In developing the database, our approach embraced the complex dynamics of a large, international team of scholars, each bringing diverse perspectives and research interests. This project sought not to streamline or impose hierarchical decisions but to explore and respect the inherent incommensurabilities of our varied academic landscapes and this approach was reflected in the methodologies used to create the database. Therefore, the various stages of database construction, from the design of the schema to the construction of the CIDOC-CRM critiques, involved in-depth discussions about data ethics and representation, and involved questioning the ontology and terminologies used in the database.
While the London team led the development of the database and all the related activities, its creation was a collaborative and iterative process between members of all teams. During the different stages of development, team meetings facilitated a critical dialogue that informed development decisions. The critical positions towards databases and data centric methods of several members of WPC led the London team to question and rethink the foundations of the practices in their discipline. This fruitful collaboration was what brought the members of the London team closer to the critical and decolonial approaches that were being led by the Amsterdam and Montreal teams, which have also started to emerge in the Digital Humanities and documentation.
Following the foundational meetings that explored the conceptual underpinnings of "worlding" a database, the teams delved deeper into the specifics of implementing these ideas. Utilizing tools like Miro [refer to illustration below ] facilitated a comprehensive overview of the diverse research interests and terms crucial to our project, setting a collaborative tone from the outset. Throughout this process, WPC engaged in extensive brainstorming and iterative design phases, as depicted in the accompanying workflow diagram. These steps included defining database schemas, testing with researchers, and integrating feedback loops.
Throughout the creation of the database, discussions at various levels and across different teams played a central role in shaping the project. One team, for instance, focused on identifying exhibitions with transcultural content, sparking in-depth debates about search strategies and the representation of smaller institutions and non-institutionalized projects. These conversations revealed biases in data collection and the complexities of representation. At the same time, other teams wrestled with how to feature the significance of activist work within the context of worlding, while questioning whether presenting such data in a database would align with the ethical concerns surrounding activist practices. Additionally, frequent discussions emerged around integrating specific details, such as artworks and objects from exhibitions, without overwhelming the database with excessive granularity. Ultimately, the continuous exploration of diverse interests and approaches became a defining aspect of the project, highlighting the complexities of "worlding" and fostering a thought-provoking, workshop-like process that remains open-ended rather than being a closed, final product.
The development of the database offered a tangible example that opened up space for the WPC team to engage in various theoretical discussions. These included exploring the possibility of transforming the traditional database into a more dynamic, network-based platform, with ideas such as signed entries to highlight the subjectivity of data curation, involving external contributors, and adding a commenting function to track evolving discourses around terms. Other discussions centered on the challenges of decolonizing databases and considering what a “worlded” approach might look like within the rapidly evolving field of digital humanities —an inquiry that remains very much in progress.
MHU, FK