Tongue-tied?: An Active Analysis of Brian Friel's Translations

This article has arisen from a research-led production of Translations by Brian Friel for Queen’s University’s Tyrone Guthrie Society in February 2010. Drawing partly on a review of the existing critical literature and also from questions left unresolved by a previous experience of directing the play, the production sought to address through ‘active analysis’ (Merlin 2001) a number of research questions relating to the embodied nature of the rehearsal process and the historicity of Friel’s play. The analysis invokes Bergson (1910), Lefebvre (1991) and Worthern (2006) in establishing a performative correlative for insightful but more literary studies by Connolly (1993), Lojek (1994) and McGrath (1989 & 1999). A detailed account of the rehearsal process helps reveal the extent to which the idea of failure of communication is embedded in the text and embodied in performance, while an experiment with the partial use of the Irish language casts further light on Friel’s extraordinary device of rendering two languages through the medium of one. The use of music to counterpoint, rather than underscore the action, together with an achronological sequence of projected historical images inspired by Andrews (1983) provided me as director a means to challenge the audience’s presuppositions about the play. The sense of palimpsest, of the layered histories, that this evoked also served to highlight Friel’s use of the wider stylistic palette of Anglo-Irish drama, revealing Translations as a forerunner for Stewart Parker’s more explicit formal experiments in Northern Star. In rehearsal and performance Friel’s place in the continuum of the Irish theatrical canon became clear, as stylistic allusions to O’Casey, Shaw, Wilde and Beckett were embodied by the actors on the rehearsal room floor.

Assessing and measuring impact of a digital collection in the humanities: An analysis of the SPHERE (Stormont Parliamentary Hansards: Embedded in Research and Education) Project

Although a substantial corpus of digital materials is now available to scholarship across the disciplines, objective evidence of their use, impact, and value, based on a robust assessment, is sparse. Traditional methods of assessment of impact in the humanities, notably citation in scholarly publications, are not an effective way of assessing impact of digital content. These issues are problematic in the field of Digital Humanities where there is a need to effectively assess impact to justify its continued funding and existence. A number of qualitative and quantitative methods exist that can be used to monitor the use of digital resources in various contexts although they have yet to be applied widely. These have been made available to the creators, managers, and funders of digital content in an accessible form through the TIDSR (Toolkit for the Impact of Digital Scholarly Resources) developed by the Oxford Internet Institute. In 2011, the authors of this article developed the SPHERE project (Stormont Parliamentary Hansards: Embedded in Research and Education) specifically to use TIDSR to evaluate the use and impact of The Stormont Papers, a digital collection of the Hansards of the Stormont Northern Irish Parliament from 1921 to 1972. This article presents the methodology, findings, and analysis of the project. The authors argue that TIDSR is a useful and, critically, transferrable method to understand and increase the impact of digital resources. The findings of the project are modified into a series of wider recommendations on protecting the investment in digital resources by increasing their use, value, and impact. It is reasonable to suggest that effectively showing the impact of Digital Humanities is critical to its survival.