Huygens ING, at the ESTS conference in Amsterdam, 22 November 2012.
Present: Jan Burgers (Huygens ING), Eef Dijkhof (Huygens ING), Gustaaf Janssens (KCG/CRH), Andrea Rzihacek (IMF), Guy Vanthemsche (KCG/CRH), Jane Winters (IRH).
1. Welcome
The meeting is opened by the Chair, Andrea Rzihacek.
2. Announcements
The participants give an overview of the recent changes in their institutes. Some were expanded (Vienna), have merged with another institute (The Hague), or were temporarily relocated (London). All stay committed to PH.
3. Minutes of the meeting in Paris 2010
The minutes are endorsed.
4. The future of Porta Historica
On the basis of the memorandum by Eef Dijkhof about the future of PH, a discussion unfolds. Everybody agrees that PH must expand with new members in order to be viable. Some board member express their concern that allowing individual membership will destabilize the structure of our network. At the end however, all agree that there is really no other option than allowing private scholars to become a member; the other possibility, inviting only institutions to join, has proven not to work.
PH will be transformed into a network in which scholarly institutions, academic groups, archives and individuals can participate, from all (European) countries, provided that they are somehow involved in or interested in editing historical documents, of all time periods. The board as it is constituted at the moment will expand with circa five new members, which will be chosen from the new participants of PH; the procedure of the election will be decided upon at the next board meeting. For the time being, Huygens ING will keep hosting the website, and Eef Dijkhof will remain in function as a secretary of the board. On the website, a possibility will be created that visitors can subscribe as a member of PH; the secretary will arrange their admission. Furthermore, all board members should recruit actively under their colleagues within and outside their home institutions.
It is necessary that the website is made more attractive, because that is the most important way to bring in new members from outside our own circle. As a first step, it is agreed upon to do a serious effort to start the project of a "Bibliotheca Portae Historicae. A Virtual Bookshelf of Digital Source Editions", that was already discussed at the annual meeting of PH in Paris in 2010, and further developed in the proposal of Andreas Zajic (IMAF). Therefore it is decided that each board member will deliver, before 21 May 2013, a national overview with short commentaries of the most important digital editions of historical sources. 'Digital Editions' should become a separate page on the website, with options to browse its content. Another item should be a 'Directory of historical editors', through which medium the professionals can learn of each other's activities.
5. Position of the École nationale des chartes
The ENC could not attend to the present board meeting. It is agreed upon that the secretary and one of the members from KCG/CRH will arrange a meeting with ENC, to see what are its present feelings about its participation in PH.
6. Next Business Meeting
The next meeting of the board will be in the Fall of 2013, possibly in Vienna.
November 2012, Jan Burgers.
]]>Present: Gaëlle Béquet (ENC), Jonathan Blaney (IHR), Olivier Canteaut (ENC), Eef Dijkhof (ING), Jean-Marie Duvosquel (KCG/CRH), Thérèse De Hemptinne (KCG/CRH), Andrea Rzihacek (IMF), Peter Sigmond (ING, Chair), Guy Vanthemsche (KCG/CRH), and Jane Winters (IRH).
1. Welcome
The meeting was opened and the participants welcomed by the Chair, Peter Sigmond.
2. Announcements
On invitation of Peter Sigmond the participants gave a short overview of recent and coming activities of their institutes.
3. Minutes on the meeting in Brussels 2009
With thanks to the authors, Sebastiaan Derks with some assistance of Donald Haks, the report was endorsed.
4. Website and website committee
The website committee was made up of Jane Winters and Eef Dijkhof. Unfortunately there wasn’t made much progress this year.
The members discussed whether the forum function on the website should be public or not. Public forum would be an excellent way to make the world aware of what we are doing. On the other hand, the delegates concluded that the forum function was not used up to now. It was decided to keep the forum not public for the time being.
Further, it was agreed that the institutes will get the opportunity to put news items directly on the Porta Historica website.
5. Common project I : Quality criteria for digital source editions
The quality criteria set in London have now been translated into French, German and, Spanish. The translations will soon be placed on the website.
The agreements regarding the dissemination and publishing of the quality criteria were not all fulfilled.
The following still have to been done:
- the use of own channels by every member of Porta Historica, such as for information purposes for historical journals in order to stimulate the reviewing of (digital) source editions;
- mentions in Porta Historica documentation, such as a brochure.
6. Common project II: Reviews on the Porta Historica Website
In the last meeting in Brussels a proposal of Andrea Rzihacek and Jane Winters was approved to publish reviews of both printed and digital source editions on our website.
Since our last meeting a little progress had been made on this point. The participants decided to add once more impetus to the review section.
- the Institute of Historical Research will as soon as possible take on the job of expanding reviews and maintaining contacts with reviewers. Jane Winters will send a list of reviews that might be suitable for the Porta Historica website. Reviews by staff of the institutes will be most welcome.
Coordination will stay in the hands of Andrea Rzihacek and Jane Winters.
7. Common project III: Bibliotheca Portae Historicae: A virtual bookshelf of digital source editions
Eef Dijkhof made a small survey on portals of European historical sources. The meeting discussed the quality of one of them (European History Primary Sources (EHPS) http://primary-sources.eui.eu/ ). The meeting stated that this site has many disadvantages:
-it gives links to websites containing editions of very different, sometimes quite poor quality;
-it gives no information on the type of edition of the historical sources; whether it is digital born edition or a digitized printed edition;
-in the latter case it gives no information about the way the edition was digitized.
The participants concluded that it would be still very useful for researchers if Porta Historica were to draw up a list of printed, digitised source editions that provide among others information on quality and method of digitization, and were to offer access to these.
The committee that was set up during the meeting in Brussels in 2009 will make a newe effort to develop a proposal for the next annual meeting in 2011 of a modest virtual bookshelf of digital source editions. This committee will be made up of the IHR and ING.
8. What next for Porta Historica? On search for new members
Eef Dijkhof made a survey on potential new members. He sends the delegates a provisional list of such institutions. The meeting stated once more that it would be of advantage for Porta Historica to expand.
Nevertheless, the meeting concluded that immediate expansion of Porta Historica through the inclusion of new members in 2011 might make the network unstable. It was decided to proceed in two ways. The members will use their personal networks to make contact with potential new members. The members should exchange a list of candidates. The next meeting (in The Hague; see 10) will be combined with a congress on methodological and technical aspects. On that congress will be invited institutes that might become new members.
In the mean time the expansion have to be prepared. Some of the regulations have to been changed, especially those regarding the board and the election of the board, and further the finances of the Network need to be regulated. The ING will do some proposals in 2011.
9. Election of the Board, chair of the Board and the Academic Secretary
The ING offered to fulfil the secretariat in the person of Eef Dijkhof in 2011 as well. The members agreed to this proposal. Decided was that also in 2011 the board will consist of one person from every institute. Members of the board till the business meeting in 2011 will be Gaëlle Béquet (ENC), Andrea Rzihacek (IMF), Peter Sigmond (ING) till the end of 2010, Guy Vanthemsche (KCG/CRH), and Jane Winters (IRH). The board chose Andrea Rzihacek as Chair.
10. Next Business Meeting
The ING offered to organize the next meeting in The Hague. It will be held in either November or December 2011. The delegates of the ING expect that in the next annual meeting the ING had merged with the Huygens Institute. On occasion of this merge there are plans to organise a congress on methodological and technical aspects of editing historical and literary sources. The other members would be pleased to participate in this congress.
11. Annual committee meeting
The committee for preparing the annual meeting in The Hague in 2011 consists of Eef Dijkhof.
12. Other business
Ecole Nationale des Chartes was thanked for their excellent organisation of the meeting and the warm welcome in Paris.
13. Close of the business meeting
December 2011
Eef Dijkhof
]]>
Porta Historica 2009 Business Meeting
Koninklijke Commissie voor Geschiedenis (KCG)/Commission Royale d’Histoire (CRH) [Royal Historical Commission of Belgium], Brussels, 30 April 2009
Present: Gaëlle Béquet (ENC), Jonathan Blaney (IHR), Sebastiaan Derks (ING), Jean-Marie Duvosquel (KCG/CRH), Donald Haks (ING, Chair), Thérèse de Hemptinne (KCG/CRH), Walter Prevenier (KCG/CRH), Andrea Rzihacek (IMF), G. Vanthemsche (KCG/CRH), Karel Velle (KCG/CRH) and Jane Winters (IRH).
1. Welcome
The meeting was opened and the participants welcomed.
2. Announcements
2.1. The Academic Secretary of Porta Historica, Eef Dijkhof, was unable to attend. His place at the meeting was taken by Sebastiaan Derks.
2.2. The attempts to organise a session at the International Conference on Historical Sciences (ICHS) in 2010 in Amsterdam were not successful.
3. Report on the meeting in London
With thanks to the author, Eef Dijkhof, the report was endorsed.
4. Website and website committee
Those at the meeting were interested in the further development of the website, especially as far as the forum function is concerned.
The meeting also asked that reticence not be shown in sending out reminders and guidelines, as well as in setting deadlines regarding the contributions to be made to the website, such as information on each institute and the papers of the annual conference.
The 2009-2010 website committee is made up of Eef Dijkhof and Jane Winters.
5. Common project I : Quality criteria for digital source editions
The quality criteria set in London have now been placed on the website. The meeting discussed the follow-up.
The quality criteria are in English. Translations into French, German, Spanish and Dutch are desirable. Agreements will be made regarding which of the members will arrange for the translations and for their placement on the website.
Further, the following was agreed regarding the dissemination and publicising of the quality criteria:
- sending the criteria to eligible institutions such as the Commission Internationale de Diplomatique (committee of the ICHS) and the Association for Documentary Editing (US) with the request that they draw attention to them in their own circles;
- the use of own channels by every member of Porta Historica, such as for information purposes for historical journals in order to stimulate the reviewing of (digital) source editions;
- mentions in Porta Historica documentation, such as a brochure.
6. Common project II: Reviews on the Porta Historica Website
The Chair thanked Andrea Rzihacek and Jane Winters for their proposal. The meeting found the proposal to be a sound one and important. Subsequently, the following points of order were brought up:
- the Institute of Historical Research has offered to take on the job of expanding reviews and maintaining contacts with reviewers. The meeting expressed its thanks for this offer and was pleased to accept it;
- the aim is to include reviews of both printed and digital source editions;
- no requirements will be made regarding the language in which the reviews are written;
- to add impetus to the review section, reviews by staff of the institutes will be most welcome; - a list of editions that can be reviewed will be drawn up as well as a list of possible reviewers and these will be sent to Jane Winters as soon as possible.
Coordination will be in the hands of Andrea Rzihacek and Jane Winters.
7. Common project III: Bibliotheca Portae Historicae: A virtual bookshelf of digital source editions
The Chair recalled the presentations given in London by members of Porta Historica about the digitisation of printed editions of source materials. There appear to be considerable differences in progress and methods. It would be very useful for researchers if Porta Historica were to draw up a list of printed, digitised source editions and were to offer access to these. The capacity to conduct simultaneous searches would be a step further for comparative or transnational research. It would also be useful to provide information about the different methods commonly used, together with their advantages, disadvantages and costs.
No concrete proposal was put forward. The Chair proposed that a committee, for which the IHR and ING would make themselves available, should develop a proposal. In this regard, Gaëlle Béquet also recommended contacting the ENC in connection with the Telma portal, which probably already meets some of the needs. As a goal for the next annual meeting in 2010, the Chair proposed the presentation of a modest virtual bookshelf of digital source editions. The meeting approved this approach.
8. Cooperation with Libraries and Archives
Karel Velle submitted this item. For information purposes he handed out a memo. He pointed out that there are numerous international organisations in the community of archives and libraries. It is important for Porta Historica that it draws the attention of these organisations to its existence and activities and tries to effect structural cooperation. It still lacks a network for collective projects. Cooperation and attending international forums is therefore important. In this regard, he proposed taking initiatives and addressing a letter to at least the European Archives Group with the request to be allowed to present Porta Historica at the EAG conference.
The meeting found this to be a constructive idea. The concrete suggestion for cooperation was made of allowing the publishers of sources to input their expertise in cooperation with archive institutions. Karel Velle and Donald Haks will take action on this item.
9. What next for Porta Historica?
Donald Haks had sent out a memo to bring structure to discussions and plans. The following aspects were discussed:
- the differences between a forum/conference model and a project model. In the opinion of the meeting, a forum model (exchange of information, conferences) is sensible, but the ultimate goal of the network is the setting up or advancing of collective projects and acquiring subsidies for them.
- the place of archives and libraries. Should they be invited to become members of Porta Historica and is there a risk that in that case the identity of Porta Historica would be confused? The meeting stated that the goal of Porta Historica should be clear. A distinction between full members and associate members (archives and libraries) is an option.
- more members could increase the language problem. The meeting did not see many advantages in holding multi-language meetings. It would be an advantage, it was suggested, if the secretariat could work in multiple languages.
- the expansion of Porta Historica through the inclusion of new members should be completed by 2010. The Chair proposed to publicise the coming expansion of the network in the autumn via the website and a brochure. Moreover, a number of institutions can be approached. These activities are to be undertaken in the autumn. At the meeting in Paris in 2010, Porta Historica can decide on the expansion.
10. Next Business Meeting
The meeting in Paris will be held in either May, June or September 2010. Gaëlle Béquet will return to this item.
11. Annual committee meeting
The committee for preparing the annual meeting in Paris in 2010 consists of Karel Velle and Gaëlle Béquet.
12. Other business
Thérèse de Hemptinne and Karel Velle were thanked for their excellent organisation of the meeting and the warm welcome in Brussels.
13. Close of the business meeting
May 2009
Sebastiaan Derks
]]>
Porta Historica Business Meeting 2008
Institute of Historical Research London, 3 December 2008, 11.00 am
Present: Gaëlle Béquet (ENC, Paris), Thérèse de Hemptinne (CRH/KCG), Eef Dijkhof (ING), Jean-Marie Duvosquel (CRH/KCG), Donald Haks (ING, chair), Ineke Huysman (ING), Emily Morrell (IHR), Andrea Rzihacek (IMAF), Karel Velle (CRH/KCG), Jane Winters (IHR), Bernhard Zeller (IMF)
1. Welcome
The meeting was opened and the participants welcomed.
2. Announcements
2.1 The next meeting of Porta Historica would take place in April 2009 in Brussels. The following meeting would be held in Paris in 2010, possibly earlier than December.
2.2 In September 2008, Donald Haks had given a presentation at the meeting of the European Association of National Bibliographies in Berlin. Fifteen national bibliographies were represented. Common objectives of Porta Historica and the Association were discussed, and the Association expressed an interest in having a presence on the Porta Historica website.
The biannual meeting of editors of diplomatic sources, from 25 countries, was to be held in 2009 in the Hague. That organisation had also asked Porta Historica if they could host their website.
The meeting felt that offering to host websites, or pages on the Porta Historica website, for these organisations would blur the core business of Porta Historica. It was necessary to decide carefully which institutions to work with, as was decided in Vienna in 2007. It seemed the meeting quite risky to let use our website by already existing groups of institutions. It was agreed that Porta Historica would be happy to carry news announcements from such organisations, and to link to their websites, but not to host their webpages.
3. Report of the last meeting in Vienna
The report was accepted with one correction and would be placed on the Porta Historica website. Thanks were expressed to Donald Haks and Eef Dijkhof for their work.
4. New member(s) of the Board
Andrea Rzihacek had taken over from Helmut Reimitz as the Board representative from the Institut für Mittelalterforschung. Bernhard Zeller was presented as the new second contact person of that institute.
5. The Charter
5.1 In 2010 the charter was to be evaluated and changed if necessary.
5.2 It was questioned whether English would continue to be the common language of the network as it was felt that this might discourage colleagues from other countries to join the Network. It was suggested that presentations could perhaps be given in the participant’s mother tongue. It was agreed that this point would be reconsidered in future but that for the present English would remain the common language.
6. Website and website committee
6.1 Eef Dijkhof expressed his thanks to the members of the website committee for their valuable comments on an earlier version of the website.
6.2 The new website had been launched in summer 2008 with the help of the ING’s ICT department. Eef Dijkhof introduced the site and asked participants to send further information about and logos of their institutes for inclusion on the site. The presentations from the London meeting could also be added to the site. All the speakers were invited to send their contribution to Dijkhof. He also would circulate log in details for the members’ area of the site. He encouraged participants to use the forum that would be renewed. Interest was expressed in having an RSS feed to notify users when a new message was placed on the forum, and Dijkhof agreed to investigate this.
7. Annual Meeting committee
7.1 Emily Morrell would not be participating in the next meeting of Porta Historica as her job had changed. Jane Winters would therefore take over as the committee member representing the institute which had just hosted the meeting. Karel Velle would be the member representing the CRH/KCG which would next host a meeting.
8. Programme of the 2009 annual meeting, Brussels
8.1 The meeting would be part of a larger conference to celebrate the 175th anniversary of the CRH/KCG. On 29 April Porta Historica delegates would be part of this event, with the normal Porta Historica meeting taking place on 30 April. Subjects for discussion would again be quality criteria, reviews of digital resources. A third subject would be about ideas of building on the Porta Historica website a virtual bookshelf containing the digital source editions of our institutions. While the time of preparation would be very short, a second business meeting of Porta Historica, if necessary, would be held at the end of 2009.
10. How is our Network functioning?
10.1 The first period of the network (2006-2010) was now half way through. Fruitful discussions had been had.
10.2 Andrea Rzihacek suggested as a first concrete point of action that a new section could be established on the website to host reviews of digital resources.
10.3 Jane Winters reiterated that the IHR’s Reviews in History was happy to take the lead on this project, and that they would like to include European members in the editorial board. A committee to work on the reviews project was established with Jane Winters and Andrea Rzihacek as the members. Other participants were asked to suggest candidates for the editorial board.
10.4 It was agreed that further thought should be given to establishing a joint project which might attract European funding. A business/strategic plan should also be drawn up in the near future.
11. Any other business
11.1 Jane Winters and Emily Morrell were thanked for their organisation and hosting of the 2008 meeting.
12. Close of the business meeting
The Hague, 10 April 2009,
Eef Dijkhof with assistance of Emily Morrell
]]>
The second meeting of the Network
of Editors of Historical Sources, Porta
Historica, was held in Vienna
on 5-6 December 2007. The meeting was hosted by the Institut für
Mittelalterforschung (IMAF).
Programme
The meeting was opened by Walter
Pohl, director of the Institut für Mittelalterforschung. He spoke about the
institute's position in the field of historical research in Austria. The
various departments of the institute then gave a brief presentation on their
research and the source editions they publish.
The programme for this
two-day conference consisted of six papers. The aim of these was to increase the
members' knowledge of each other's work and to investigate the possibilities
for joint projects:
- the Institute of Historical Research (IHR; Jane Winters) summarised the conclusions of the report ‘Peer review and evaluation of digital resources for the arts and the humanities’, published in September 2006. This contains recommendations for drawing up and assessing project applications.
- the Commission Royale d’Histoire/Koninklijke Commissie voor Geschiedenis (CRH/KCG; Ludo Milis) explained the policy that the Commission wishes to pursue, aimed at online editions: text editions and finding aids; and sound and image in addition to the written word.
- the École Nationale des Chartes (ENC; Olivier Canteaut) explained the purpose of the ADEEL project (Album Diplomatique Européen en Ligne). This will include examples of electronic editions of sources from France and abroad. The aim is therefore to contribute to the development of an academic and technical standard.
- the Institute of Netherlands History (ING; Jan Burgers) explained how the programme ‘Representation and Governance’ covers various edition-related projects dealing with questions of a similar nature over a long period (the 13th to the 20th centuries), such as questions relating to the structure of governments and the interaction between governments and subjects.
-
the Institute
of Historical Research (IHR; Jane
Winters) presented the website ‘England's
Past for Everyone’, which puts the emphasis on local history. The institute
intends to organise a conference in 2009, focusing on local history, seen in a
comparative European context.
Gaëlle Béquet (ENC) also gave an overview of
various subsidy programmes, both in France and in Europe.
The CNRS (Centre National de Recherche Scientifique) is attempting to promote the
digitalisation of sources for the social sciences and humanities with ADONIS. The
E-Content Plus programme has the same aim at the European level.
Summaries of these papers will be made available
on the Porta Historica website.
Organisation of the network
The ‘Charter of Porta Historica. A Network of Institutions Editing Historical Sources’ has
been adopted.
The following
persons have been appointed as members of the board of Porta Historica up to the end of 2010:
-
Jacques
Berlioz (ENC);
-
Donald
Haks (ING);
-
Thérèse
de Hemptinne (CRH/KCG);
-
Helmut
Reimitz (IMAF);
-
Jane
Winters (IHR).
The
board passed the following resolutions:
-
Donald
Haks has been appointed as chair;
-
Eef
Dijkhof (ING) has been appointed as secretary;
-
the
Porta Historica website will be
managed by the ING.
The board has set up two committees:
-
Conference
Committee for London 2008: Emily Morell (IHR), Helmut Reimitz (IMAF);
-
Website
committee: Eef Dijkhof (ING), Gaëlle Béquet (ENC), Jane Winters (IHR).
The
Network regards the period up to the end of 2010 as a period of development
during which its activities will be specified in greater detail and the
expansion of the Network to include other institutions will be explored.
Agreements
The following agreements have been made for 2008:
1. The British report ‘Peer review and evaluation of digital resources for the arts and the humanities’ will be used as the basis for Porta Historica to draw up a general evaluation framework (‘benchmarking’) for digital source editions. The various institutes and their editions can use this as an aid when setting up editions and to promote quality. In addition, this can help subsidy providers to assess applications. Lead parties: ING and IHR.
2. It will be checked whether the ADEEL project can be developed into a project on a European scale for which a subsidy application could be submitted. Such an application would be drawn up in 2008 or 2009. Lead party: ENC.
3. There are various projects currently underway in Europe aimed at digitalising source editions previously published in printed form. It would therefore be useful to compare the methods used. The objective must be to make it possible for these digital editions to be searched simultaneously. The meeting in 2008 offers an opportunity for this. Lead parties: all institutions.
4. The Porta Historica website will be launched in 2008. The purpose of this website is to draw attention to the objective and activities of Porta Historica. Lead party: ING.
These four topics will be discussed further at the December 2008 meeting in London.
The
meeting in 2009 (Brussels)
will be held in May 2009. The CRH/KCG will be organising an international
conference celebrating its 175th anniversary to coincide with this.
Donald
Haks told those present that the application submitted by Porta Historica about organising a “Specialised
theme: Historical Source Editions: Methodology and the International Context” at
the conference of the International Committee of Historical Sciences in August 2010 in Amsterdam, had been rejected. The ING would
try to find another way for Porta
Historica to raise its profile at this conference.
Donald Haks,
Februari 2008.
]]>
1. Context
In 2006, the Arts
and Humanities Research Council in the UK
funded the Institute
of Historical Research
and the Royal Historical Society to investigate establishing a framework for
the peer review and evaluation of digital resources for the arts and
humanities.
The mechanisms for the peer review and
evaluation of the traditional print outputs of scholarly research – monographs,
journal articles and the like – are well established, if increasingly under
strain. But no equivalent exists for assessing the value of digital resources
and of the scholarly work that leads to their creation. A consistently-applied
system of peer review and evaluation (of both the intellectual content and the
technical architecture of digital resources) would serve a number of purposes.
First, it would reassure academics and their host institutions of the worth of time spent in the creation of digital resources. It was a common complaint among the resource creators whom we consulted that such activity, unless it is generating really substantial levels of income, is still seen as subordinate to more traditional forms of research.
Second, it would enable us to establish those types of resource which are of most use and interest to the academic community – of clear importance to both end users and funding bodies.
Third, it would contribute to the development of common standards and guidelines for accessibility and usability.
And finally, it would inform proposals to ensure the sustainability and preservation of high-quality scholarly material.
Peer review is fundamental to the
academic research process. It underpins traditional scholarly publishing, both
monograph and journal, and informs the decision-making mechanisms of various
national funding bodies. In the UK,
for example, all of the research councils impose a lengthy and complex peer
review process on all applications to their various grants schemes.
Evaluation of research output is also of
considerable importance to the academic community, and again there are robust
mechanisms in place. Monographs, and less frequently journal articles, are
evaluated by means of the published review. The majority of research projects
which receive public or charitable funding are required to produce annual
and/or ‘end of award’ reports outlining their progress, explaining their
decision making processes, and addressing any areas in which they have failed
to meet their original remit.
But these mechanisms have not been
successfully transferred to the digital environment – or at least not entirely.
To take the most obvious example, digital resources are not widely reviewed in
scholarly journals, alongside their print counterparts. Some of the most high
profile resources – for example the Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography or Early English Books Online – create a flurry of
interest, but such reviews are notable because they are so unusual. Even where
assessment does take place, a holistic evaluation of digital resources has
proven somewhat elusive – a division between the purely ‘technical’ and the
purely ‘academic’ persists.
2. The
project
So this was what our project sought to
address – and we got off to a rather more problematic start than we’d anticipated.
The more we discussed it, the more it became apparent that different people
understood different things by both ‘peer review’ and ‘evaluation’ – and in the
context of digital resources, this was largely related to the point at which
the assessment occurred.
Peer review was the simpler of the two
concepts – for our purposes, it was understood to mean the formal assessment of
proposed research. It is undertaken at a sufficiently early stage to
influence the course of that research, the nature of its outputs, and
ultimately even whether it takes place at all (or is made available to a wider
audience). It is usually undertaken by a single academic working in a related
field, or by a group of subject experts.
However, we identified two distinct types
of evaluation:
that which takes place during or at the end of a research project as part of a formal process;
and that which is undertaken by end users, whether informally as feedback or in publicly-available reviews.
In the digital environment, evaluation is most usefully seen as part of an ongoing and iterative process. Digital resources require varying degrees of technical and academic input over time, but few can be said to be ‘complete’ in the way that a book or journal article is complete once published.
3. The survey
Once we had established our terms of reference, we could get to work. The first stage of the project was an online survey. The survey questions were designed to elicit opinion as to the usage of digital resources, and no distinction was made between those who are solely users of digital resources and those who are both users and creators. There were 777 respondents to the survey, the majority of whom (56 per cent) identified themselves as being based within UK Higher Education Institutions.
This is not the place to go into the survey in any detail, but it is worth highlighting a few key findings. In response to the question, ‘What is important in determining the value of a particular resource for your own research?’, perhaps unsurprisingly more than three-quarters of respondents indicated content. The next most important factors, in order of popularity, were authority, the lack of availability or inaccessibility of the original analogue material, and comprehensiveness. It is only then that we get to usability, the ability to conduct complex searches and so on – that is, the more technical elements of a resource. One of the most surprising results of this question was the lack of weight accorded to transformative impact on research, with only 23 per cent of respondents regarding this as very important (when the question was reversed, almost as many – 21 per cent – indicated that it was of little or no importance to them). It is a curious response, which suggests that researchers do not always recognise, or articulate, the transformative impact of digital resources on their research practice. It may, however, indicate that, for many, what is important is not innovation for its own sake – they want increased and enhanced access to what they already in some sense have.
This question also highlighted the failure of many researchers to engage with the question of sustainability – only 32 per cent felt that the permanence of a resource was very important to them. Time and again in the focus groups convened by the project team, the sustainability and permanence of digital resources were cited as major concerns for both creators and users – creators, of course, have a vested interest in seeing the outputs of their research maintained, but users also identified the problem of ‘disappearing resources’ as a barrier to take-up. Interestingly, this may be a function of the type of digital resource – there was much greater recognition of the importance of permanence in relation to journal articles published online than in relation to, say, large datasets.
Finally, and most significantly for us, 71 per cent of respondents considered
peer evaluation and recommendation to be either important or extremely important in their selection of digital resources for use in their personal research. One academic noted: ‘peer review and provenance are key for me – I can get non-peer reviewed material any time through Google and evaluate its usefulness myself. It is no substitute for the academic resources’.
Other consultation was undertaken throughout the year, with a series of user and focus groups convened to draw out the issues raised in the survey, and a number of interviews were held with key opinion formers. A benchmarking study was also carried out, testing some of the proposals and guidelines that had emerged in the course of discussion. All of this fed into our conclusions.
4. Conclusions
The main conclusions of the report fall under three headings.
The first is cultural change
The need for cultural change was mentioned by many of the participants in the project, by which was meant a change of attitude towards digital resources and their creators, and towards their use for scholarly research. It was thought that this cultural shift was in process – indeed, it was pointed out that many academics already implicitly trust the digital medium, using email as a regular means of academic correspondence, and frequently consulting digital resources such as JSTOR or the Royal Historical Society Bibliography online. It is, of course, the case that for digital resources to become firmly embedded in research culture, there needs to be an accepted mechanism for assessing their value – where we came in! – but cultural change can be driven in other ways.
First, there needs to be a greater recognition that there is more than one model for research in the arts and humanities. Traditionally, the most valued research outputs have been the work of lone scholars –the creation of digital resources, by contrast, almost always involves collaborative or team working, whether between individual scholars or between researchers and their supporting computing departments. The academy needs to place due value not just on the outputs of collaborative research, but on the work itself. This will also go some way to solving the problem of how to treat the largely unheralded work that is undertaken at the intersection of the technical and the scholarly.
Second, there needs to be much greater investment in the training of researchers both to use and to evaluate digital resources. The inability of significant sections of the academic community genuinely to comment on and assess the value of digital resources makes any peer review process difficult to manage, and also undermines confidence in its results. Learned societies and subject organisations have a significant role to play in ensuring that their communities engage with this issue, and university libraries and computing centres should be encouraged to provide training to mid and late career academics as well as to new researchers.
Finally, the editors of scholarly journals can effect change, by routinely commissioning reviews of digital resources and by encouraging their authors to cite digital material where it is available. The creators of digital resources can also help with this last, by providing clear citation guidance on their websites. Some of the reviews commissioned as part of the benchmarking study for this project were published in the IHR’s online journal, Reviews in History, for example Elisabeth van Houts review of The Narrative Sources from the Medieval Low Countries (http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/vanhouts.html). The journal’s editorial board have subsequently agreed that reviews of this type should be actively pursued, and it is hoped that others will follow their lead.
Peer review
Many of the project’s recommendations concern the mechanics of the peer review process, and specifically as it affects the assessment of research proposals to UK research councils:
I would be interested to know how this works in other European countries, but in applications for funding in the UK any ‘technical’ element is assessed separately from the academic justification for a particular project. The majority of those whom we consulted felt that this was an unhelpful and artificial division which hindered peer review of all elements of a research proposal.
Peer reviewers should be chosen primarily for their subject expertise, but their ability to assess the technical elements of a proposal should also be taken into account. This would both make the process easier to manage – reducing the numbers of academics turning down peer review requests – and make it more robust. Again, learned societies and subject organisations should be prepared to assist in the selection of appropriate reviewers. Bearing in mind the skills gap identified by this and other projects, in the short to medium term it may be necessary to consider review by a subject specialist in conjunction with a humanities and computing practitioner.
Evaluation
The final set of recommendations concerned the procedures for the evaluation of digital resources.
First, research councils and other large funding bodies should be encouraged to conduct post-completion assessments of those projects which they support financially, with both the evaluation report and any response from the resource creators made publicly available. Any such review should be conducted in a spirit of openness, so that resource creators are encouraged to discuss freely any problems that they have encountered and any innovative solutions that they have adopted, for the benefit of the research community as a whole.
Both guidelines for potential reviewers and a check-list of basic technical standards would be a useful addition to the process. Our project produced drafts of both, which can be consulted on the IHR’s website (http://www.history.ac.uk/digit/peer/Peer_review_report2006.pdf).
Interestingly, although again perhaps not altogether surprisingly, there was almost complete rejection of any metrics-based approach to assessing the value of digital resources. This was articulated most clearly in connection with usage. While there was acceptance that resources designed for a wide audience might in some way be deemed to have failed if they were unable to demonstrate high levels of usage, the relative popularity or unpopularity of a resource should, and indeed could not be used as a significant indicator of academic value. The introduction of some system of kite-marking (that is, adding a stamp of approval) was also felt to be highly undesirable, and many project participants expressed concern that it would lead to over-centralisation and the eventual stifling of innovation. The project concluded that any system of evaluation or review should not adopt a simple ‘pass/fail’ approach when considering a digital resource in its entirety. Subjectivity was thought to be vital to the assessment process, and should not be masked by any more rigid system of indicating ‘approval’.
While there is a role for subject organisations and learned societies in guiding peer review and evaluation, and even recommending or supplying the personnel to undertake such activities, no one body should have the power to say whether or not a resource is ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
5. Wider applications
So, once a structure is in place for assessing the ‘value’ of digital resources, what are its practical applications?
It facilitates the assessment of digital resources, and the work which goes into their creation, with obvious benefits to both resource creators and their host institutions.
It assists users in making decisions about which digital resources are most appropriate for use in their own research.
It assists librarians in making purchasing decisions.
And it helps funding bodies to assess whether a particular project should be supported, whether it successfully meets its aims and objectives, and ultimately whether it has in some sense delivered value for money. These criteria in turn inform decisions about sustainability and preservation.
Jane Winters
]]>French national and European funding agencies
All French higher education institutions have been asked by governmental authorities to prepare regular reports on activities prior to receiving public funding. In France, higher education institutions must report every year to the Ministry of Education, negotiate their funding every four years and sign a pluri-annual contract defining objectives and means.
They are also strongly encouraged to look for other sources of funding, like the various calls for proposals issued by funding agencies, e.g. Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), Agence nationale de la recherche (ANR), EGIDE, European Commission.
In the past few years, the École nationale des chartes has answered several of these proposals with mitigated results.
In 2006, the CNRS helped to create 5 centres for digital resources :
CRDO : Centre de ressources pour la description de l’oral (http://www.crdo.fr/)
CNRTL: Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales (http://www.cnrtl.fr)
TELMA: Traitement ÉLectronique des Manuscrits et des Archives (http://www.cn-telma.fr)
M2IAS: Méthodologies de Modélisation de l’Information Spatiale Appliquées (http://www.m2isa.fr)
CN2SV: Centre National pour la Numérisation de Sources Visuelles (http://www.cn2sv.fr)
The École nationale des chartes (ENC), together with the Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes (IRHT), created TELMA which was awarded a lump sum to start with.
To maintain and develop TELMA, ENC and IRHT submitted a new project to Adonis, a funding agency of the CNRS, in Dec 2007. Adonis’ aims are :
-
to
work with institutions that fund and manage social sciences and humanities
research,
-
to
digitize research archives in these fields,
-
to
publish research journals online.
Some funds have been allocated to the project
for 2008.
The French Agence nationale de la recherche
was created in August 2006. It launches yearly calls for proposals in various
research fields, mostly in biology, sustainable development, sustainable
energies and the environment, engineering and information technologies. It
supports research grants and fellowships.
In March 2007, a call for proposals focused on corpuses and tools for research in social sciences and humanities. ENC submitted a proposal whose aim was to create an online dictionary of medieval Latin. As this project was not selected, ENC has decided to fund this project on its own resources. Part of this dictionary will be online in Feb. 2008.
Egide is a funding agency dependant upon the French Ministry of Foreign affairs.
It supports bilateral cooperation and provides funding for travel and subsistence allowances for scholars and advanced students who carry on an international research project.
Bilateral calls for proposals are organised every year: Amadeus for French-Austrian cooperation, Alliance for French-British cooperation, Van Gogh for French-Dutch cooperation, and Tournesol for French-Belgian cooperation
Projects are submitted simultaneously by the French and the foreign partner institutions.
ENC answered a call for proposals with the University of Sienna (Italy). Some subsidies were provided by the French and the Italian governments to support a two-week seminar about text digitisation. The proceedings of this seminar will be published in 2008 on the websites of the two participating institutions.
European calls for
proposals
The programme Culture 2000 (from 2000 to 2006) supported multi-annual projects related to cultural heritage such as Rinascimento Virtuale - Digitale Palimpsestforschung (archives) led by the Universität Hamburg (DE), Monasterium.net, virtual archive of Central European monasteries and dioceses, led by the Institut zur Erschließung und Erforschung kirchlicher Quellen (AT), Archives of European archeology led by the Institut national d’histoire de l’art (FR).
The new Culture 2007-2013 programme focuses on cooperation between various organisations such as theatres, museums, professional associations, research centres, universities, cultural institutes and public authorities.
It supports 3 types of action : cultural actions (strand 1), support for European cultural bodies (strand 2), support for analyses and dissemination activities (strand 3)
The European Commission funds 50 % of the total cost of the projects and supports :
- Projects lasting from three to five years (multi-annual cooperation projects involving at least 6 cultural operators from 6 different countries, funding 200 000 to 500 000 € /year)
- Projects lasting up to two years (Cooperation measures involving at least 3 cultural operators, funding 50 000 to 200 000 /year)
- Special measures (like the annual European Capital of culture or a European Union Prize for literature)
This new programme has specific objectives :
− supporting the trans-national mobility of people working in the cultural sector;
− encouraging the transnational circulation of artistic and cultural works and artefacts;
− encouraging intercultural dialogue.
In 2005, the European Parliament and the Council approved the eContentplus Programme, a multi-annual programme to make digital content in Europe more accessible, usable and exploitable.
• 4-year programme (2005–08)
• a budget of € 149 million
• geographic content (as a key constituent of public sector content),
• educational content,
• digital libraries (cultural, scientific and scholarly content),
• EU-wide co-ordination of collections in libraries, museums and archives,
• preservation of digital collections.
Together with Instituut voor Nederlandse Geschiedenis, Ludwig Maximilian Universität (München), Università degli studi di Pavia and Monasterium, ENC submitted a proposal in 2006. The experts did not give a mark high enough for the project to receive partial funding.
Porta Historica could prepare a proposal for the next eContentplus call for proposals, due 2008.
Gaëlle Béquet, international officer, École nationale des chartes (France)
What
it is and what it does.
Official name:
In Dutch: Koninklijke
Commissie voor Geschiedenis van België
In French: Commission royale d’histoire de Belgique
Mission:
“Its task
is to research, identify, edit and analyse written sources which are of
interest to the history of Belgium, and to publish critical studies relating to
these sources, as well as to provide working tools for historians.“ (1976)
Composition:
• Limited number: 12 (+ 9 honorary) members
• Academic affiliation (Universities (9), State Archives(3))
• Linguistic equilibrium
• Membership considered to be very honorific
Edition Standards:
• Edition Standards (especially for medieval Latin texts): 1955, Instructions pour l’édition des textes historiques – Voorschriften ter uitgave van geschiedkundige teksten. (most recent version on the website)
Some Historical Information:
• Foundation in 1834 (shortly after independence)
• Original goal: to prove national identity; antecedents in Austrian period (1770) and Dutch period (1827), always with the same scope.
• French influence (Gachard) (first half century of its existence)
• German influence (Kurth & Pirenne) (since late 19th c.)
Points of Interest:
• Originally stressing Narrative Sources: chronicles...
• Originally stressing the Middle Ages as the ‘most glorious period’, pushing national identity as far back as possible
• Increasing attention for charters
– Table chronologique des chartes et diplômes imprimés concernant l'histoire de la Belgique (= Wauters)
– Later on: Actes des princes belges – Akten der Belgische vorsten
• Increasing attention for other periods
– Since 1854: 16th century;
– After WW II: Contemporary history
• Increasing attention for documents in foreign collections (Inventories of archival material in Vienna, Lille, Naples, Parma, Salamancas, Besançon, Moscou, etc.)
• Increasing attention for other document types: cartularies, statistical documents, obituaries, cartography.
• Increasing attention for representative institutions: Actes des États généraux des Anciens Pays-Bas – Akten van de Staten Generaal van de Oude Nederlanden.
Some Recent Publications:
• W.P. BLOCKMANS Handelingen van de Leden en van de Staten van Vlaanderen, Regering van Filips de Goede (1419-1467).
• G. CROENEN, De oorkonden van de familie Berthout, 1212-1425,
• M.-A. ARNOULD, Les dénombrements de foyers dans le comté de Hainaut (XIVe - XVIe siècles). (Reprint)
• Cl. BRUNEEL & Cl. de MOREAU de GERBEHAYE, Les gradués de la faculté de médecine de l'ancienne université de Louvain (XVIe- XVIIIe siècles)
• J. TOLLEBEEK, Writing the Inquisition in Europe and America. The correspondence between Henry Charles Lea and Paul Fredericq (1888-1908)
• B. and M. LYON, The Wardrobe Book of 1296-1297: A Financial and Logistical Record of Edward I's 1297 Autumn Campaign in Flanders Against Philip IV of France
• Annual Bulletin - Handelingen
Projects:
• Enhanced interest in other document types:
– Illustrations (miniatures)
– Ego-documents (correspondence, …)
– Image and Sound: Audio-, video-, interviews
– Maps
– Inscriptions
Ongoing discussion about publishing format:
• Printed: regular distribution or mere safety copies?
• Reprints: anastatic or electronic?
Electronic Publications in the near future:
– Amsab (2007-8): Reports of Meetings of Belgian Workers Party in the Interbellum Period
– NaSo (Narrative Sources of the Medieval Low Countries) (with Univ. Ghent, Leuven, Groningen) (2009)
– ‘New Wauters’: full text edition of charters 1200-1260
– Topodex: Digital Identification of Place Names
– Complete Register Bulletin – Handelingen
Striving to guarantee free access
and gratuity of electronic information
Contacts with Foreign Institutions:
• Artem (Nancy): Charter Editions
• Ac. Inscr. Belles-Lettres (Paris): Monumenta Paleographica Medii Aevi: ( in preparation: Medieval Slates Villers Abbey, Liber Traditionum St. Peter’s Abbey Ghent)
• Istituto storico italiano per il medio evo (Rome): Repertorium fontium historiae medii aevi (New Potthast)
Contacts with National Institutions:
• The Royal Library, Brussels (hosting the website)
• The General Archives
- digitalization of original charters;
- inventory of Vienna Archives: diplomatic correspondence Vienna-Brussels in the period 1770-1783
• The Universities (through its members)
• Research Funds (FWO-Vlaanderen, FNRS, DWTC) (Funding of projects)
(For all further information, see website: www.kcgeschiedenis .be or www.crhistoire.be)
Ludo Milis, President (2005-2007)
]]>Representation and Governance in the Netherlands ca. 1250–1983
Research into the history of politics in the Netherlands has passed through
a revival in the last few years. As a result, under the all-encompassing term
of ‘political culture’, attention has turned to questions such as:
· Who is entitled to take part in politics?
· What subjects does politics deal with?
· How do political concepts evolve?
· What form can, and should, political conflict take?
The 'Representation and Governance in the Netherlands’-programme fits in with this new perspective on political history. It will explore the historic development of political institutions and bureaucratic procedures through the ages.
Sources will be recorded and made accessible in projects that link up the Middle Ages with the 20th century, from the administrative organisation of the counties of Holland and Zeeland during the first half of the 14th century up to and including the establishment and evolution of the constitutional state in the 19th and 20th centuries. Upon their publication, these sources will enable future researchers to study not only the history of the governing bodies, but also the role that subjects played or wished to play when participating in the state. These projects deal with the relationship between subjects and the government and the culture of governance, as these are reflected in the rise and development of institutions, offices and officeholders.
The research programme spans seven centuries, during the course of which the interaction between society and government is a recurrent theme. All the projects aim at editing sources that provide an insight into one or more of the following subjects:
The development and organisational structure of a pivotal institution.
The growth of bureaucracy and how it operates at the local and higher levels.
The extent and manner in which subjects, i.e. citizens, participated in politics and governance.
The following four projects will be realized:
Edition containing the registers of the county of Holland, 1299-1345
The National Archives of the Netherlands in The Hague keeps registers that were compiled during the first half of the 14th century in the chancery of the counts of Holland and Zeeland. Charters issued by the counts are recorded in these registers, along with other important documents such as the charters of third parties and lists of fiefs. The registers are sorted according to their geographical area: every register covers a certain region (for example, Kennemerland) or the lands of a foreign sovereign (for example, Gelre). The texts in the registers intended for ‘internal’ consumption are mostly in Middle Dutch, while those meant for ‘foreigners’ are mainly in Old French or Latin.
The goal of the project is to disclose all the surviving registers, namely 22 volumes; in total, almost 2, pages. All the documents, approximately 3,400 items, will be published together with a full transcript; in instances where a text has been handed down twice – some registers are copies of other ones – the oldest version will be used and the alternative phrasing of the more recent version will appear in the notes. Unabridged, full-text versions of the registers may also be featured. The search option can be used to search both the transcripts and the different categories, such as the author and the destinataris (the person who received the charter), the place where the charter was issued, and other names and subjects referred to in the text.
Through this edition, researchers will be able to access a large portion of the county’s charters from this period. This has been a long-coveted wish as charters are still our most important source of knowledge. In these items we find a wealth of information about how the counties of Holland and Zeeland were governed and the activities of officials employed by the count, such as the bailiffs and stewards as well as members of the Council, alongside a treasure trove of information at the local level.
The edition is associated with the VNC project entitled ‘The charters and chancery of the counts of Holland and Hainault, 1299-1345’ which is carried out jointly by the University of Gent and the University of Amsterdam.
Compendium of officeholders and civil servants in the Middle Ages
For some time now, there has been a renewed interest in the political elite among historians focusing on the history of the Netherlands. This is also the case with the study of mediaeval history. Recently, a number of studies have appeared about the nobility, the urban elite, and civil servants and office holders. Research into both the functioning of the princely courts of this period as well as the officers who worked there, are of relevance to this subject area.
This project will include facts about the appointments of the princely civil servants and office holders of Holland and Zeeland, possibly at a later stage complemented with those of Gelre and Zutphen, for the period c. 1250 to 1588. Civil servants and office holders who exercised real power at the local or regional level will be included, such as stewards, dike-reeves, bailiffs, captains, masters of the mint, foresters, governors, treasurers and sheriffs. Data will be collected that relate specifically to those civil servants and office holders who were most visible to the public as representatives of the administration and who, as a result of their contacts at the local and regional level, were important for the communications between the ruler and his subjects.
The Compendium aims to provide insights and facilitate research into offices, civil servants and office holders and the institutions to which they were affiliated, such as the Court of Holland. An explosive increase in the number of offices and the institutions to which they were attached can be observed during the late Middle Ages. This applied to every level of government. This compendium will provide future users with easy access to the many different people who, throughout the ages, served the rulers of Holland and Zeeland as well as those of Zutphen and Gelre on many different levels. In this way, it is a practical tool that can be used by all those researching the Middle Ages and the early modern period to help them track down any princely office holder from these regions. The database will also provide insights into the origins and development of the offices and how they were staffed as well as into the origins and progress of related institutions. Furthermore, the compendium also offers possibilities for carrying out research into the staffing policy of these institutions and the careers of the officials. In this way, the information that has been collected offers new opportunities for both institutional and socio-historical research. Moreover, the compendium can contribute to research into the political elite of the Netherlands.
The National Assembly, 1795-1801
This project wants to facilitate the study of the Batavian Republic, the first Dutch democracy, by editing a representative selection of texts from its political press and political pamphlet literature. The downfall of the Dutch Republic and its political institutions in 1795 led to an era of intense political debate and experimentation with representative democracy. The National Assembly, which replaced the States-General of the ancien regime, became the new parliament in The Hague and the country’s national political centre. In the making of this modern Dutch parliamentary democracy, the political press played a vital role. Pamphlets and journals discussed crucial concepts like citizenship, representation, democracy and nation. During the early years of the Batavian Republic, the political process was critically followed by journalists who by their publications tried to influence both the representatives in the National Assembly and public opinion. The project aims to select and critically edit political texts that reflect the topics and concepts considered to be most important in parliament itself, in order to trace the connection between public and parliamentary discussions.
The project will closely cooperate with a new research program at the University of Amsterdam, focusing on the enormous importance of the Batavian Republic for the formation of modern Dutch democracy.
Disclosure and publication of documents concerning Dutch constitutional committees, 1883-1983
The Dutch constitution is not only one of the most important sources of Dutch constitutional law, it also expresses the key principles on which the Netherlands is founded as a nation. The oldest version, from 1798, was designed for the revolutionary Batavian Republic. In 1814, the year that saw the emergence of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the first non-republican constitution took form.This constitution has been revised on a number of occasions during the last two hundred years. Changing the constitution is a complex and exhausting process, because of the many safeguards laid down in the constitution itself. For a government that wants to propose constitutional reforms it is standard practice to set up an advisory (state) committee, consisting of politicians and experts. These constitutional committees put forward suggestions for constitutional changes in their official reports. The assignments of the committees, their composition, their actual functioning and the final outcome of their work provide insights into the political context of the revision process.
The goal of the Dutch Constitutional Committees Project is to disclose archival material associated with the activities of a number of constitutional committees between 1883 and 1983. Not only the archives of the committees are included, but also those records concerning the preliminary stages and the prospective legislative trajectory that results from their advises, as well as personal collections and archives of other actors involved.
In total, sixteen constitutional committees are studied between 1883 and 1983. The result shows how the constitutional debate was conducted 'behind the scenes' over the course of a century. Because of its content, the project's results are of great value for historians, lawyers and all those interested in politics in practice. It enables the researcher to trace the evolution of ideas relating to different issues over the course of an extensive period of time.
The project consists of three components:
· An online guide to the archives. The guide discloses archive material relating to the establishment and operation of the constitutional committees and the implementation of their proposals.
· A digital access to a comprehensive series of core documents. These documents, in particular the minutes and reports of the committees, will be scanned and made accessible as images.
· A printed documentary edition. In this publication some of the several longstanding themes in the debate about the constitution will be documented in more detail through a selection of archival material.
The project is being carried out by the ING in cooperation with the Radboud University Nijmegen. Alongside the three ING components, a PhD study is being carried out on the political culture of constitutional committees in the period 1945 until 1983.
Eef Dijkhof and Jan Burgers
]]>