Introduction

As academic libraries seek to expand support for digital scholarship, soliciting input from users is critical. Library strategies for assessing DS users’ needs typically involve surveys and other evaluation methods that use terminology for a general audience that prioritizes user status (e.g., faculty, graduate students, undergraduate students). This is based on the false assumption that DS is used and understood universally across campus. In reality, how DS is used and understood depends largely on disciplinary background and department affiliation, which can significantly impact the accuracy and reliability of the feedback gathered about DS user needs.

Rather than relying on broad, status-based categories, libraries should adopt a discipline-based assessment approach to generate more accurate and dependable results. Such an approach can better inform the development of library DS support and services while also facilitating more effective engagement with targeted user groups. This proposal provides one such model for a discipline-based approach to assessing digital scholarship including a review of the literature, a description of the methodology, an overview of key findings, and next steps.

Literature Review

Based on its growing integration “into the university curricula and research across disciplines,” Digital Scholarship is an increasingly important area of need for library users (Eichmann-Kalwara et al., 2021, p. 2). For many librarians, DS is often defined in non-discipline-specific terms that encompass nearly every aspect of the research lifecycle, including digitization and curation, the use of digital methods and tools, digital authoring and publishing, and digital preservation (Eichmann-Kalwara et al., 2021, p. 2). For many librarians, DS is often defined in non-discipline-specific terms that encompass nearly every aspect of the research lifecycle, including digitization and curation, the use of digital methods and tools, digital authoring and publishing, and digital preservation (Mulligan, 2016; Rumsey, 2011; Russell et al., 1999). Even when DS is defined more narrowly as the “application of digital technologies and content to enable new methods of inquiry, often involving large-scale manipulation of data” (Mulligan, 2016; Rumsey, 2011; Russell et al., 1999). Even when DS is defined more narrowly as the “application of digital technologies and content to enable new methods of inquiry, often involving large-scale manipulation of data” (Cox, 2018, p. 230), the term remains largely detached from any specific discipline.(Cox, 2018, p. 230), the term remains largely detached from any specific discipline.

This discipline agnostic understanding of digital scholarship is not shared by scholars outside of the library. As Lindsey Martin (2016) notes that “there is little in the way of shared understanding of what digital scholarship is, that there is a range of terminology and a variety of definitions dependent on discipline and values, and that there is little that provides an insight into what it might mean to be a digital scholar in practice” (p. 4).

Librarians at the University of Colorado Boulder echoed Martin’s observation. Based on a study that asked participants to provide their own definition of research that utilized digital methods and tools, Eichmann-Kalwara et al. (2021) found that scholars tended to describe their research using discipline-specific terms such as digital humanities, digital history, literary analysis, data science, or, simply, research (p. 10). Based on this lack of “cross disciplinary understanding,” the authors also caution that using the term digital scholarship “is likely more confusing than descriptive” (p. 10). Instead, they argue that librarians must account for “local context” (p. 2) when assessing DS user needs, including using discipline-specific language.

Methodology

Informed by these insights, a survey was designed with local context in mind, incorporating discipline-specific language (as a simple example, using digital humanities instead of digital scholarship). Additionally, the anonymous survey was distributed to a single academic department rather than campus-wide and limited to faculty and graduate students in the department. A consent form was included along with four demographic questions, including age, gender, research interests, and department affiliation. Participants were also asked a series of questions related to their interest in and experience with DH as well as their perception of its value.

To capture user perceptions about digital humanities, survey participants were asked to rate their familiarity, interest, experience, and perception of the value of DH using a 4-point Likert scale. A 4-point scale rather than a more common 5- or 7-point scale was chosen to force a decision from participants and reduce ambiguity about the neutral option that is sometimes selected by participants who either do not know, have no opinion, or are uninterested in the topic (Baka / Figgou, 2012; Johns, 2005). Response categories ranged from “not at all” to “very.” See table 1 for more information about each response category including numerical values assigned as well as definitions.(Baka / Figgou, 2012; Johns, 2005). Response categories ranged from “not at all” to “very.” See table 1 for more information about each response category including numerical values assigned as well as definitions.

Table 1: Four-point Likert scale response options with definitions.

Other question types included check-all-that-apply (CATA) and ranking. Open-ended questions were also asked to allow participants to share additional thoughts about the value of digital humanities to their career goals and prospects.

Findings

The survey yielded a 59 percent response rate, which was likely due, at least in part, to the targeted, department-specific recruitment strategy. The results revealed an overall positive perception among all participants about the value and importance of DH. While there was some variation in responses for individual questions, there was uniformity in the overall perception of the importance of DH to the discipline. The aggregate score for all “importance” questions equates to 3.22 on a 4-point scale. See figure 1 for more details.

Figure 1: Diverging stacked bar chart showing how survey participants rated the importance of DH

The survey also revealed an important distinction between users’ interest in DH and their experience with digital tools and methods. While user experience with DH averaged 2.24 on a 4-point scale, the average score for interest in DH was nearly one full point higher at 3.15 on a 4-point scale. See figure 2 for more details.

Figure 2: Diverging stacked bar chart showing survey participants familiarity, interest, and experience with DH

As Hidi (2006) has argued, interest in an area or a topic is usually a crucial motivational variable for building expertise by informing “attentional processes, quantity and levels of learning, learners’ organization of tasks, their goals and choices...persistence in engagements and positive affect” (p. 70). (2006) has argued, interest in an area or a topic is usually a crucial motivational variable for building expertise by informing “attentional processes, quantity and levels of learning, learners’ organization of tasks, their goals and choices...persistence in engagements and positive affect” (p. 70). As such, these findings highlight not only an interest in learning about DH tools and methodologies but also suggest that there is motivation to attend workshops and other training opportunities to develop new skills.

Lastly, using the check-all-that-apply (CATA) question type, survey participants were asked to identify digital methodologies important to their research and teaching. Among all respondents, 62 percent (n = 16) selected GIS/mapping, 50 percent (n = 13) selected data analysis and, 46 percent (n = 12) selected text editing and annotation as well as transcription. See table 2 for more details.

Table 2: DH methods selected by respondents by overall, faculty, and graduate students.

Next Steps

The results of this survey provide a path forward for the development and facilitation of discipline-specific library support for digital scholarship. The high survey response rate, the overall positive perception of digital humanities, and the comparatively high interest to low experience levels suggest that the department would be receptive to learning new digital skills or sharpening old ones that could be used to supplement and enhance their research and teaching.

Therefore, the next immediate steps include developing an outreach, engagement, and communication strategy that leverages the results of the survey. This includes providing training opportunities such as workshops, in-class instructional support, one-on-one research support as well as self-guided, asynchronous support such as research guides and video tutorials that are tailored to specific survey findings.

Conclusion

Completion of the discipline-specific outreach, engagement, and communication strategy will provide a more holistic and accurate view of the effectiveness of the discipline-based approach to assessing digital scholarship. These results will also help inform future discipline-specific assessment strategies, which includes adapting the basic framework of this project to fit the unique ways other disciplines define, understand, and utilize digital methods and tools. Doing so will provide a more accurate and reliable picture of needs, expectations, and perceptions of digital scholarship users across campus, thus strengthening the library’s role as the center for digital research support.