Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Only one participant answered
Other
, but ranked it at 91 %, therefore it deserves
mention. The respondent wrote that arts and humanities inquiry does not: “Match
with mission as defi ned by university administration,” suggesting that universities
themselves might stand in the way of these kinds of broad interdisciplinary collabo-
rations. This statement raises a crucial question: If this work is not done at universi-
ties, then where might it be done? The amount of freedom sites have to nurture
projects may be limited by constraints outside their control, including university
administration, LTER grant protocol, network research agendas, or the research foci
of their site. Welcoming arts and humanities scholars to implement independent
projects is a different proposition than diverting resources to support this inquiry,
and some of the sites do not believe they have the freedom to do the latter.
These challenges were echoed in an open comments section at the end of the
survey. We received written responses from 17 of the 24 participants, nearly all of
whom think that arts and humanities inquiry in the LTER Network is a good idea.
But a number of recurring themes illuminate why the future development of arts and
humanities inquiry in the LTER Network will require more than just the belief in a
good idea.
The most consistent refrain in the open comments pertained to funding: “If funds
were available, we could strengthen collaborations with visiting and local artists,”
wrote one site. Another explained: “We would like to curate and present this work
at … the national level but funds are non existent.” A third emphasized that they
would be interested in this work “only if it pays for itself.” These responses, coupled
with an equally consistent refrain about a lack of labor, parallel responses from the
survey. A remote site explained: their limited arts and humanities engagement as
due to “extreme constraints on space, time, and effort that we can devote to ANY
activity.” The demands of current workloads lead to “sporadic rather than sustained”
efforts. One site offered that they would be interested in this work if it “does not lead
to further diffusion of our already too-diffuse efforts.”
Participants also discussed the absence of a “clear vision or goals,” which was
tied as the fourth highest ranking challenge on the survey. Some sites have broad
ideas about program expansion or project development but lack vision or expertise.
One site has “interest in taking that next step and doing work that is truly synthetic,
though it's not clear to any of us what that means, looks like, or what would facilitate
that kind of work.” Another repeats this sentiment: “At the site level there is interest,
but we could strongly benefi t from guidance/leadership from those with greater
experience and a clearer vision of what role the humanities can actually play in
research beyond appeal to the senses.” Several sites are just initiating engagement,
while others are “in the process of thinking these important issues through right
now” or “have started a working group.” There is forward motion, but the common
direction is undeveloped.
Another hurdle identifi ed in the open comments section is a lack of relationships
with artists or humanists, which did not rank highly on the survey, tying with
“limited space” for third to last of the provided challenges. “We have reached out to
artists/humanists with varied results,” one site shares. Another explains that they are
“grappling a bit with … fi nding the right relationships. There are a lot of artists
Search WWH ::
Custom Search