Adopting new tools means spending time learning through trial and error, making a mess of your research file organization system, starting over (and over) with a different tool, and working to maintain attention on the project’s goals not merely the means to achieve them. Occasionally it does us a disservice to adopt a new tool and can be almost catastrophically disruptive to transition to a new system mid-project. Scholars’ skepticism toward digital tools may be less to blame for the delayed adoption of new modes of working than the timeline of most research projects. How many technological advancements occur over the course of five or six (or seven or eight…) years? How many new tools emerge after the research project has taken root? Is it worth uprooting a research project in the service of promoting a culture of academic early adoption?

To complicate matters further, we learned today that there appear to be as many ways to find an answer to a question online as there are data to help construct an answer to that question. How are researchers expected to know what is the most efficient way to arrive at the best and most verifiable answer? If a tried and true method has worked for years, what incentive does an art historian (or humanist) have to break their research habits? On the other end of the spectrum, when does trying new tools and seeking out new ways to answer a question online become a bad habit? When does compulsive early-adoption be an impediment to substantive research? I’m not at this point and I certainly don’t think we need to be worrying too much about enthusiasm for DH getting the best of PhD candidates, but I do notice that I am inclined to pendulum between voraciously learning about and trying apps, software, cloud services, and social media and checking out from tech trends entirely. Is two weeks enough time to establish a more balanced approach?

Source: Habit Forming