3.790 supporting the humanists, cont. (165)
Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca)
Mon, 27 Nov 89 22:09:28 EST
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 790. Monday, 27 Nov 1989.
(1) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 89 12:11:31 GMT (51 lines)
From: stephen clark <AP01@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK>
Subject: services or no
(2) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 89 17:05:43 GMT (58 lines)
From: MFFGKGN@CMS.MANCHESTER-COMPUTING-CENTRE.AC.UK
Subject: Computer Support
(3) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 89 04:08:00 EST (31 lines)
From: Espen Ore <espeno@navf-edb-h.uib.uninett>
Subject: supporting the humanists
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 89 12:11:31 GMT
From: stephen clark <AP01@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK>
Subject: services or no
[message forwarded from:
Lawrie Schonfelder <JLS@LIVCMS>]
The Director of our local computer services had this to say in response
to some of the recent discussion.
Stephen
//////////////Original message//////////////
Thanks for the forward of the discussion on USER SERVICE. That is a
debate which was raging in the UK some years ago. My view was and still
is in principle, that the best quality user service is provided by staff
who are "academics" who happen to provide a computing service rather
than teach undergraduates. This properly staffed provides a body of
people who understand academic research and teaching and are in sympathy
with its values and strains because they are involved. The problem is
one of cost. You need fairly large numbers of people to provide the
routine computing services and to still have time to devote to research.
You also need to have people who are active in research areas that
relate to most of the major areas where the service has users. In the
70s this worked well. There were a limited number of users from a
restricted set of relatively related disciplines,a relatively small
number of different facilities to support and staffing levels about the
same as now (in Liverpool's case more then than now). We user service
people of the day or at least some of us were "academics". We did do
quite a lot of R&D work and we did provide a highly expert user support
service. In general we knew how to use all the facilities better than
the users, and we understood most of their research needs. This is
sadly no longer the case. There are now 1000s of users from every
discipline in the book. The range of facilities is vast. The user
support programmer is rarely now an academic. (We don't have time to
allow research to any extent so we no longer attract many academically
motivated people, with a small number of notable exceptions). The
provision and maintenance of the essential enabling technologies is more
than fully stretching the staff we have. The result is that by and
large there are few facilities now available that are not better
understood by the main users than by the support staff. The "burn out"
mentioned by one of the notes is all too visible. Even within the
direct computing field support staff are hard pressed to keep up, and
probably are now well behind the state of the art where in the past they
were often leading it. The quality of service has and is falling. I
see little prospect of the situation getting better. The best I think we
can do is to rationalise what services are offered, limit these to what
can be achieved within the resources available allowing enough time for
scheduled professional updating of staff. (for some staff this may mean
involvement in directed R&D for others in specific training programmes)
I don't see any way out short of more resources and these are unlikely.
Lawrie Schonfelder
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------65----
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 89 17:05:43 GMT
From: MFFGKGN@CMS.MANCHESTER-COMPUTING-CENTRE.AC.UK
Subject: Computer Support
ON THE SUBJECT OF USER SUPPORT.
I HAVE BEEN IN A POSITION FOR THE PAST YEAR WHERE I HAVE BEEN PROVIDING
USER SUPPORT TO THE ARTS FACULTY, MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY, AND HAVE BEEN
FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION ON USER SUPPORT PERSONEL QUITE AVIDLY. I FIND
IT INTERESTING THAT NOT ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS HAVE SERIOUSLY
CONSIDERED, AT LEAST IN THE PRESENT DISCUSSION, THE POSSIBILITY OF
NON-ACADEMIC SUPPORT PERSONNEL.
AS I MYSELF DO NOT HOLD A DEGREE, EDUCATED TO 'A' LEVEL STANDARD, AND
HAVE ONLY LIMITED VOCATIONAL COURSES IN COMPUTING TO MY CREDIT - BUT A
WEALTH OF PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE GAINED OVER THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS,
I FEEL THAT THE CONTRIBUTORS TO THE PRESENT DISCUSSION ARE TO A DEGREE
MISSING THE POINT OF USER SUPPORT. USER SUPPORT PERSONNEL ARE IN THE
MAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR SOLVING BOTH GENERAL AND SPECIFIC POINTS REGARDING
PROBLEMS THAT OCCUR WITHIN THEIR FIELD - IN THIS CASE COMPUTING. AS THE
HUMANITIES COVERS A WIDE AREA IT IS NOT PRACTICAL TO EMPLOY A *
SPECIALIST ACADEMIC * TO SOLVE PROBLEMS, IN MY OPINION IT IS MORE
IMPORTANT FOR THE SUPPORT PERSONNEL TO KNOW ALL THE SYSTEMS USED ON
SITE, AND TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THEM PROPERLY.
MOST PROBLEMS FALL INTO TWO CATEGORIES;
1 HARDWARE, A BASIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORKINGS OF HARDWARE IS ESSENTIAL
IT IS SUPRISING HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO HELP IN A DEPT.
ONLY TO DISCOVER THAT THE USER HAS SIMPLY NOT TURNED ON THE MACHINE
MONITOR, PRINTER ETC., OR HAS NOT HAD THE PRINTER CONNECTED PROPERLY
IN-DEPTH KNOLEDGE OF THE ELECTRONIC SIDE IS NOT IMPORTANT AS SERVICE
PERSONNEL EXIST TO REPAIR FAULTY EQUIPMENT - AGAIN GENERALLY NON-DEGREE
HOLDERS.
2 SOFTWARE AND OPERATING SYSTEMS, A FAIRLY COMPREHENSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF
ALL SOFTWARE & O/S USED ON SITE IS ESSENTIAL. HOW CAN A PROBLEM BE
SOLVED IF THE WAY TO THE SOLUTION IS UNKNOWN? I READ A NOTE TODAY
STATING THAT COMPUTER SKILLS ARE EASY TO ACQUIRE, THIS MAY WELL BE TRUE,
BUT DO WE NOT ALL SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE(S), A PROBLEM CAN BE VERBALLY
DESCRIBED AND, GIVE US CREDIT HUMANISTS - SOME OF US NON ACADEMICS ARE
REALLY QUITE ARTICULATE- THEN SOLVED A LOT QUICKER IF THE SOLVER KNOWS
WHAT THEY ARE DOING. I TAKE IT AS AN INSULT TO READ DAILY ON HUMANIST
THE FACT THAT NOT BEING AN ACADEMIC, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS
THEY FACE. I CAN UNDERSTAND 99% OF PROBLEMS ARISING WHEN COMPUTERS ARE
UTILISED, AND AS SUCH CAN SOLVE THEM. WE DO NOT NEED TO BE BIBLICAL
SCHOLARS TO CREATE A BIBLICAL CONCORDANCE OR LITERARY EXPERTS TO DIG A
BIBLIOGRAPHY OUT OF AN ACADEMICS WORK.
I HAVE ONLY READ ONE NOTE - FROM A CHAP AT CAMBRIDGE - REFERRING TO THE
USE OF * SPECIALIST SUPPORT PERSONNEL * DOES THIS INDICATE THAT
HUMANISTS IN GENERAL HAVE A BIGOTTED ATTITUDE, IE. UNLESS YOU HAVE A
QUALIFICATION IN A DISCIPLINE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND IT, OR IS
IT JUST THAT A HUMANITIES APPLICATION VARIES DRASTICALLY FROM ANY OTHER?
COME ON HUMANISTS, GIVE US NON-ACADEMICS CREDIT.
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------46----
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 89 04:08:00 EST
From: Espen Ore <espeno@navf-edb-h.uib.uninett>
Subject: supporting the humanists
One reason that there has been no posting from Norway in the ongoing
debate is that many of the issues are quite foreign (pun intended) to
us. In Norway there is no such thing as tenured or non-tenured positions
(apart from research grants which are always time-limited, usually for 3
years). Once you have a position as a lecturer (or assistant professor)
your only worry is "will I ever get to be a full professor?"
At the universities in Oslo and Bergen there are special departments for
computing in the humanities. These departments give support, but they
also teach. Computing in the humanities is taken as a separate
dicipline where it is possible to take a one-year full time study. The
department for computing in the humanities (or rather "The Department for
Humanistic Informatics") at the University of Oslo also give a course in
"Knowledge and Information" in collaboration with the department of
Philosophy and the department of (scientific) Informatics.
At the Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities we are, within
certain limits given by the general economic situation and the Centre's
workload, encouraged to develop our own research. This includes money to
go to conferences etc.
On the other hand there are humanists in Norway who feel that a place
like our centre should have a certain blue-collar approach to its work.
The Centre is now undergoing an evaluation by an international commitee,
and time will show how this will influence our future.
Espen Ore