On 26 August 2014 as part of the SCAR open science conference held in New Zealand, a panel session and discussion forum was conducted for humanities researchers, science communicators, social scientists, archivists, curators and artists with interests in interdisciplinary research. Most of the 30 attendees were members of the SCAR history expert group and the SCAR social sciences action group.

The forum topic was concerned with improving access and retrieval of archival sources for the benefit of social science researchers and scientists who need to use historical data from diaries, letters, reports and oral or visual communications. It aligned with the SCAR OSC social sciences and humanities sessions 44 (The presence of the past) and 45 (Methods and innovations in Polar social sciences and humanities).

The keynote address was by Susan Barr of the Fram Museum in Oslo, Norway. This concerned the publication of the diaries of Roald Amundsen and other members of his South Pole party. This case study was consistent with the theme described thus: ‘Transcription, translation and interpretation of these various sources by humanities researchers working in conjunction with scientists can provide valuable knowledge for both historians, and scientists.’ Of the 17 members of the expedition there are 15 diaries available for publication, most being held in publicly accessible repositories such as the National Library in Oslo.

Barr recounted the experience of engaging a team of volunteers to transcribe and translate the diaries, and some particular challenges including misinterpretations, obscure dialects, access rights, handwriting deciphering and elements of self-censuring. The diaries in general were not originally intended for publication and were prepared for publication verbatim, uncorrected and without commentary, thus providing accessible and valuable resources for researchers. Comparison of various descriptions of an event can lead to a better understanding or more balanced view, especially where certain diarists considered the event inconsequential or had a faulty memory when writing diaries in hindsight. Barr stressed that researchers should, wherever possible consult original documents.

An open discussion led by the first author followed the keynote presentation. The following prompts were circulated to the participants prior to the workshop:

• • Is there value in establishing a single register of polar diaries including details such as location, online address, format, accessibility, ownership and a short synopsis?

• • Is there value in establishing a register of historians who have transcribed diaries, correspondence or reports and who are willing to share their work? There is considerable duplication of effort transcribing materials of this sort.

• • What are the expectations of different research groups of how the diaries should be prepared for their specific questions?

• • What could be a useful platform to communicate the diaries?

Initial discussion centred on consideration of the types of data that can be extracted from the diaries and other personal sources? Various examples were cited that showed the broad interests of group members. Examples included landscape descriptions, weather records and descriptions, personal feelings (including evidence of friction within the group), cartographic data, wildlife observations, fish captures, sea ice information and sea level history.

The discussion then considered the particular challenges and problems encountered when researching using diaries. Access can be limited by physical location of the source (a significant challenge for researchers in Australia and New Zealand). Researchers find that digitised (scanned) copies of diaries available online bring savings in funds and time but scanning older documents is a risk to the fabric.

Many sources are still held in family or private collections and although the holders may be willing to grant access, ignorance of their availability can undermine effective research. Intellectual property issues are sometimes encountered, for example where descendants are unwilling to allow researchers the right to re-publish documents as they fear damage to the reputation of the diarist or invasion of privacy. This element also raises the issue of whether particular diaries were intended for publication and were self-censored or sanitised in the first instance.

On a more practical note, there are constant challenges related to interpretation of handwriting or particular terminology used in diaries and journals. The workshop members agreed that there is probably significant duplication of transcription effort, and any system that can facilitate sharing and exchange of electronic versions of diaries, correspondence and reports would be mutually beneficial to researchers in this field. Although sharing in this manner already occurs through informal collegial networks the workshop members agreed that there would be utility in development of a more formal mechanism

Discussion then turned to finding feasible solutions and ways in which members of the two groups could enact the next steps? Various solutions were discussed and there was some debate regarding whether such a project should proceed as an institutionally hosted, funded project or as an unfunded and simpler solution that could be initiated by interested parties using freely available resources. The discussion also considered the intellectual property issues and we will keep this in mind in the further process.

One possible solution would be a database that could be accessed via a dedicated web portal. Each diary or item would have an indication to prospective readers if the content is appropriate to their research direction. Information at the portal might include lists of known diaries, names of transcribers, digital copies or contact details for the owner of digital versions, notes on the quality or selective nature of the digital notes. This would save time by reducing unnecessary investigation of irrelevant resources. Such a solution would require significant funding, an institutional home, a specialist gatekeeper and a continuing employee to develop the collection. It could be a repository for electronic copies of original documents, a guide to location and access for documents held elsewhere or some combination of both.

More basic solutions not requiring institutional support include establishment of an email list for sharing by interested parties. The development of a moderated and collaborative website (‘Wiki’ which is a website to allow contributors to add, delete and modify content in collaboration with each other) is in progress and can be started by the end of January 2015. Both of these solutions could be activated quickly, most probably by interested parties from amongst the workshop attendees, and at nominal cost compared to a database and web portal concept. An email list could be an effective means of sharing information about obscure sources becoming available in the public domain but there seemed to be general agreement that the most effective and comprehensive solution was the development of a Wiki. Only a nominal amount of gatekeeping would be required after initial set up. It could be established without any funding then self-maintained by researchers with log-in access (to prevent advertising and spam). With the moderate website the history of entrances could be followed up and monitored, edited and restricted if necessary by the convenor (Ursula Rack) and co-convener (Andrew Atkin) with the possibility of a professional editor being employed. Some further work is required to determine layout and desired fields of information, but there appeared to be willingness to contribute time and effort to establishing such a sharing mechanism as a first step.

This workshop was a successful gathering for assessment of the level of concern and demand for improved services related to polar diary digitisation, transcription and translation. It provided a platform for the airing of specific challenges and the vibrant discussion generated ideas for future directions.

This is a project in progress and any feedback or suggestion to develop it further would be highly appreciated. Please, do not hesitate to contact us: ursula.rack@canterbury.ac.nz and andrew.atkin@canterbury.ac.nz