The Context of Digitising Sources in the Humanities for Research Purposes
Research in the humanities covers a wide range of disciplines, subject areas and practices. However, many aspects of humanities research requires access to primary sources that were created in a pre-digital era, and so the digitisation of these sources is a critical activity for improving access and enabling exploration of a far wider range of research questions than is possible when consulting the originals. A key aspect of supporting the full potential of digitised sources is the functionality and usability of search. Search is a key part of undertaking research, which includes accessing digitised sources as well as undertaking search within hard copies and/or material sources in physical archives. The development of digitised sources is being undertaken in two main ways: (1) as part of discrete research projects in which the PI or project team define the criteria for digitisation (2) as research infrastructure programmes that undertake large scale digitisation of key sources (whether they are initiatives by public institutions or commercial products). The use of digitisation in discrete research projects produces resources that can be individualistic, in that the way search is configured within the resource is based on a particular scholar’s approach. This type of approach can restrict the usability of the resource for a wider range of users. Conversely, large-scale digitisation programmes will tend to focus on making access to the resource through search much easier for a wide range of users, at the expense of the precision and sophistication of search that is sometimes needed for discipline-specific research questions. As such, the different design principles adopted by both small and large-scale digitisation projects do not fully realise the potential that digitised sources may have for scholars in the humanities.
These two approaches have shaped developments in the humanities and they have developed some good resources and sites. However, with more and more sources being digitised and more scholars using them, attention is now moving on to how to maximise the potential of these sources for the humanities research community as a whole, and for a wider range of individual researchers. There has been some attention paid to the usability of digital sources and sites, principally: (1) Human Computer Interaction (HCI) researchers who focus mainly on the user interface; (2) scoping studies that seek to identify broad trends in the use of digitised sources. Both of these approaches provide insights into the design and the use of digitised sources. However, neither fully address the way in which search is part of research practice and how search is shaped by research questions and subsequent research design and practice.
The project ‘Participating in Search Design: A Study of George Thomason’s Newsbooks, 1649-1653’ (hereafter Newsbooks Project) addresses search as part of research practice. This is because the development of research questions, the design of a research project and its methodology are part of the conceptual framing of the research. This conceptual framing is part of the formal and informal practices of how researchers undertake research and where search is located in practice. Whatever the discipline may be, the research process is reflective and reflexive. Although there are a variety of approaches and practices across and within disciplines; there are two overarching criteria for the use of search within research:
- That data collected and/or accessed is checked for validity, reliability and contextual detail.
- That the way the data has been interpreted is based on a sound verification process.
The role of sources and the knowledge they may yield depends on the discipline, the disciplinary approach, and a particular set of research questions. One of the challenges in improving search is to ensure that it has the capacity to respond to various types of search foci and that it is flexible enough for a range of interpretative and validation processes that are practiced across the humanities disciplines.
The Project Aims and Objectives
The Newsbooks Project sought to address the challenge of improving search capacity and flexibility. Its central focus was to assess if a user centred participatory approach to the design of search could improve search, and make digitised sources more accessible for a wide range of scholars in the humanities. In order to address the central focus, the project addressed five research questions, which were:
- What is the role of search within humanities research methodology, how is it used across the different subject domains, what are its current deficiencies and what impact does it have on research results?
- How is the design of search conditioned by technical considerations or the viewpoint of content creators?
- What would constitute good search design within the humanities and how would it support and transform research methodology?
- Is it possible to design new types of search which meet the community's differing methodological requirements more effectively than current approaches?
- What constitutes effective development methodology in the digital humanities and electronic publishing in terms of ensuring that user requirements are constantly addressed? Does a Participatory Design approach meet these needs?
The project explored whether a user-led approach in the design of search would result in a product (a digitised version of a portion of George Thomason’s Newsbooks) that improved the ‘search experience’ for a wide range of specialised and non-specialised users. The Newsbooks Project used a Participatory Design (PD) approach that involved the participation of scholars in designing search. PD is an established method in design studies. It was first developed in Scandinavia in the early 1960s and 1970s to support a more democratic design and use of technology in the workplace. Since that time it has been used in a wide range of design contexts, including the design of digital interfaces and services. The method is a very flexible one that can be shaped to the design context under consideration. The overarching process is to involve users and potential users in the design of a new interface, system and/or service. The process involves the participants –who are a representative sample of the user population– undertaking a critique of existing design, discussing their requirements, and then creating a new design. This is done by using a range of methods that facilitate users to critique, discuss and create the design options that emerge from a participatory process.
The Approach, Research Design and Methods
Participatory Design is an open and fluid way of working because it seeks to adapt to the design issues and task under review. In the Newsbooks Project we adapted the process of ‘critique, discuss and create’ in two distinctive phases: firstly, by conducting a survey, focus groups and content provider interviews; secondly, by undertaking design workshops.
The landscape survey of 500 humanities scholars sought to identify the role of search within humanities research methodology: how it is used across the different subject domains, its current deficiencies and the impact that it has on research results. The survey elucidated responses about existing practice, criticism of current search facilities and how search might be improved. The survey was followed by four focus groups that sought to deepen our understanding about search practice as well as identify any areas that might not have been covered in the survey. These methods enabled the project to address Question 1 and also informed Question 2. To fully address Question 2 we conducted interviews with eightcontent and digitisation providers. These interviews fed into the participatory design process by producing an understanding of developer views and what they thought the limitations were of current search facilities, as well as what they perceived the emerging needs of scholars to be.
The second phase of the research was a series of participatory design workshops, which involved a Design Group. The Design Group had five participants from all but one of the five disciplines the project addresses: History, English Language, English Literature, and Journalism. There were no candidates forthcoming to represent Politics. However, given that the test dataset concerns historical politics, one could argue that this falls under the disciplinary remit of History. We conducted fourworkshops in which the participants critiqued aspects of search, discussed what they wanted from search, and then created ideas about how to improve search.
One of the challenges of developing digital interfaces, systems and services is how to interpret the rich descriptions derived from the design process into a set of technical specifications. A particular strength of the Newsbooks Project was the way in which the PD researchers and developers had meetings to discuss the social research findings. The PD researchers facilitated ‘translation’ between the user’s domain and the developer’s, since:
“PD [Participatory Design] requires effective communication between individuals with different kinds of training, different goals, different languages, and different workplace cultures… the discourse must include models that both parties can understand”. 11. Williams and Begg. (1993) ‘Translation between Software Designers and Users’, Communications of the ACM, vol.4, no. 36.
The developers read the survey results and the interview analysis as they were being developed, and these were discussed in meetings. During the Design Group process, the developers also watched recordings of the Design Group workshops (in both audio and video). One of the developers found the video recordings of the scholars undertaking search very useful because they revealed that what people do and say can differ. By observing actual practice, the developer gained insights into how researchers actually undertook search, and the running commentary of the participant helped the developer to see what the researcher was seeking to do. The developers produced an early version based on the first three workshops for the Design Group to consider. It was then refined and added to for final testing and feedback in the last Design Group workshop. The communication between the participatory social science researchers and the developers was constructive in that shared understanding produced a set of requirements that underpinned the design of search, which the Design Group liked and found very useful.
Key Findings From Each Phase
Phase One: Landscape Survey
Some of the key suggestions from our survey are reflected in the following open response quotations:
- “more intuitive advanced search”
- “more systematic”
- “the ability to be able to take the metadata from online databases and structure it in different ways. To be able to make sub-sets within a search. So that a sub-set could be compared to a larger set of search results clearly”
- “More methodical record keeping; maybe software to do this?”
- “Better strategies for key word searches, resources for beginning searches
- “A good online reference/search result manager – one that can save results…... Being able to record, sort, comment and save searches and sources, transforms the experience”
The survey results yielded three key themes:
- Context, quality and validity
There was a concern that the navigation of search using search engines or search functions within specific resources needs to be transparent and intuitive. The key message was that researchers want search to be flexible in that it enables them to follow lines of inquiry and that these lines of inquiry are able to be saved so that the search methodology can be validated. Consistency and quality are key factors in search. When claims are made based on the results of a search, researchers need to be able to see the structuring of the search so that they can trust it and understand how it underpins the authority of the claims.
- Online versus offline practices
Most of the researchers worked from online to offline in search, with many saying that they conduct a search using a search engine or the search function within a particular resource to identify resources and then verify the reliability of results with archival or library work. There was a general concern that online sources may not provide the full picture or may be flawed in some way. For example, online sources were often felt to be incomplete or unreliable, as researchers check printed sources to ensure reliability and to fill in any missing gaps. However, the accessibility of online sources and search was highly valued by researchers and the community now recognises that most scholars work online to get access to digitised versions of primary sources. There were some concerns about the use of keywords for searching catalogues, in that keyword classifications may have been poorly assigned and as a result return many irrelevant results and miss relevant ones. There was a need to balance the openness of online search with a targeted approach. Researchers felt it was important that search might uncover a wide range of relevant and important insights. However, there still needs to be a systematic framework for managing results. The ability to conduct full text search on resources appears to be increasingly needed and expected by all disciplines.
There is a need to improve awareness of what tools and resources are available and how to access, navigate and use them effectively. There was also a strong sense that the research community could unite more to share knowledge about new and existing resources, research practices and methodologies within and across disciplines.
Phase One: Focus Groups
The findings from the landscape survey and focus groups have echoed one another and show that researchers engage with search in different ways. Three key themes were distilled from analysis of the focus groups:
- Transparency, which includes: (1) transparency of content and the extent of the resource; (2) transparency of resource definition and contextualisation; (3) transparency of the expectations and limitations of a resource and search.
- Access, which includes recognising the advantages of online research; but also that the pathways and layering of search are well structured, flexible and traceable. The resource needs to be open to browse at different times in a search process and it needs to support a more systematic search methodology. There is a need for access to be inclusive to a wide range of researchers and disciplines.
- Profile and recognition. Researchers have a strong sense that they are participating in a wider research community. Researchers are happy to share their knowledge about sources within the framework of online resources but want to do so in a way that leaves traces of their contributions and acknowledges that contribution. There is a common ideal that there should be appropriate mechanisms for researchers to contribute to, improve and thereby assist with the overall sustainability of online resources.
The ways in which researchers relate to search highlighted three main observations that needed to be fed into improving search design.
- Transparency of a resource (in terms of contextual information and definition of the dataset) is important in terms of both search and overall site functionality. Researchers will struggle along with difficult resources but that is not an ideal situation. Many participants expressed how important it is to preserve as much of the integrity of original artefacts as possible and include some notion of the extent of the resource. In terms of developing some kind of coherent web resource this means finding ways to contextualise so that people can search intelligently.
- Access to different types of search is important, i.e. from basic keyword to semantic or linguistic search, as is the ability to search in different ways, i.e. from entering keyword(s) into a search bar to browsing categorised lists. This is not to make search necessarily easy but to make it more accessible to more people at different levels of interest and with different kinds of questions.
- Engaging with the research community through a digital resource was found to be an interesting way of sharing search methodologies, approaches and findings. It could also be a way to make a resource more sustainable by continuing to add value through expert contribution.
Phase One: Content Provider Interviews
The interviews with eight content providers generated some understanding of how search design is approached by a range of organisations concerned with research infrastructure or research products. We interviewed representatives from three national libraries/archives, a digital historical library, an online genealogy resource, a major search engine, a large-scale digital content provider and two strands of a national funding programme which champions the use of digital technologies in UK education. The content providers are governed by funding structures, partner institutions and the information market, which all impact on how they select what to digitise and what digitisation processes they adopt, including how they design and integrate search into their sources. Control is sometimes also relinquished by integrating outsourced background software and design work as opposed to keeping these in-house. This understanding goes some way to addressing the second research question: How is the design of search conditioned by technical considerations or the viewpoint of content creators?
Levels of user involvement in the design of their products varied considerably, from limited consultation that only takes place when a resource is launched, if at all, to fairly well developed user testing processes and implementation of user community feedback. What was clear was that the content providers involve users to a greater or lesser extent in the design and development of digital resources, but they are not driving design decisions from the beginning through to the end of a project. Users are generally brought in to evaluate work that has already been done and it seems that, while their feedback and any feedback gathered from the wider user community might well be collected; it is not always acted upon because of time and funding restrictions. Sometimes the resources that researchers have the most problems with are old -in digital terms- and have not been updated because funding from subscriptions or otherwise is being directed towards new digitisation projects directed by market demand. All of this means that researchers may be forced to persevere with resources they do not find intuitive and user-friendly because of the desire to tap into the material they contain, developing “work-arounds” to address hindrances caused by issues with search and interface design.
The content providers are each at different stages of implementing more user-centred approaches, as they begin to realise the positive impact these can have on the uptake and sustainability of digitisation projects. The importance of engaging users in the design process is gaining recognition amongst the funders of academic research as a consideration for helping with the ongoing impact of funded resources. An infoKit called ‘Planning a Participatory workshop’22. Jisc infoNet (2012) Planning a participatory workshop, [Online] Available: http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/participatory/. is available to download from another strand of the national funding programme, which gives ideas for a variety of techniques that could be used in isolation or combination to elicit ideas from a group. However, while participatory workshops are of course, a way to involve users to a greater extent in design and development, they are still not being placed in the driving seat.
Phase Two: Design Group workshops
The Design Group workshops have produced some innovative search functionality as well as improving existing search processes. Four main themes emerged from the Design Groups, which were: searching, personalising, citing, and sharing.
The key issues that were criticised in search were: frustration with trying many variations of search that do not yield results; annoyance with having to scroll back to the top of a screen to check search terms or parameters; mistrust of tools if different results are returned for the same search. Some of the suggestions for design included: un-ticking/swiping away unwanted results; using tags to discount results; case sensitive searching, distinguishing proper nouns, spelling variation, word classes and so on. There was also a community focus, which involved a feedback loop to aid other researchers with search and making user comments searchable. In general terms researchers wanted more control about how they searched and how they saved their search process.
Theme 1: Searching
The key aspects of searching are as follows:
- Context and help providing background description and detail.
- Browsability allowing researchers to move through a resource in more flexible ways.
- Layering/ordering of search results in ways that suit particular research questions.
- Self-refining options giving researchers the flexibility to select what they need and what they don’t need.
- A ‘third’ page? A possible further step in the search process that could reflect the thought process of a researcher and provide a trace of that process. This has the potential to record notions of ‘voice’ and ‘authority’ in search.
- Visualising a search network so that the search process is represented and understood.
Theme 2: Personalising Search Within a Researcher’s Workflow
The key aspects of personalising search are as follows:
- User account to support the personalisation of search and the mapping, managing and manipulating of search results, which involves saving searches and creating subsets, setting search preferences, annotating results and having ownership over recorded search paths and findings.
Theme 3: Citing Search
The key aspects of citing search are as follows:
- Demonstrating the reliability of results by making search consistent and providing enough contextual information.
- Showing validity through institutional affiliation attached to public comments and the ability to illustrate search methodology effectively.
- Improving trust in digital tools, resources and methods by internalising browser-like features such as bookmarks and favourites, having feedback evaluated and acted upon and a simple interface.
- Supporting open access to data with persistent URLs and ways of recognising and recording that data may have been mediated in some way.
Theme 4: Sharing Search
The key aspects of sharing search are as follows:
- Publishing annotations and comments within the resource to inform future users.
- Institutional affiliation of users should be indicated to increase trust in user comments and other contributions.
- Reporting errors in the transcribed text; marking these for review by resource managers or having appointed “super-users” who have extended account privileges allowing them to make direct changes.
- Future proofing the resource by enabling the user community to evolve and enhance it through annotation and error correction.
These findings and design suggestions are incorporated into the design of the Newsbooks online resource, which can be accessed here: www.hrionline.ac.uk/newsbooks. They point towards a more personalised and flexible search approach that is more accessible for a wider variety of humanities scholars and for a wide range of research questions. Many aspects of the site and search are innovative, with one aspect – ‘refining’ – being particularly innovative. These characteristics give more control to the researchers to shape their search strategy and process, which enables them greater scope. It means that they do not have to work around the constraints of search developed by the commercial and large developers.
Key User Requirements
The following is a list of key requirements for search identified by users throughout the project:
- Both transcribed text and image should be made available, to preserve the integrity and context of original source material.
- Resource context: how records are stored, bibliographic data etc.
- Flexible navigation of a resource.
- Different pathways through a resource and layers of complexity to accommodate different research approaches.
- Different ways of ordering and refining results.
- A way of saving results.
- Trust in both the validity of search results and the search tools themselves.
- Simple interface.
- Clear citation guidelines.
- Data export options.
- Feedback function.
The following is a list of key innovations made by the Newsbooks resource prototype:
- Advanced refining tools for search results: show or discard hits from a result list for a specific title, year, month + year or issue.
- “Published around this time” feature: titles published during the same week as the result being viewed.
- Extensive navigation options from within a search result: go to title page/next issue/previous issue; go back to results; new search; save page.
- A user correct function allowing “super-users” to make changes to the transcription.
- Annotation facility with option to make notes public.
- A personal workspace (for registered users) to save search results lists and results pages into folders and subfolders.
- A shopping cart icon to show how many items have been saved.
The main focus of the Newsbooks Project was to ascertain whether Participatory Design (PD) is useful in the development of online resources in Digital Humanities. And if it is, then to what degree and in what way can PD improve the design of search. The PD process has created the first digitised, searchable resource of the George Thomason’s Newsbooks (1649-1653), comprising all titles for the year 1649 and the full run of the title Mercurius Politicus. It has developed search in an innovative way that meets the needs of researchers in the academic disciplines of History, English Literature, English Language and Linguistics, Journalism, and Politics.
The use of PD has enabled the Newsbooks resource to be designed around the practice of working researchers and the ways in which they conceptualise and operationalise research. This has resulted in a highly intuitive and functional resource that is flexible and can be adapted for a wide range of humanities research processes and disciplines. Some key innovative features of the search include: an advanced tool for refining a search, a user-correct function, an account facility to save search results lists and pages into folders, and a way of recording annotations for personal or public use.
The PD approach has enabled the design process to address the diversity of practice from within, and across, different disciplines. This has widened the usability of the resource because the search function allows for a wide range of search practice, and in doing so it has widened access to academics from range of different disciplines.
The PD process has also identified emerging requirements of search in two main areas. Firstly, our research identified the development of new types of processes within search such as the ability to network in the search process. This includes networking sources, concepts, key terms, and research communities; in order to address research questions from different perspectives, validate findings, identify relations between research concepts, and use the community’s collective knowledge to improve and increase knowledge about the source. Secondly, our research identified some emerging expectations that researchers have, such as personalising search, the development of a third page ,visualising a search network, and developing ways to cite searches.
Our study identified that senses of research community and sharing knowledge across a research community are part of scholarly culture. Of course part of sharing is citing authors and acknowledging contributions, but there is a growing consensus that sharing knowledge about a source and about search is important for supporting, sustaining and developing digital resources. Part of that sharing involves researchers posting comments related to the source. This ensures comments are acknowledged by others and it makes researchers responsible for what they post.
The PD process was found to be beneficial from a development perspective. There were some practical benefits including that the audio-visual recorded data helped to inform the developers about how researchers actually undertook search. The developers found that the knowledge of what researchers are actually doing helped them to create the technical specifications in developing search functionality and its look and feel. What was also helpful to the developers with the caveat that the developers met with the PD social design researchers was that the discursive approach to identifying requirements created many insights.
The developers found that the requirements that were constructed through debate in the design workshops and in the meetings with the PD researchers led to a richer understanding of these requirements. A key aspect in the success of the project was the way developers were integrated into the PD process; this improved understanding and enabling translation between user perspectives (and how they articulated their needs) and technical specification.
A key recommendation is that the integration of experienced digital humanities developers with PD researchers enables design processes, to bridge the gap between rich user based understanding of their own needs with system and site requirements. This approach allows for the possibility of creating and supporting an emerging understanding of new kinds of functionality. The participants in the design groups are very capable of visualising and articulating what they want from search so that search could support them in addressing their research questions.
The openness of the developers is very important in supporting a user driven approach. One area, the development of an account system that mimics existing aspects of web browser functionality, was felt to be counter-intuitive by the developers. However, the developers created the account, which can now be tested as the source goes live by the broader research community.
The original contribution PD has made in developing search for the humanities is that it has developed the notion of search as a narrowly defined process and found one that is a conceptual practice-based approach. What this means is that the design of search has been shaped by the way in which researchers conceptualise research and then undertake search in relation to the conceptualisation of a particular research problematic. This has resulted in a list of key aspects that could apply more broadly. For example, both transcribed text and image should be available to provide the contextual information of original source material.
The Design Group participants, the developers and the PD researchers all comment that the PD process involves learning. There is consensus that the Newsbooks Project has been a learning process for all involved: each participant, researcher and developer contributes different types of insights and knowledge to the process. The PD process itself facilitates bringing together the different insights, knowledge and expertise in the development of more open and usable resources. The general process of critique, discuss and create supports the integration of different expertise required in developing search. This is supported by the use of specific methods, such as a landscape survey, focus groups, interviews, design groups, and developer and PD researcher discussion. Furthermore, PD is a reflective and reflexive process and any project undertaking PD needs to allow for such reflection and understand that a design will emerge in an iterative and reflexive manner. In the Newsbooks project this has resulted in search that enables different humanities disciplines to undertake research into the early newsbooks.
There are some limitations of PD in that the process is time, cost, and resource intensive. There are therefore questions about how best to use PD in digital humanities development. Thought needs to be given on how to embed PD more routinely into the usual design and development process so that this knowledge becomes integral to design, which can then be funded in the design process. A further area that might address the cost of PD is to consider how humanities scholars can contribute to the development of resources through community based contributions. Once PD becomes established in the humanities, scalability can be addressed by project RAs undertaking PD within their usual workflow. This could be supported by providing some steps to conducting PD, which would also include a basic workshop structure that could be adapted to different design contexts, such as how to address different site aspects in a series of workshops using the ‘critique-discuss-create’ method; recording workshop interactions and project team meetings. There would also need to be some guidance about analysis, such as how to pick out key insights from the critique, the discussions and from creative suggestions from the various design processes. Certainly, RAs with awareness and experience of digital humanities are a key resource in this process. A template for PD workshops is provided in Appendix 4.
‘A guide to Sustainability’ by JISC Digital Media explains the technical, cultural and strategic aspects of digital sustainability as well as revenue generation. Much depends on the specific characteristics, objectives and purpose of a project and as such there is no precise formula for achieving sustainability as every project is different. Questions of cultural sustainability, which is the only type we can legitimately comment on within this paper, revolve around how digital resources can prove their value when there is no monetary transaction involved, since resources are increasingly open access. One of the keys to understanding value is being able to measure impact. On a micro level:
“Digitisation can: streamline workflows; enhance the teaching and learning experience by facilitating access to and innovative use of resources; provide new research tools, resources and processes… A key driver for digital sustainability therefore lies in creating digital resources that make a measurable impact, and in being able to articulate and leverage this impact. An integral tool in this process is to develop a deep understanding of user needs and behaviours.”33. Jisc Digital Media (2014) A guide to Sustainability, [Online] Available: http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/guide/a-guide-to-sustainability.
Various quantitative and qualitative measures are suggested to help digitisers understand how users interact with resources including web analytics, surveys, focus groups and interviews. Taking this a step further, the successful implementation of PD relies on strong participant engagement. If projects can gain a thorough understanding of the intellectual and technological objectives, and the requirements of users, then they are more likely to succeed and create impact.
This notion of the cultural sustainability of digital resources is reflected in certain aspects of the functionality of the Newsbooks resource, achieved through a PD approach. The built-in user feedback mechanisms have the potential to sustain the resource and improve knowledge of how to use it and make corrections. An important caveat for building sustainability in this way requires that users’ comments must be citable and verifiable. By designing in these features of citation, trust and trustworthiness is assured.
Our work has already proved that a strong sense of community cohesion exists among researchers, and incorporating that as a feature of resources is recommended. Appointing “super users” (users with certain privileges to make direct changes to data and metadata etc.) who can manage community feedback and review comments and corrections (submitted by other users) supports the idea that the resource “belongs” to everyone and is not just something created by an elite group holding the exclusive rights to make changes. In line with the principles of PD, this democratisation of the resource empowers users, increases their engagement and ensures a high uptake of the technology.
Cultural sustainability can also be achieved by extending the availability of a resource to a wider audience, which has been addressed in the Newsbooks resource by having a variety of academic disciplines represented in the Design Group and designing in search functionality to suit a variety of research methods and questions.
Figure 1: Diagrammatic overview of Participatory Design stakeholders.
Further Research Questions
- How have some of the new developments, such as the use of an account, been used by the wider research community?
- How has the refining function of search contributed to research processes in the humanities?
- How can PD be embedded into digital humanities?
- How can search be improved by the research community?
- In what ways can the translation process between PD researchers and developers be enhanced?
- Raise awareness of developments in search to a wider range of researchers.
- Embed PD into design and development processes.
- Ensure that time and space is made available for the translation work of PD and technical development.
- Undertake evaluation of new search developments in order to assess new functionality.
- Generate multi-disciplinary teams to develop search; teams should involve subject specialist, developers and PD researchers.
- Foster a learning community amongst scholars to inform the design of search and other digital sources.
- Support a community approach to digital search and sources to support the cultural sustainability of sources and to improve search knowledge