Digital humanities in US academic libraries: case studies

Abstract

Purpose

Digital Humanities is a robust area of research and practice at universities and their libraries across the world. This case study investigates the unique DH practices of seven US academic libraries to provide insights into how varied academic libraries operate their DH programs.

Design/methodology/approach

Semi-structured interviews with nine library staff in DH or DH-adjacent positions at seven US academic libraries were used to investigate library DH practices.

Findings

This case study highlighted key areas of academic library DH practices including Space, Technology, Staff, Instruction and Collaboration. Practices in these areas were compared against each other and literature to comment on the current state of DH library practices and offer some recommendations for select areas.

Research limitations/implications

This case study interviewed staff in a limited number of US libraries and is not generalizable to or a reflection of the many academic libraries in the US or across the world.

Originality/value

The juxtaposition of multiple libraries’ DH activities provides a unique perspective on academic library DH practice, as many studies investigate only a single library as their subject.

Citation

Habing, K. and Ruan, L. (2024), "Digital humanities in US academic libraries: case studies", Digital Transformation and Society, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/DTS-03-2024-0040

1. Introduction

Digital Humanities (DH) is a robust and evolving field which combines traditional humanities subjects with cutting-edge digital tools and methods. The commonly repeated origin story of DH places its start in the 1940s when the writings of Italian theologian and saint Thomas Aquinas were indexed on punch cards. Over the decades since then, the opportunities and possibilities for DH have expanded as new technologies have been developed, through the work of many scholars and practitioners across diverse fields and the establishment of new publications and conferences to showcase DH pursuits and bring together those involved in DH.

Academic libraries have been those at universities in the US and across the world who have dived into DH, especially through the creation of their own DH programs and services. A 2019 survey of academic librarians across the world conducted by Library Journal and Gale found that 54% of respondents’ libraries have DH capabilities, although there were fewer libraries at small colleges engaged in DH than those at large research institutions. The survey showed that academic libraries play a leading role in promoting DH on campuses and most respondents expected that library DH work would increase in the year following the survey (Library Journal, 2019).

This case study investigates the DH practices at seven US academic libraries to gain an initial insight into the current state of US academic library DH practices, especially the day-to-day realities of providing library DH programs and services. Interviews with DH or DH-adjacent library staff, such as those in digital scholarship positions, were used to develop an understanding of their current library DH practices. Considering the fact that the above 2019 survey report was published prior to the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, this case study’s findings may provide insights into the state of academic libraries’ DH activities in the post-pandemic era.

2. Background

This case study’s literature review focused on peer-reviewed papers on DH (or digital scholarship, taking it as a DH-adjacent term) in US academic libraries from 2017 to 2023, focusing on work which discusses DH library practice rather than specific projects or library research outputs. Five key areas of library DH practices emerged from literature which would inform the study’s design: Space, Technology, Staff, Instruction and Collaboration.

Literature which focused specifically on DH library spaces and DH technology were not as abundant as the other four key areas and were often mentioned by authors in passing, such as DH activities occurring at a DH library space or being conducted with a specific tool. Some literature on DH library space discussed best practices and the purpose of a space, such as Craft’s (2018) summary of a workshop in which panelists discussed DH spaces including the need to design spaces while considering the opportunities, services and needs of an institution, as well as keeping in mind the question “Do you want traffic or community?” Additionally, it may be the case that many DH or adjacent spaces in libraries are not identified by the term “Digital Humanities.” For example, Jeffcoat and Colati (2018) did not include the word “digital” in their space’s title or promotional materials so the space can adapt to future research needs beyond and Webb (2018) said that a DH lab may also be known as a Digital Scholarship Center, further emphasizing the connection between the two fields. Webb’s description of DH labs also said that they especially support faculty DH work as well as upper-level graduate students, and often have space for consultations and workshops. Two of the DH labs used by Webb as case studies participated in this paper’s study. When it came to DH technology in libraries, some literature focused on users’ interactions with technology, such as Morgan (2018) who found that DH researchers often consider the perceived “easiness” of tools when deciding what to use for a project, and that this perception may create challenges when tools are more difficult than expected. However, Morgan also found that libraries can take on a key role in mitigating these challenges. Additionally, while the digital is a key part of DH, Knight, Rodrigues, and Ciota (2020) found that the quality or value of a DH project does not depend on the tool, but on goals and procedures. Webb’s description of DH labs also listed common equipment contained in them, especially powerful computers, monitors and digitization software as well as software such as GIS, text analysis and digital publishing.

Instruction and Staff were areas of much discussion in literature, beyond Space and Technology but less so than Collaboration. Instruction and training were found to be critical areas of DH work in academic libraries especially through workshops and embedded instruction. Norris, Clemons, and Watson (2023) included several recommendations related to instruction for improving or increasing digital scholarship on campus, including offering workshops on digital tools and methods, offering classroom consultations and creating a library guide on digital scholarship. Literature on DH library staff often discussed the skills or qualities needed for those engaged in DH library work, especially soft skills such as collaboration and communication (Hartsell-Gundy, Lawton, & Rozear, 2020; Yao & Xiao, 2022; Zhang, Xue, & Xue, 2021) as well as project management (Miller, 2018; Hartsell-Gundy et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021). However, some authors also stated the need for technical skills alongside humanities and soft skills (Cobb & Gulub, 2022) or a need for stronger focus on technical skills (Anderson, 2021). Many papers touched on the role or purpose of DH activities in libraries, such as Su, Zhang, and Immel (2021) who found that many aspects of the library and information science field such as collection resources, archives and access are common threads across DH projects. While there is a downward trend in DH research which focuses on libraries or librarians which may be due to the ubiquity of DH to the profession or academic librarians’ outputs not being limited to publications (Joo, Hootman, & Katsurai, 2022), librarians are still taking on key roles in DH projects as leaders (Gibson, 2019) and as knowledge creators and research partners (Zhang et al., 2021).

Within the reviewed literature, Collaboration was the most prominent theme. The overwhelming presence of collaboration in literature reveals DH as a field in which collaboration is inherent and, in many cases, necessary for the success of projects. For instance, Lucky and Harkema (2018) found that collaborative relationships were as important as the technical and operational aspects of DH projects; Knight et al. (2020) found that shared labor and work with “expert knowledge pools” were critical to DH project completion and Yao and Xiao (2022) found that balanced collaborations and equal partnerships are necessary in DH work. Collaboration also contributed to other literature areas, especially instruction where collaboration between librarians and instructors such as through embedded instruction increased engagement with students (Duever & McGinn, 2020) and increased student use of a DH center (Lach & Pollard, 2019). Additionally, collaboration or collaboration-adjacent terms were commonly described as necessary qualities for DH library staff, such as by Yao and Xiao (2022) and Zhang et al. (2021). Hartsell-Gundy et al. (2020) found that collaboration, and other soft skills, were amongst the most critical lessons learned by librarians engaging in a DH project. Literature reveals that in DH practice, collaboration is a driving force.

3. Methodology

3.1 Semi-structured interview

To investigate academic library DH practices through case studies, the semi-structured interview was used as the case study’s primary method. The strength of the semi-structured interview includes the ability to address complex topics and allow for broad comparisons across interviews (Chauncey, 2014), and to generate both qualitative and quantitative data as well as opportunities for follow-up questions (Courage & Baxter, 2005). As the study explored multiple facets of academic library DH practices across several libraries, the use of the semi-structured interview would generate more abundant results from each library’s unique situation and allow for more successful compare and contrast across interviews. The interview’s eight primary questions were designed while keeping in mind an example put forth by Galleta and Cross (2016), whose semi-structured interview questions began with open-ended questions to start generating data from respondents’ experiences, followed by more specific questions about initial responses and areas of interest, and finishing with a return to more open-ended questions especially theoretical questions.

3.2 Selection criteria and participants

Recruitment of participants began following a determination by the author’s Institutional Review Board that the study was Non-Human Subject Research with no further oversight required.

Selection criteria for academic institutions to participate in the case study included the fact that they were located in the US, were not a community college and had an academic library with DH or DH-adjacent staff and services. The authors identified well-known academic institutions, both public and private, in states across the country and used the publicly available information on their library websites to identify those that had DH or DH-adjacent staff or services. They were identified by using the publicly available information and directories of various US academic libraries, and they were contacted via their university emails with a request to interview. The only selection criteria for participants was that at the time of interviews, they were in a DH or DH-adjacent position (ex. digital scholarship, DH support staff) at a US academic library. No other selection criteria were used for participants.

Nine staff from seven academic libraries agreed to be interviewed, with three responding from the same library and two of those three asking to be interviewed together (Library 4, see tables in Section 4). The participants represented seven diverse academic libraries from across the US in the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, South Central and Southeast regions. Their collection sizes range from nearly 5.4 million to 15.7 million volumes and total library expenditures range from $9.8 million to $76.3 million. They serve populations of 16,500 to nearly 68,000 undergraduate and graduate students, as well as faculty and staff. At the time of interviews, the participants’ time in their current positions ranged from less than 1 year to 12 years.

3.3 Interview process

Interviews occurred over 5 months via Zoom. They occurred based on the provided availability of the participants and the Zoom was set up by the interviewers. Two interviewers facilitated each interview and began the interview with a brief introduction to themselves and the purpose of the interview. Each participant was asked eight primary questions as designed according to the Galleta and Cross (2016) approach above:

1. Can you introduce yourself, such as your background and how you came to hold your current position?

2. What is the history and development of your library’s DH program?

3. Can you describe your library’s DH resources and spaces, both physical and virtual?

4. What opportunities for DH instruction and training do you offer?

5. How does your DH program collaborate with others?

6. What key qualities are needed in DH staff?

7. How would you describe the benefits and opportunities of your DH program to those unfamiliar with it?

8. What are future goals for your DH program?

The two interviewers alternated who asked each question. Follow-up questions were used as needed on a case-by-case basis to clarify points that participants touched upon and to redirect participants back to questions if they went off track. Interviews were recorded, with each lasting an average of 50 minutes. The interviews ended with time for participants to add further details on any topics that they wished to return to.

The interviews were recorded, with each lasting an average of 50 minutes. Recordings were transcribed by the authors, with one hour of interview corresponding to roughly ten hours of transcription. Intelligent transcription was used to remove redundant words and improve clarity. Transcription resulted in 68 pages of interviews.

Following transcription, the two authors jointly conducted initial analysis of interviews using inductive coding in which codes emerged from interview responses. Due to the small data size, no qualitative data analysis software was used, and interviews were coded manually by the authors. As interview questions were derived following literature review, emerging themes closely matched the broad literature areas of Space, Technology, Staff, Instruction and Collaboration. The following Findings section summarizes each of the seven libraries’ DH practices in these areas.

4. Findings

The following sections summarize the DH library practices of the seven libraries represented in this case study in the areas of Space, Technology, Staff, Instruction and Collaboration. These sections correspond directly to questions 3 (Space, Technology), 4 (Staff), 5 (Instruction) and 6 (Collaboration). Participants’ responses to the other interview questions on background, benefits and opportunities of DH and future goals for their DH programs all touched on these topics to varying degrees, thus responses to these questions have been integrated with the summaries and tables found in the further sections.

Libraries are referred to as Library 1–7 (L1-7) to maintain anonymity and are arranged in the order that interviews of their library staff occurred with L1 being the first and L7 the last. Participants are referred to according to the number of their library, with the three participants from Library 4 who were interviewed being 4.1 and 4.2a/4.2b for the two participants who were interviewed together.

4.1 Space

Findings on the topic of DH spaces in libraries correspond to interview question 3: Can you describe your library’s DH resources and spaces, both physical and virtual?

Interviews found that of the libraries represented in the case study, those with dedicated-DH spaces are in the minority. The participant from L6 was the only participant who confidently stated that at the time of interviews they had a dedicated library space for DH. However, the space was not technologically advanced and was described as a repurposed conference room which was underutilized and unstaffed. In contrast to L6, Participant L3 described the active development of a new and vibrant library digital scholarship space which would also be used for DH activities. There would be staff presence, and there would be multiple areas for collaboration and instruction.

The majority of participants (L1, L2, L4, L5, L7) stated that there were no dedicated-DH spaces in their libraries. Of these, three (L2, L4, L5) said that there was no need for a dedicated-DH library space because there were other spaces in the library or on campus which patrons could use to conduct DH work. These were not spaces that were shared or managed in part by library DH staff, but that they could direct patrons to. Interestingly, while Participant L1 said they did not have a dedicated-DH space, they used to have one which was recently removed from this status due to both lack of use and staffing.

Table 1 summarizes the presence or lack of presence in the seven libraries:

4.2 Technology

Findings on the topic of DH technology in libraries correspond to interview question 3: Can you describe your library’s DH resources and spaces, both physical and virtual?

While the majority of the participants do not have a physical DH space, and thus the hardware they have available for patron use was described less than software, all but one participant (L7) described hardware that is available to patrons for DH work whether this is at a dedicated space or in another library or campus space. This hardware most often included computers and scanning equipment. The availability of higher end media equipment in Library 4 stems from the DH Librarian’s close partnership with their library’s scholarly space which provides these tools alongside extensive staff support to assist and instruct patrons in the use of these tools.

DH software was described by participants far more than hardware, with a focus on open-source software. Tools for web publishing (especially Omeka and Scalar) were listed by all but two participants as DH tools that they provide extensive support for. Mapping, Optical Character Recognition and data analysis or visualization tools were also described by participants.

Table 2 summarizes the specific tools or families of hardware and software that participants state they provide support for or have worked with in the past:

4.3 Staff

Findings on the topic of DH staff in libraries correspond to interview question 6: What key qualities are needed in DH staff?

Discussion of DH staff during interviews covered two areas: descriptions of current staffing and qualities needed for DH library staff. Of the participants, three were solo DH librarians (4.1, 5 and 6), while the others were on teams of between two and five staff members including themselves. Team members’ job titles included: Application Development Specialist, Imaging Specialist, DH Consultant, Digital Scholarship Specialist and Metadata Engagement Librarian. Some participants also mentioned working with staff who report to them only part time, such as an IT support staff on Participant 1’s team, or staff who do not report to their team at all, such as GIS and geo-spatial staff and digital scholarship liaison librarians at Library 3, and a GIS and Visualization Librarian at Library 7. Participant 2 further stated that DH-adjacent or digital scholarship new hires at their institution are not being hired as librarians, but as IT staff. In addition to these staff members, all but two participants, 1 and 4.1, work with graduate student employees. Of the libraries who hire students in DH, most hire from the humanities disciplines and do not require students to be in a library or information science program.

Participants’ discussions of qualities needed for DH library staff focused primarily on soft skills, especially those related to working with people (i.e. collaboration, communication, relationship building, listening, etc.) in addition to project management and related qualities. Technology related skills were only specifically mentioned by two participants, but with no specific emphasis given to certain skills and one only describing DH library staff needed “general” technology skills.

Table 3 lists the skills and qualities that participants at each library described as necessary for DH library staff:

4.4 Instruction

Findings on the topic of DH instruction in libraries correspond to interview question 4: What opportunities for DH instruction and training do you offer?

Workshops, classroom instruction and consultations were common methods of instruction listed by participants. Workshops were described the most by all participants but Participant 5 (who described only conducting embedded instruction) as being extensively used for DH instruction, followed by embedded instruction occurring in classrooms by four participants and individual consultations with patrons by four participants. Each participant gave examples of common instructional topics they focused on during workshops, embedded instruction or individual consultations. Participants described a wide range of instruction topics, however instruction which concerned digital exhibits or publishing (especially Omeka and Scalar, as well as mentions of WordPress and online exhibits/websites in general) were described by all participants as topics of much focus in instruction.

Table 4 lists the instruction methods used by each participant and specific topics that they have instructed on in the past:

4.5 Collaboration

Findings on the topic of DH collaboration in libraries correspond to interview question 5: How does your DH program collaborate with others?

All participants collaborated with other library staff and library units as well as other departments and offices across their campus. Only three participants described work with groups outside of their institution. Internal library collaborations provided resources and the ability to connect patrons with library staff who have the expertise needed to assist with a DH project beyond the expertise of dedicated DH library staff. Internal institution collaborations provided access to resources and opportunities for instruction and programming to the greater campus community. External collaborations with groups outside of the university provided opportunities for presentations and instruction with external groups or to work on DH projects.

Table 5 lists the collaborators at these three levels which were provided by participants:

5. Discussion

The above findings from each case study in the five areas of Space, Technology, Staff, Instruction and Collaboration provide insight into how each library operates their library’s DH programs and services. Based on findings, the following sections evaluate these practices in DH library practices, offering initial thoughts for those providing DH services in academic libraries.

5.1 Dedicated DH library space

The lack of dedicated DH spaces paralleled the lack of focus on DH spaces in literature. In addition to this lack, several participants also expressed ambivalence towards DH spaces, such as the participant from Library 2 who described a conversation that they had with a graduate student in which the student said, “I don’t know why I would come, because I would rather do this on my laptop. Why would I come to this space and work on this computer?” In recent years, there have been increases in personal computer and device ownership, with a 2018 Pew report on college students and technology finding that students’ access to devices such as a desktop computer, laptop, tablet or smartphone was nearly universal (Galanek, Gierdowski, & Brooks, 2018). Due to high levels of device ownership, which may have increased even further due to work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic, this case study indicates that the demand for dedicated DH spaces in libraries may not be high. For those academic libraries who are considering creating a DH library space, it is crucial to take into consideration the physical space and hardware needs of users and decide whether such a space is warranted. Even well prior to the recent pandemic, there was some discussion of the necessity of DH spaces, such as a 2014 report from OCLC which concluded that in many cases they are not necessary and may not be best located in the library (Schaffner & Erway, 2014). At the one library in this study, Library 3, which is in the process of creating a space, Participant 3 emphasized that the space is intended to be collaborative and that it will be a staffed space through the creation of a new librarian position dedicated to the space. Collaboration and instruction were strong discussion topic across all interviews as key aspects of their operations, and a space which is set up intentionally for collaboration with staff who can provide instruction may be the key to enlivening library DH spaces and creating utility for DH library users.

5.2 Open-source technology and funding

The use of open-source tools was a topic of conversation across nearly all interviews and was given as the reason for lack of more specific hardware or software by several participants such as 4.1 who said that there is “a very empowering and exciting trend in Digital Humanities to make Digital Humanities tools open-source, easy to use, and web-based.” While this echoes Morgan’s (2018) discussion of the pitfalls of portraying DH tools as “easy,” the dangers of perceived ease of DH tools by researchers could be balanced by the attitudes of DH library staff towards DH tools. For instance, Participant 7 said that “it’s really the people and the time that we provide as resources more than any equipment or software” and Participant 6 stated that they are “tool agnostic” and they teach patrons about “the practice, the methodologies, the critical questions, instead of pushing tools.” By giving more importance to teaching library users about DH methodologies rather than only how to use specific tools, DH library staff can help create more resilient and adaptable DH practitioners who are less likely to become frustrated with the difficulties of using a DH tool. DH library staff should be aware of the open-source tools that exist for DH, as well as those that may be provided through their institution, but stronger emphasis should be placed on helping library users gain transferable research skills and to think critically about their DH projects.

Technology was also often discussed by participants as a challenge due to funding. Participants 4.2a and 4.2b from Library 4, who manage a DH-adjacent space and are a key partner of Library 4’s DH librarian, described the difficulties of funding their technology heavy space. Difficulties came from rapid technology turnover requiring regular injection of funds and challenges in justifying the need for funding to their institution due to the unique nature of their space and technology that they offer. It is important to them that they keep their technology up to date so that “members of the campus community have access to [up to date tools], not tools that are eight years old or ten years old which you may find in a lot of tech-enhanced spaces in an institution of this size.” In addition to the cost of technology, DH library staff may also consider the cost (in staff time) to keep technology up to date and digital project accessible as there are many DH projects which are no longer accessible and the average time they are available is only a few years (Hoeve, 2018; Meneses & Furuta, 2019). Participants also highlighted the cost of DH tools that are not open source, such as Participant 7 who acknowledged that they are located in a wealthy institution and that those who leave the institution may not be able to afford licenses for the same DH tools. DH library staff should seek out sources of recurring funding to support technology turnover, and critically assess whether technology is in demand by users before committing to purchases. The use of open-source software will allow patrons to continue their DH work, whether they remain at an institution or not.

5.3 Technology skills

Across all participants, “People Skills” or “Soft Skills” above technology skills were the most prominently described key qualities for DH library staff, especially through the terms collaborative, partnership and open-minded. Participant 1 described the need for DH staff to be collaborative because DH is “not a solo show” and one person will not have all the expertise needed for a project. The emphasis on collaboration as an important DH library staff quality and the lack of emphasis on technology skills in DH library staff connects to a challenge in providing DH library services as described by several participants. Participants, 2, 4.1 and 6 all described not being able to know all of the DH tools that exist, due to the high variety in what tools patrons are interested in many types of DH projects, and lack of time to learn about them. Therefore, DH library staff’s ability to proactively collaborate with others in their library or on campus who have the technical skills and knowledge that they do not have is crucial to library DH services. However, technology skills are still necessary for DH library staff. Some previous literature has discussed the need for technical skills in DH library staff, such as Anderson (2021), who observed that specialized and technically competent DH teams are being replaced with those that are focused on DH discourse, and that there is a need for technically skilled DH professionals as technology becomes more complex. Cobb and Gulub (2022) also noted that a missing component of DH education in iSchools was both the broad implementation of DH as well as deep technical knowledge. The need for deep technical knowledge and the impossibility of knowing it all underscores the importance of being collaborative and having a strong desire to continue learning as expressed by the participants. As Participant 2 stated, one cannot specialize in all tools so learning how a tool functions and the resources that are available to learn about it are crucial to assisting researchers.

5.4 Instruction and training

Participants described the instruction and training that they engage in from three aspects: workshops, classroom instruction and consultations. Every participant except for Participant 5 described extensive use of workshops from one-off events to series. Topics workshops covered included text analysis, digital exhibit tools and practices, GitHub, R, citation managers, mapping tools, assessing data sources and introduction to DH. Some literature has described the utility of the workshop form for DH instruction, such as Powell and Kong (2017) who found that librarian participation in week-long workshops improved student learning and benefited the library. Classroom instruction occurred when participants worked with faculty to incorporate DH into their course syllabus or through direct instruction with their students. Participants 2, 3, 4.1, 5 and 6 engaged in embedded instruction. As many of the participants described their lack of dedicated-DH space, embedded instruction may serve as a way for libraries without a DH space to bring the DH directly to students and faculty in the classroom, such as a case described by Griffin and Taylor (2017).

Consultations were mentioned by Participants 2, 3, 4.2, 5 and 7 as key methods of instruction, and the importance that they give to consultations matches with other literature about DH consultations such as the reflective article by Bonds (2018) who described consultations as opportunities for meaningful engagement with researchers and impact. Participant G stated that “our core suit of services is providing free consultations to everyone,” and in consultations they especially focus on discussing data management plans and asking researchers to think about why their project needs to be digital. Participants 42.a and 42.b take different approaches to instructional consultations depending on the user’s expertise and specialization: for instance, a media student might want to know more about the backend of the software they are learning about while another user may only want to know how to get a finished product. The D2 participants also approach instruction with the attitude of “pushing people to help themselves” through encouraging users to look for other resources than the ones they provide and developing skills on their own.

5.5 Collaboration challenges

While collaboration was a strong focus in reviewed literature and all participants listed collaborations with various groups in the library or across their institution and even outside of their institution, it was also described by participants as a challenge. Collaboration was especially challenging through difficulties in working with faculty during instruction, projects and online exhibits. Participant 5 said that it can be difficult to work with instructors since they may not have space on their syllabus for embedded instruction, and it is hard to change courses due to their institution being on the quarter system. Participant 6 said that they came into their role expecting to work closely with faculty, however as funding waned faculty were not as interested in collaborating. Additionally, Participant 6 said that faculty may desire to begin with very large projects, rather than begin using DH methods and tools through a smaller project. Participant 7 said that working with librarians and curators for online exhibits was difficult, as these groups “don’t like to follow the rules or the documentation that we provide for them. We have accessibility commitments that we have to make for each thing that we put out in the world, so there’s a lot of following up and it’s just really time and labor intensive.” The use of best practices in DH collaborations, such as those presented by Knight et al. (2020) for DH projects, and clear frameworks for collaborations as suggested by Yao and Xiao (2022) could be useful in reducing the difficulties of internal DH collaborations. Collaborations are key to providing library DH services, and clear guidelines for collaboration could be beneficial to DH library staff who are already stretched thin across many responsibilities.

Additionally, collaborations with groups outside of their institution were rarer than those within, suggesting that external collaborations present more challenges than internal. For example, Participant 2 said that they were hesitant about external collaborations due to not having the capacity, time or energy to spend creating them. Due to the number of solo staff or very small DH teams in the libraries represented in this study, others may face similar challenges in external collaborations. Taking grant funding from an external organization as another source of external collaboration, grant projects were another source of challenges due to their unsustainability and the high amount of labor needed to gain grant funding and implement grant projects. At the same time, many participants expressed interest in working on grant funded projects, and DH technologies and innovations have often by supported by grant-funding from federal or foundation sources (Berkery & Windhorn, 2019). There is clearly tension between the need for sustainable sources of funding and the desire to collaborate with grant funding organizations on DH projects.

6. Conclusion

This study had three main limitations: semi-structured interview method, focus only on large academic libraries and focus on US libraries. First, this study’s major limitation is the semi-structured interview method. Use of an interview method limits the number of participants that can be feasibly interviewed and thus limited the size of this study to nine participants from seven libraries. Therefore, this study cannot be generalizable to or a reflection of the many other academic libraries in the US Second, the study focused on only large academic libraries, excluding smaller institutions or community colleges. While the libraries at these institutions may have DH initiatives, they may not have the same level of funding, support or other resources to utilize the study’s findings, and due to the vast variety of academic institutions and their scholarly environments, DH practices at other academic libraries may be vastly different from those discussed in this paper. Finally, the study did not investigate the DH practices of libraries outside of the US This further limits the generalizability and applicability of the study for libraries at academic institutions in other countries, as their institutional and cultural contexts may vary widely from those at US institutions. The overall perspective and view of library DH practices in this study is limited due to lack of inclusion of international DH practitioners.

This case study highlighted the DH practices of seven US academic libraries’ DH programs and services in the five identified areas. This study provided only an initial view of the varying approaches to operating DH library services, and future studies should investigate a larger population of varying sizes of institutions to draw more generalizable conclusions and recommendations about the topics found here. Additionally, further studies are needed which compare the DH practices at US academic libraries to those at international libraries, to strengthen the international DH community and generate opportunities for learning from other approaches to providing DH library services. Finally, at the time that these interviews occurred, Artificial Intelligence had not yet become such a highly discussed topic. Future studies should seek to understand how AI is being applied to and changing library DH practices.

Table 1

Dedicated DH library space

	Is there a DH-dedicated space?	Details
L1	No	There was a dedicated-DH lab which was created in 2013, however due to lack of use and lack of staffing it was converted to a space open to the public when not in use for DH events in 2023
L2	No	There are other campus spaces that can be used for DH projects
L3	In progress	A digital scholarship research center was being constructed at the time the interview occurred. It will contain a 32-seat data lab for instruction, project rooms, scanning equipment, study spaces, staff presence and accompanying LibGuide with information on DH tools
L4	No	There is another library space which can be used for DH projects
L5	No	There are other spaces in the library and on campus that can be used for DH projects
L6	Yes	A conference room was repurposed as a DH lab with capacity for 18 and has been used for presentations, consultations and workshops. The space is underutilized and unstaffed
L7	No	No dedicated-DH space beyond staff office space

Source(s): Table by authors

Table 2

Hardware and software for DH in the library

	Available hardware for DH? (Including those in non-DH dedicated spaces)	Supported/available software for DH
L1	Workstations; audio studio; wide format scanner; professional grade flatbed scanner with transparency adapter	Photoshop; Optical Character Recognition; 3D game design; variety of open-source software
L2	Bloomberg terminals; Zoom-enabled spaces	Data software; Omeka; Tableau Public; Air Table; ArcGIS; Story Map; file sharing systems; computer assisted design; data visualization
L3	Scanning equipment; computers with quantitative and qualitative data analysis software	Optical Character Recognition; Natural Language Processing; Handwritten Text Recognition; text analysis; NVIVO; SPSS; Stata
L4	Self-use media studios with cameras, microphones, studio speakers, high-end monitors; staffed video studio with high-end cameras and microphones, studio backdrop and lighting; staffed VR/AR/XR studio with 360-video capture, immersive audio production with multi-speaker system, green screens and dynamic lighting	Optical Character Recognition; ArcGIS; R; Scalar; Omeka; Press Books; media creation software; VR; AR; XR; generative AI; variety of open-source software
L5	Computers	Omeka; Scalar; WordPress; text mining; ArcGIS; data visualization; Adobe Suite; variety of open-source software
L6	Computers; flatscreens for projection	Zotero; Omeka
L7	None	GIS; Omeka; Leaflet; Cytoscape; Zotero; Tropy; variety of open-source software

Source(s): Table by authors

Table 3

Skills and qualities of DH library staff

	Soft skills or qualities needed for DH library staff	Technology skills needed for DH library staff
L1	Collaboration; Open mindedness; Understanding of the scholarly environment; Legal awareness	None described
L2	Collaboration; Self-management; Time management; Project management; Prioritization; Ability to see the big picture; Communication	None described
L3	Relationship building; Reference; Ability to learn new information; Instruction	None described
L4	Deep listening; Deep learning; Flexibility; Project management; Willingness to experiment; Lifelong learning	Knowing how to troubleshoot; Ability to find documentation; Ability to quickly learn new software and teach someone about it
L5	Project management; Curiosity; Creativity	General technology skills
L6	Adaptability; Community building; Willingness to learn	None described
L7	Collaboration; Willingness to learn; Open mindedness; Flexibility; Critical thinking	None described

Source(s): Table by authors

Table 4

Instruction methods and topics

	Instruction methods used	Past instruction topics
L1	Workshops	Data analysis; text analysis; digital exhibits; GitHub; data management; R
L2	Workshops; Embedded Instruction; Consultations	Project management; data visualization; understanding data source contexts; documenting information in research; presenting information on websites
L3	Workshops; Embedded Instruction; Consultations	Omeka; Scalar; web accessibility; DH resources; project management; sustainability
L4	Workshops; Embedded Instruction; Consultations	History harvest; AI; Omeka; using video and media tools
L5	Embedded Instruction	WordPress; basic technology skills; Omeka; Scalar
L6	Workshops; Embedded Instruction	Citation managers such as Zotero; mapping; text analysis; R; Omeka
L7	Workshops; Consultations	Digital Scholarship 101; text analysis; Omeka; Tropy; Zotero; GIS; online exhibits

Source(s): Table by authors

Table 5

Levels of collaboration

	Are there internal library collaborations?	Are there internal institution collaborations?	Are there external collaborations?
L1	Yes Library Director; Archivist; GIS Specialist; Other librarians	Yes College of Letters and Science; Center for 21st Century Studies; Graduate Certificate in Digital Cultures; School of Information Studies; School of Arts; College of Architecture; Graduate students from various departments; Office of Research; Dean of Humanities; Director of Digital Arts and Cultures	Yes Carpentries Workshops; Mellon Foundation; Local museums
L2	Yes IT	Yes Center for Data and Visualization Science; Humanities Institute; Digital knowledge lab; Art and history visual culture lab; Office of Research Support; Graduate School	Yes Mellon Foundation; Fellows from other institutions; Nearby universities
L3	Yes Liaison librarians; Assessment; IT; Facilities; Research Data Services; Library administration	Yes Faculty from various departments; Campus DH initiative; Graduate students from various departments; DH List Serv members; Cross-campus committees	No
L4	Yes Library scholars commons; Research and data services; Library emerging technology committee	Yes School of Information Science; Faculty from various departments	No
L5	Yes Various librarians and library units who are experts on diverse topics	Yes Faculty from various departments; Campus center for the humanities	No
L6	Yes Black Studies Librarian; Archivist	Yes Faculty from various departments; Graduate students from various departments; Campus DH initiative	No
L7	Yes Parent unit (learning and teaching division); Visualization Librarian; GIS Librarian; Digital Scholarship advisory committee members from across the library; Publishing Division; Research Division IT; Facilities; Medical Library; Mapping Library; Digital Preservation; Repositories	Yes Faculty from various departments; undergraduate and graduate students from various departments; Office of DEI; Graduate School; Technology services	Yes Outside speakers who provide lectures, presentations, workshops

Source(s): Table by authors