The Rush to Technology: A View from the Humanists - the attitudes of humanists, or those in humanities departments, are studied in relation to the use of information technology - author abstract

INTRODUCTION

The role of technology in the professional lives of librarians is all encompassing. As librarians, we are consumed by required technical support, equipment and staff development, the resources that must be allocated, systems that crash or freeze up, and meeting patron demands and complaints. We must deal continuously with demands for more and better technology and might fail to notice that not all users feel the same way or have the same attitude toward technology as our more vocal users. When we see the reluctance of some users, there is a danger that we will casually dismiss them as Luddites. In this kind of climate, it is important to know and understand all user groups. The fact that they are academics does not mean that they use technology the same way or have the same needs. It is easy to concentrate on the most vocal groups, which tend to be the younger students and scientists. Both groups are the most comfortable with technology. We need to examine closely other groups to understand their needs and ensure we are meeting them. This study is an attempt to understand how humanities faculty view and use library technology.

Humanities faculty are often perceived as anti-technology, yet some of them are involved in important groundbreaking technological projects such as the Center for Electronic Texts in the Humanities, the Oxford Text Archive, Perseus, the Text Encoding Initiative, and various instructional technology experiments. Humanities faculty often exhibit a healthy skepticism toward technology, a refreshing difference from what librarians listen to on a daily basis, both from their peers and from technologically hungry users. While scientists have been much studied as to their uses of library technology, humanists have been largely ignored or grouped with social scientists and others. Given their mix of technological involvement in interesting projects and their skepticism, they are a potentially interesting group to study.

SETTING

Johns Hopkins University, founded in Baltimore in 1876, is a small privately endowed coeducational university with a world-renowned reputation. The 3,695 undergraduates and the 4,228 graduate students are largely free of university-wide curricular requirements. Even undergraduates are expected to create their own programs with the help of faculty advisors. The gentility of the environment belies the intense pressure to work independently, to be creative, and to produce.

Of the 350 full-time faculty, 80 are in the humanities. Although the largest number of programs and the biggest departments are in the sciences and engineering, the humanities departments are strong, prestigious, and vibrant.

The humanities departments, which are served by the Milton S. Eisenhower Library, are part of the School of Arts and Sciences.

METHODOLOGY

The focus group interview method was chosen for this study because of the type of information that was desired--i.e., how humanities faculty view library technology and its value to their research and teaching. Their experiences with existing library technology were sought, along with their views and use of electronic texts, electronic journals, the Internet, and other Web-based information. Also investigated was their access to technology, technological skills, interest in developing such skills, and opinions about the ideal library of the future. The focus group is an ideal method to study use and opinions about technology because people interacting with each other help to produce data and insights that would be less accessible without the interaction found in a group (Morgan, 1988, p. 12). In this setting, particularly because it concerned a nonthreatening topic like library technology (as opposed to such matters as divorce experiences or having a gay child), people were more than willing to compare and share experiences. They were not shy about saying what they thought. They were bolstered by shared opinions and fascinated by experiences that were different from their own. Data from a focus group are much richer because participants can ask questions about matters they do not understand, and the moderator can get at the real feelings behind the answers, taking into account body language, tone of voice, and so on. A focus group also allows the moderator to explore interesting issues that come up unexpectedly as they always do.

This last advantage of the focus group was the main reason why the author was the moderator. Having a nonlibrarian moderator would have prevented the flexibility to follow up on an interesting comment and also would not have permitted follow up by the moderator after the focus groups were over. Several faculty members asked for orientation to the new catalog and the library's Web site, which they would undoubtedly not have requested from a nonlibrarian moderator.

Focus groups create wonderful public relations for a library. Not only do the participants appreciate the opportunity to be heard, but the library is viewed as being caring enough to solicit their views and to make their research easier. Given the fact that the Eisenhower Library in the last few years has added hundreds of electronic databases, journals, and full-text resources, in addition to a new Web-based catalog, this is politically very important. The humanities faculty feel very pressured by the library and the university to use technology (as we learned from this study) in their teaching. Focusing on what really works well for them can relieve some of that pressure.