Friday, 30 January 2009

Solving problems, telling stories

In light of a session on interdisciplinarity in research I attended yesterday, I've been thinking about the nature of my work and the approaches I have been taking towards it. Where, as in my own research, the history of the book and modern digital concerns and developments are discussed in the same breath, one takes an interdisciplinary approach for granted. However, when terms such as 'transdisciplinary' and 'cross-discilplinary' are introduced the pictured becomes muddled.

In her article Cultural Philanthropy, Gypsies, and Interdisciplinary Scholars: Dream of a Common Language (PDF), Regenia Gagnier explicates what it means for an institution to foster research working among several disciplines. Taking as an example the case of the nineteenth century cultural philanthropist Charles Godfrey Leland, Gagnier writes:

One uses other disciplines insofar as one needs them to solve the problem or tell the story that must be solved or told. Research that tries to do it all is hubristic at best and shallow or wrong at worst. But work that comes out of dialogue with specialists from a range of disciplines, and that comes out of a shared commitment across the disciplines to understand real problems like that of philanthropy in liberal societies, gender inequality, race or religious hatreds, or beauty in the built environment is the ideal form of scholarly engagement with the world.

It was suggested at yesterday's session that interdisciplinarity is a given in all works of scholarship produced at modern English Departments - how can a work not be interdisciplinary? Gagnier's argument complicates this picture because it distinguishes between the scholar who cherry-picks from another discipline and the scholar who thinks the way a scholar from another discipline does. She rightly states that "disciplines are more than ideas: they are institutionally embedded practices" (18), but whilst she doesn't overlook the problems inter/trans/cross-disciplinary work raises in terms of differences of style, presentation, civility, discussion and so on, Gagnier does recognise the inherent value in bringing together academics from across disciplines to solve a common problem or tell a common story.

In light of this, my concern is that my current ideas were born out of interest as opposed to inquiry. What I mean by this is that I didn't start out with a problem to solve or a story to tell but a simple yearning to combine two areas of profound interest to me: early modern English literature and modern computing.

I work on instinct, and I believe that when connections are effortlessly inferred from the material under examination, then it follows that a story is already in the process of being told. Of course we are getting ahead of ourselves if we explain what it is we seek to prove before it is proven, but the necessity of asking questions before and during the process of inferring connections is undeniable. And so when I brazenly declare that my research is interdisciplinary in nature, the question naturally follows: what problem am I trying to solve, or what story am I trying to tell? Ultimately, this question must be answered with the further questions forming the very basis of my thesis, questions I now seek to ask as I address the fundamental issues which challenge any pursuit of interdisciplinary work.

There'll be more to follow on this as I work through these ideas, and I hope that in the coming weeks and months I can ask the right questions as I endeavour to solve the problem or tell the story of the relationship between seventeenth century English literary culture and modern concerns and developments in electronic media.

Read More...

Sunday, 21 December 2008

'Humanist' Discussion Group, Vol. 22, No. 392

Dear colleagues,

Those relatively new to Humanist may not know that each year at this time I indulge in a long, personal and somewhat whimsical meditation to mark the holidays. A celebratory, generous but still not, I hope, unreasoning mood dominates. On this particular Solstice I find in fact several very good reasons to celebrate. It is true that they are unlikely to impress the taxi driver who asks you what you do for a living, or the person who cuts your hair and wants to know what the social benefits of your research might be. And while these reasons to celebrate are less spiritually transformative than was meant by the Zen master when he said, "I drank a cup of tea and stopped the war", they do help to keep the emotional carborundum at bay, and so us in a better state to answer the hard questions of taxi drivers and cutters of hair -- and to attempt an understanding of how seriously that Zen master meant what he said.



My first reason to celebrate is Humanist's new, shiny (but to you almost entirely invisible) vehicle. It replaces an editorial mechanism for processing messages originally designed and implemented by Michael Sperberg-McQueen, then after many years reworked by Malgosia Askanas. Her perl-scripts lasted for quite a while -- more than 8 years, I think it has been. But during this time changes in the complexity of e-mail communications and development of supporting systems made those scripts increasingly inadequate, my job more and more frustrating. Then, over the last many months, thanks to the extraordinary generosity of the
Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO, www.digitalhumanities.org), Malgosia was paid to rethink, redesign and rebuild all of the mostly invisible infrastructure. Hallelujah!

[All those unaffected by British popular culture should skip immediately to the next paragraph. For those who are affected, I intend no X Factor! Rather, as antidote, substitute Jeff Buckley's version, which is much,
much better.]

Now is the first occasion in some years, I think, that Hanukkah itself begins on the Solstice. I looked up the date because I wanted to send proper greetings to a Jewish friend of mine. This in turn prompted me with extra urgency to make sure the annual Humanist message was sent out on the Solstice. In addition my Muslim neighbours, whose children are deeply fascinated by our Christmas tree, reminded me that Muharram
(Islamic New Year) begins on 29 December. Other festivals for very good reason cluster around this time and give varying light in the gloomy darkness. But here I must of course relativize my cozy picture of a gathering of candles in the darkness, connoting unity in the diversity of the world, since the world is in fact round and orbits the sun in a particular way. An Australian colleague, finally handing in a chapter of a book I am editing, commented that now he could go off to enjoy the lazy days of Summer. I still find the reality of a blazing, hot Christmas impossible to get my mind around, having been Downunder only once during the Summer, and then rather further south than the really hot weather reaches. (In mid Summer Tasmania can be quite chilly!) So I hope friends and colleagues in Australasia can forgive all the cozy darkness that has crept into my prose, and perhaps they can contribute some of their warmth.

And that's not all. I must also acknowledge my quite inadequate experience of winter darkness in comparison to that of friends in the REAL north. An Australian ex-pat living in Umea, Sweden, once attempted to describe to me, on a very sunny late evening in mid Summer, a typical season of darkness there. He spoke of vivid, hallucinogenic dreams. But then he was Australian and had not lived there all that long.

On the home-front geographically speaking there is, I think, good cause to celebrate our growing and developing PhD in Digital Humanities at King's. Its principal constraint is funding, not interest in it from
potential students, which is strong, nor the willingness of colleagues in other departments to collaborate. It will surprise no one that the degree is primarily collaborative: a majority of our students with other departments, e.g. Portuguese, History, Byzantine and Modern Greek and the social sciences. But a majority of these have come to the degree because of the "digital humanities" label, and so we have had the pleasure of inviting other departments to participate. There are a few potential applicants in the wings developing their ideas, potentially with English, Computer Science, Philosophy and perhaps Geography. We could easily have 3 or 4 times the number currently enrolled if the funding were in place. We're working on that and on ideas, such as the "semi-distance PhD" I've mentioned before.

There now can be no doubt that our subject is capable of vigorously healthy research at the most advanced degree level. Put that under your tree!

And there is no end to the intellectual ferment the combination of computing and the humanities brings to the older disciplines, as our colleagues in other departments will attest. Two of the areas that particularly concern me are the development of an historical sense in the field, with the light that throws on the affected disciplines, and the particular way we do interdisciplinarity. I'm astonished at how much raw historical material there is. Even a rather shallow sampling turns up many if not most of the intellectual concerns on our plate today and
exhibits great intelligence and imagination. Such has been our progress-driven habit of mind that we've often lost sight of such valuable work. It's not so much that we end up "reinventing the wheel" (an example of a misleading metaphor, as if ideas, and ideas in software, were stable objects like wheels) but that we get caught up in an endless cycle of forgetting. As a result we have great difficulty developing a disciplinary sense of ourselves and so a helpful sense of our disciplinary relations. Every once in a while someone notices that
we've not had an IMPACT on a particular field of research. (Feel the billiard balls collide, o wooden heads!) Such complainers seem oblivious to the long history of complaint, dating back to the early 1960s, and so miss the highly intelligent responses to these litanies of failure, the very useful misunderstandings they illuminate and the parallel phenomena in the wider culture. It's a curious shtick but, as I say, helpful as a
clue.

I digress away from celebration and so beg your forgiveness. Allow me to return via a problem I find particularly fascinating at the moment: the relation of progress (characteristic of technology) to questioning (characteristic of the humanities). The fact that the former cannot be denied seems new in the humanities, at least since codex technology became part of the furniture. Recently a classicist friend of mine wanted to know why it was that I keep going on about changing things. Did I have imperial ambitions? he asked. This got me to thinking about the origins and effects of my progress-affected field, and especially about the fact that new tools actually can augment the intelligence with which we begin and so enable us to think in new ways. So I began to
wonder about what the leaven of progress is doing to the bread we bake.

In sum the imaginative richness of our own brief past is surely a fine Christmas present to be unwrapped -- again and again. Is there room under the tree?

And finally in my catalogue is a great cause to celebrate, directly for us in the Centre for Computing in the Humanities at King's College London, indirectly for the digital humanities as a whole: the result of the U.K. 2008 Research Assessment Exercise, to which we were submitted as an academic department for the first time in this round. The details are complex, but suffice it to say that as these things are measured our field now has robust standing among the disciplines in the U.K. de jure as well as de facto. Whatever one may say about such processes -- indeed, there is much to say both positive and negative -- gaining recognition of this kind allows many good things to happen that would otherwise have little chance nowadays. (Thank you Harold!)

Again, being a northern hemispherean, what strikes me is the playing off of our cozy warmth and good cheer against the chill and, and on this day, darkest time of the year. Yes, we are all, as John Donne said, riding westward. But what a ride! Perhaps life would be better at this moment on a beach somewhere in the sun. I certainly hope it is good for computing humanists enjoying such circumstances (with a fast wireless connection, of course).

Anyhow, for the twenty-second time I wish you all a happy, merry Christmas, a joyous Hanukkah, a hopeful Muharram and as many sweet etceteras as there are at hand to be enjoyed.

Yours,
WM

--
Willard McCarty, Professor of Humanities Computing,
King's College London, staff.cch.kcl.ac.uk/~wmccarty/;
Editor, Humanist, www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist;
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, www.isr-journal.org.

Read More...

Saturday, 20 December 2008

More on OA, and the RAE results

This post is an extended non-response to Tim's comments to my previous post (December 2nd), which you may wish to look at before you go any further. It primarily focuses on a single benefit of OA - its impact on citations. The matter of financial gains and losses to institutions is beyond my capacity to address in great detail, but I will address it in my closing remarks.



First of all, a little background about how the quality of research is measured in UK universities. On Thursday (December 18th) the results of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) were announced (you can read plenty about it in the latest edition of the Time Higher Education. As a sidenote - the English department at Exeter, my university, is now established pretty firmly as one of the best, if not the best English department in the country for research).

You may know a little about the RAE but I'll just summarise it anyway. It's a peer-review system whose primary purpose is "to produce quality profiles for each submission of research activity made by institutions" (RAE homepage). These profiles, as THE notes, "show the percentage of research activity in each department judged to fall within each of four quality grades "in terms of originality, significance and rigour":

- 4* world-leading

- 3* internationally excellent ... "but which nonetheless falls short of the highest standards of excellence"

- 2* recognised internationally

- 1* recognised nationally

The English department at Exeter has 45% of its researchers working at the 4* level, the highest percentage in any such department in the country (excluding those who submitted only their best researchers to the exercise; Exeter as a whole submitted 95% of its academic staff); 90% of its research staff are working at an international level of excellence.

The RAE was last conducted in 2001, but back then the Higher Education Statistics Agency (Hesa) included "research intensity" as a metric in the results (the proportion of eligible researchers submitted by each institution, as opposed to simply the volume). Not so this time, meaning that the so-called HE research "league tables" (here's the Excel spreadsheet showing THE's league tables) favour those institutions which submitted only the researchers they believed would fall into the 3* and 4* categories exclusively, or, of course, the institutions specialising in a key area of research (which explains why The Institute of Cancer Research has been graded above Cambridge and Oxford). Ian Postlethwaite, the pro-vice-chancellor for research at the University of Leicester, has written more on this in The Guardian recently. Exeter comes 28th or so in most league tables based on this year's data, but had the research intensity been included as a factor (as it had in every other RAE), then we would have ranked about 13th.

I suppose that was a lot of unneccesary information but it's an interesting set of affairs nonetheless, and something I was keen to comment on. The point is that this time-consuming, cost-ineffective panel review system is being replaced from next year by what is known as the REF (Research Excellence Framework). According to Hefce's news release...

The REF will consist of a single unified framework for the funding and assessment of research across all subjects. It will make greater use of quantitative indicators in the assessment of research quality than the present system, while taking account of key differences between the different disciplines. Assessment will combine quantitative indicators - including bibliometric indicators wherever these are appropriate - and light-touch expert review. Which of these elements are employed, and the balance between them, will vary as appropriate to each subject.

Bibliometrics is, among other things, a measurement of citations - how often is your work being cited in other works? With the increased visibility offered to research papers through Open Access mandates, the benefits to bibliometric data cannot be overstressed. It is true that the effects of OA on citations has been questioned, but when one takes into account the role Institutional Repositories play in the tracking of "hits" to research material deposited in IR's such as the Exeter Research and Institutional Content (that's right, ERIC), it speaks volumes about the quality of data one can produce. Bibliometric indicators become entirely appropriate when these indicators can be tracked and when IR's across institutions and, indeed, disciplines can be quantified and compared - an effort made possible only where these systems are in place and a green OA mandate (note: PDF file) has been introduced.

This is just an initial discussion of the impact OA could have in increasing the value of the REF, an ongoing discussions still very much in its early stages. It also illustrates in a neat circular way why all this research should be freely available: funding councils dish out the cash for research conducted across the country (and elsewhere), who in turn receive their money from the government, who in turn get it from the taxpayer. This money is distributed based on the quality of research conducted at each institution, which will be measured from henceforth through the REF. The success of a key feature of that system - bibliometrics - relies, in my view, heavily upon the increased visibility of research papers and the ability to track how often they are viewed. Not only does OA offer significant advantages to research visibility (and this applies to established scholars and PhD students alike, whose dissertations can now be viewed online by anyone across the world as opposed to being lost in a dark corner of the university library), but it makes the results of tax-payer-funded research available to those who, however indirectly, paid for that research to be conducted in the first place.

Returning to Tim's primary argument, the financial impact of Open Access is a tricky one. Stevan Hanard, a promiment OA supporter based at the University of Southampton, states that:

The Green option allows the number of OA articles (not journals) to grow anarchically, article by article, rather than systematically, journal by journal. This allows TA journals to adjust gradually to any changes that might arise as the number of self-archived OA articles grows.

He goes on to argue that Green OA "allows both journals and institutions the time to prepare for a possible eventual transition (though not a necessary or certain one, as TA and OA might go on peacefully co-existing indefinitely) to Gold". In short, even if authors were to deposit their works to make them freely available, this doesn't necessarily constitute the end of academic subscription-based publishing. And, Hanard notes, even if it does:

...then TA journals can gradually adapt to it, first by cutting costs (by cutting out the features that are no longer essential) and then, perhaps (if it should ever become necessary) by converting to the OA journal cost-recovery model (with the institutions' annual windfall institutional TA subscription savings now available to cover their annual OA publication costs).

The availability of online material for newspapers does not signal the death of the newspaper industry, and I believe the same argument can applied to academic publishing. Where money can be made it will be, but financial gain should not negatively impact upon scholarship.




As a footnote, I'd like to wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year! I have been developing some exciting ideas for my PhD thesis lately, and I'm hoping to share them in future posts - as much as I love talking about them, I don't want this blog to be dominated by OA and research software. See you in 2009!

Read More...

Tuesday, 2 December 2008

Open Access



Speaking about the benefits of publishing his work in the open access journal BioMed Central, Professor Chris McManus (University College London) has this to say about OA:


Open Access is just one of those things that should be a given as far as scientific research is concerned. Science works on an open interchange of ideas, and if things aren't available then ideas aren't being interchanged... why should you do something really interesting and hide it away so nobody can see it?


This argument can certainly be applied to the humanities as well. Without complete access to the results of the best quality research within early modern studies, how can I claim that my PhD is the best it could possibly be? And how does this restriction imposed upon me as an emerging scholar aid the discipline as a whole? What is the benefit of this closed system?

Read More...

Sunday, 30 November 2008

Footnotes

Two links here:

Peter Barry (author of the useful "Beginning Theory") writing in the Times Higher Education supplement on the conflicting demands on research grant applicants posed by the AHRC and the RAE, and how postgrads might be taught to bridge the divide.

A call for papers - Digitizing Medieval and Early Modern Material Culture. I've been thinking a lot about the Digital Humanities recently, and this might be something for me to seriously look into.

That's all for now!

Read More...

Sunday, 9 November 2008

More Fish?

The Timer Higher Education supplement ran a feature on Stanley Fish the other day. Here he is speaking about what it is he does:

One of the essential glories of the academic world, in Fish's view, is that it "will tolerate 30 years of promise without delivery. It is more than tolerated, it is what is expected. What is required is that people work seriously on a set of problems. I have been writing about Paradise Lost for 45 years. When I change my mind or have a new insight, I write a new piece, and that is responded to by other people, but nobody has a time clock telling me 'Come on, get on with it, what's the answer? You can't just keep dithering about for 45 years.' I have been allowed to dither about for 45 years."
Let us hope that I will be allowed to dither for 45 years too.

Read More...

Saturday, 8 November 2008

Stanley Fish, Open Access, and some thoughts on higher education

I'd like to point you in the direction of a fascinating interview with Staney Fish conducted earlier this week on election day in the US, one of many similar conversations conducted with various academics which can be listened to on the Radio Open Source website. Radio Open Source is a podcast and blog (more information can be found on its Wikipedia entry), and is hosted by the American media personality and author Christopher Lydon (who has a Wikipedia page of his own). It's been going for a while now, but I've only just stumbled upon it and I highly recommended you to take a look at what's on offer in the site's archives.

Along related lines to that of 'Open Source' (which, according to Wikipedia, can be defined as "computer software for which the human-readable source code is made available under a copyright license"), I've been reading a little about Open Access (OA) in recent days. OA takes the same approach to digital scientific and scholarly material as Open Source does to software in general - it opens it up for readers to view (although, of course, not to modify as one might in the case of open source software). At the danger of over-citing Wikipedia, I refer you to an entry there on OA, but I would also highly recommend this video presentation by Stevan Hanard, a scholar at Southampton University, on the how's and why's of OA (only the brief introduction is in French - the rest is in English so stick with it).

Here at the University of Exeter, it will become compulsory for PhD students to upload their completed thesis/dissertation into the institutional repository from the academic year 2008/09 onwards. This, in my opinion, is a positive move given the limited visibility currently afforded to PhD dissertations. Furthermore, by encouraging open access to scholarly works written by its own distinguished researchers, Exeter, like an increasing number of other higher education institutions in the UK and abroad who are catching on to the benefits of OA, permits its student body access to the volume of work produced by the academics to whom they are most closely associated with. As the list of universities who subscribe to the idea of open access grows, this provides students and researchers with the opportunity to draw ideas from a larger portion of the 25,000+ scholarly journals currently in circulation around the world - this can only be a good thing. Exeter has organised its collection of free scholarly papers into what it has named the Exeter Research and Institutional Content Archive (ERIC), but at present I find the number of works available extremely limited (just 4 from the English department!), and the dissertations uploaded by PhD students of previous years are not relevant to my own work. I'm confident the repository will see a larger number of works trickle through in the coming years, but for now I'd say it's still early days for open access at Exeter.

In closing, I feel compelled to comment briefly on what happened in the US on Tuesday night. I'm wary of writing too much about politics - this blog is after all a chronicle of my time as a PhD student and not a space for partisan grandstanding, but as a student hoping to break into academia in the next few years it is necessary to talk about the effect President Obama will have on higher education as I finish my PhD and look for work. Where I work is still a great unknown to me, but it has been my dream since my teenage years to work in the US, and since Tuesday that dream has somewhat intensified.

I am inclined to agree with Stanley Fish's view that Obama's presidency will have little short-term impact on higher education in America (even if its predominantly liberal population of scholars will be a lot happier having an intelligent leader in charge of their country). This realisation doesn't discourage me from hoping to teach at an American college, however - I am drawn more by the sense of hope and change which seems to be permeating the American consciousness right now more than an anticipation of college-friendly policy changes. I believe it would be a wonderful thing to work and study in a nation where, after eight years living under the burden of an administration that governed so often with the politics of fear and ignorance, a change is coming in the shape of a man who speaks so eloquently of hope and understanding.

There is also the sense that higher education in the UK, particularly when it comes to the arts and humanities, is floundering - and it can only get worse under what looks increasingly to be a Tory government after the 2010 general election. I have had conversations both with my academic supervisor and my line manager at work this week who have complained of the time-consuming need to deal with increasing amounts of paperwork, and of the need to meet targets which reflect less the quality of research and teaching at the institution than they do its success at securing vast sums of money, and its obsession with ticking off boxes as its climbs up the university league tables. How does it benefit a world-leading scholar to wake up at 5am every morning to work on an application for a research grant sought by at least ten other academics in that scholar's school? Surely the university should acknowledge the merit of their researchers not by forcing them to beg for the opportunity to develop it, but by granting them a semester's leave to write up a paper in their own time. When you combine this approach to research in many so-called "top twenty" universities in the UK with the ever-dwindling financial support for arts and humanities postgraduate students here, is it any surprise than I'm repulsed by the prospect of starting by academic career in such a narrow-minded climate? The whole issue of postgraduate funding in the UK was in fact summarised in a BBC News online article recently, which I encourage you to look at.

This has turned somewhat into a rant and for that I apologise, but what Tuesday's election result made me realise more than anything else is that American truly is the land of opportunity. Under eight years of Bush many of us doubted that cliche, but it's true and I believe it provides more opportunities for an English scholar such as myself than my home country does. My PhD supervisor came to this country 15 years ago because, among other things, she believed that British scholars were the best in the world, that the British Library was and remains "the centre of the universe", and that its universities value research as much as they do teaching. I have no doubt that our scholars are outstanding, and whilst I agree that the British Library is an indispensible resource its importance to scholars isn't as crucial as it was 15 years ago since EEBO was introduced, but on the third point I detect a worrying shift: it seems to me that my supervisor simply doesn't have the time to conduct research in the way she did when she first came to this country anymore. Would it be any different for her in America? Maybe not, but after January 20th 2009 there is a greater chance it will be, whereas I think the opposite could be said about this country.

Read More...

Sunday, 2 November 2008

Zotero: The Next Generation Research Tool (part 2/2)

Perhaps the most useful feature on Zotero is its ability to interact with Microsoft Word (and other similar word-processing software such as Open Office), which saves time and guarantees accuracy when it comes to creating long bibliographies.

By downloading and installing a Zotero plugin, users will have access to an additional toolbar within their respective word processor which permits the importing of bibliographic data into a word document from the Zotero library. For example, choose the "insert citation" button to include a page reference everytime you use a quote from a source stored in Zotero, and once you're done you can choose to "insert bibliography" and Zotero will print out a bibliographic entry for each citation you've used in any style you choose - MLA, Chicago Manual of Style, and so on. Furthermore, if you need to include a bibliographic entry for a book you haven't quoted from within your document, you simply drag and drop the source from Zotero into your word document and the plugin will produce the entry for you. No more hurrying back and forth to the bookshelf (or worse, the library) to find out what year a particular book was published. Again, you really need to use this plugin to fully understand how it functions, but you might also want to have a look at the accompanying documentation located here.

Another nifty little feature of Zotero is the Timeline option. Select a subfolder within your library and click on "Create Timeline" within the Actions menu. This displays a timeline for your bibliographic data within Firefox, which you can sort via month, year, decade - anyway you want. A good way of making sure your sources are mostly up to date!

I've said a lot about what I like about Zotero, and obviously it's not flawless. Whilst it allows highlighting and annotations within HTML files once you choose to "take a snapshot" of the web page you're looking at, it doesn't permit this same feature when it comes to PDF files. The reason for this is that the data for PDF files is stored remotely, so Zotero can't access the information it needs to in order to do to PDF files what it does with everything else. I've found a way around this however - download a program called PDF XChange (for free!) and set it as your default PDF viewer. PDF XChange is essentially an alternative to Adobe Acrobat, and it allows you to easily highlight and annotate PDF files once you've saved a copy onto your hard drive. Overall I prefer it to the Acrobat reader, but it's no sweat if you don't - you can always print the document out and write on it by hand.

Another issue I have with Zotero is the current limit on the amount of translators available. 'Translators' are plugins within Zotero which search for bibliographic data on certain web sites you may visit, and pull that data down if there's code written for it. Currently there aren't any such 'translators' for sites such as the Internet Movie Database, Lexis Nexis, and the MLA online to name just a few. The list is growing, and there's a small army of developers working on these things, but it requires a sound knowledge of JavaScript to develop one yourself, and despite opting for the Scaffold plugin I couldn't get one to work myself. Maybe with a little more help I might make some progress, but right now I don't have the time to spend hours fiddling with code - maybe someone else out there does?

To summarise then, I think what Zotero manages to do is provide software-based support for the academic who doesn't want to completely abandon paper-based note-taking. It supplements the traditional methods of research, and saves a heck of a lot of time when it comes to writing up. When it comes to working on large-scale research projects, I would say this is an essential piece of software and one whose benefits become apparent the more you use it. If anyone has any questions regarding Zotero (if you've decided to use it) then you can contact me at l dot d dot durbin at ex dot ac dot uk. You may also want to take a look through these articles I found concerning Zotero:

http://insidehighered.com/views/2007/09/26/mclemee
http://digitalhistoryhacks.blogspot.com/2006/09/first-look-at-zotero.html
http://www.linux.com/articles/57841

There's also this Wikipedia entry which compares reference management software of various kinds (I'd say Zotero comes out the best overall), and finally a list of institutions recommending Zotero, many of whom have produced extensive tutorials for their students.

Now that I'm done writing writing about Zotero for the meantime, I'll try to post more frequently as my thoughts turn more towards what I'm actually working on for my PhD.

Read More...