as NINCH matures Syracuse well well well well ? ? VRA well well well well well well excellent job of distributing information through its listserv, and a decent effort with the web site. But the information on the web site needs to be better consolidated and certain areas, such as the "Mappa Mundi" need to be expanded. NINCH has done an admirable job in its early years. This has been especially true in sharing information and informing its members of key issues. But NINCH will need to do more to initiate and shepherd projects among its members. NHA ? well well well ? well TOTAL 8 well 3 not well 6 ? 13 well 0 not well 4 ? 13 well 0 not well 4 ? 13 well 0 not well 4 ? 7 well 2 not well 8 ? 6 well 4 not well 7 ?

4. FUTURE EXPECTATIONS Describe specific or general activities you hope/expect NINCH to engage in: AAM: Keep up current level of activity and build membership; add staff. ACLS: NINCH is becoming a catalyst for programs and initiatives among its member organizations and close partners. That is a plausible but very difficult role, especially for an entity with limited human and financial resources. At the same time, however, there is a deep need in our community for contextualized, communicable understanding of the current issues in information technology and scholarly communication, and a "scout" to programmatic opportunities in that domain. Bridge-building with computer scientists is an example of the application of that role. We would hope NINCH could be, as it has been, a collective resource in that area. AHA: -- Do more of what NINCH is best at: facilitating and moving policy/programmatic discussions onto next levels. ARL: Copyright awareness; helping learned societies move to electronic publication; legislative advocacy; exchange of information among community segments. CAA: copyright awareness, leadership role mentioned above with loss of GII. CLIR: concerned with variety of NINCH activity: need to focus. Tpocis of greatest concern: help learned societies organize themselves for electronic publishing; publish the hows and whys of successful digital projects; convene strategy meetings for bringing museums, libraries and scholarly societies together. H-Net: reach out to involve and link together its wide and disparate membership. MCN: We would expect NINCH to continue to help organizations develop consensus understandings of the issues ... NYU: Internet 2; continuing endeavours to gain recognition for the importance of funding humanities computing initiatives; electronic publishing; arts technology SP/SBL; - Linking with other organizations in the area of the humanities that we in biblical and religious studies have similar interests. I think there could be much better linkage across the humanities. Smithsonian: Continued international source of information on networking projects; more internal education/advocacy through meetings and workshops on implementation of new technologies and on digitizing projects; working as a catalyst to facilitate networking among ourselves (as NINCH members) to learn more about one another's projects and practices; perhaps aiding coalitions of members with finding technology partners from industry; representation of cultural community needs/issues at industry conferences VRA: NINCH needs to sponsor workshops and initiate projects among its members that are general enough to be applicable to several communities, but specific enough to be practical to all. NINCH does a good job of informing its members of the many conferences and workshops that are conducted throughout the year and across the Globe. But many of these are intended for specific communities; the archival and library communities, the museum community, or the publishing sector. Maybe NINCH can help to find what is common to all and to share it amongst its members? NHA: that the work NINCH has begun with the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation can lead to stronger, regular exchanges and participation among NINCH and its culturally oriented membership and the world around us.

5. ISSUES Are there specific issues that need focused work from NINCH? AAR: Model informatics ACLS: Its financial future and governance ARL: Crucial to identify an agenda of issues and become identified with it CAA: archives/history projects of organizations (i.e. networked cultural heritage) MCN: Copyright ...; discussions on electronic publishing and its impact on the humanities. VRA: NINCH has done an excellent job of focusing on issues of intellectual property and cultural heritage access. NINCH needs to focus more on data standards issues, and overall compatabilty issues. NHA: how all the networking and other digital activities are going to be paid for.

6. NINCH & YOUR OWN PROJECTS What projects have you engaged in that have been informed or augmented by your association with NINCH? AAM: Fair Use town meetings; IP seminars in l997 and l998; IP Primer project; MDLC; Cultural and Heritage Tourism Gateway site; Stronger Media and Tech Committee AAR: Website ACH: Humanities computing promotion in various contexts ... institutions, professional organizations, etc. ACLS: -"Building Blocks" project; NINCH is a positive element in the programming of the ACLS CAO in information technology. AHA: The "Building Blocks" project; connecting monograph projects to similar ones in other fields; legislative advocacy. CAA: Copyright town meetings Colorado: Digitization project involving the museum and arts communities in Colorado, and my association with NINCH continues to inform my work on this project. H-Net: -- NINCH has been informative on copyright issues MCN: The MCN membership has been become better informed through NINCH's efforts. This has likely had ramifications throughout the museum community. NYU: NYU has worked to include the humanities in our Internet 2 project - it has been helpful to participate in NINCH discussions about this. NINCH guidance was invaluable in assessing the digital libraries Initiative. SP/SBL:- A number of the Society of Biblical Literature projects are informed by NINCH as well as a series of articles, books, ventures, etc. So it is hard for me to pin a specific association with NINCH as a key. In no way does this mean that I have a negative comment about NINCH. It is just that there are so much, but never enough. Our digitization of journals and books, as well as our initiative to standardize the markup of biblical and related texts is influenced by many forces.- VRA: The VRA's efforts to establish Guidelines for Fair Use have been augmented by NINCH's endorsement of the NHA Principles. This was a perfect place for us to start after CONFU left us all with little consensus. NHA: --- It would be useful to have a regularized way of looking at how the NEH, NEA, IMLS, etc., are using and pursuing technology

Back to Index of Organizations