Digital Technology and the Practices of Humanities Research

Edmond, Jennifer

doi:10.11647/obp.0192

Cited by 28 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 181 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We then have at least three different types of “electronic paradigm publications” (Edmond, 2019, p. 2):(vi) websites to describe and/or publicise a project, allowing limited user interaction(ix) digital infrastructures (namely, a mobile app, a 3D model web viewer and a web platform)(iv) catalogues, databases and other search tools, widely used to study and locate primary sources [9]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All three require (vii) software to be written and executed, which stands in a category of its own, both in Edmond’s classification (2019, p. 2) and in ours.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Attitudes towards open science tend to be positive across our pool of researchers. However, as stated by a handful of interviewees and as emerged clearly from the literature (CO-OPERAS and Tóth-Czifra, 2020; Edmond, 2019; Tóth-Czifra, 2019), it is necessary to work on current evaluation practices and support humanities researchers in order to make data curation worthwhile.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2019, Edmond presented this taxonomy of scholarly outputs referred, in particular, to digital humanities (DH):print paradigm publicationselectronic paradigm publicationssingle or collected/curated primary sourcessoftware[patents/licenses][ephemera, such as exhibitions and performances] (Edmond, 2019, pp. 2–3).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Print paradigm publications are the only type to have “a clear precedent and place in the traditional flows of production, dissemination, and evaluation”, while electronic paradigm ones include “everything from enhanced publications to blogs and Twitter corpora, to arguments presented in video and audio” (Edmond, 2019, p. 2). The last two categories above are enclosed in square brackets because they were initially included in the taxonomy but were discarded at a later stage (2019, pp. 2–3).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

What do we mean by “data”? A proposed classification of data types in the arts and humanities

Gualandi

Pareschi

Peroni

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis article describes the interviews the authors conducted in late 2021 with 19 researchers at the Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies at the University of Bologna. The main purpose was to shed light on the definition of the word “data” in the humanities domain, as far as FAIR data management practices are concerned, and on what researchers think of the term.Design/methodology/approachThe authors invited one researcher for each of the official disciplinary areas represented within the department and all 19 accepted to participate in the study. Participants were then divided into five main research areas: philology and literary criticism, language and linguistics, history of art, computer science and archival studies. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using a grounded theory approach.FindingsA list of 13 research data types has been compiled thanks to the information collected from participants. The term “data” does not emerge as especially problematic, although a good deal of confusion remains. Looking at current research management practices, methodologies and teamwork appear more central than previously reported.Originality/valueOur findings confirm that “data” within the FAIR framework should include all types of inputs and outputs humanities research work with, including publications. Also, the participants of this study appear ready for a discussion around making their research data FAIR: they do not find the terminology particularly problematic, while they rely on precise and recognised methodologies, as well as on sharing and collaboration with colleagues.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All three require (vii) software to be written and executed, which stands in a category of its own, both in Edmond’s classification (2019, p. 2) and in ours.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

What do we mean by “data”? A proposed classification of data types in the arts and humanities

Gualandi

Pareschi

Peroni

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A documentation checklist for (Linked) humanities data

Middle

2023

Int J Digit Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Documentation, including information, instructions, and use cases, is key to reproducibility in Digital Humanities research and usability of resulting tools and resources. However, despite multiple studies that support this assertion, clear and comprehensive documentation is often lacking due to fundamental incompatibilities with existing funding models and the resulting prioritisation of project tasks. Through a user study of researchers involved in using and producing Linked Ancient World Data, supplemented by existing literature, I identified components for inclusion in documentation to facilitate use of these tools and resources, as well as the reproducibility of methods used in their production. At the same time, it became clear that producers would benefit from a solution to simplify the process of documentation creation. As a result, I assembled a documentation checklist whose scope for application reaches beyond Linked Ancient World Data to other Humanities disciplines and digital methods. This paper starts by discussing previous work, before providing an overview of my survey and interview methods. I then present my findings and discuss their implications for future research and development, including an introduction to the checklist and its implementation. To conclude, I draw together threads from the preceding sections and suggest wider structural changes to further facilitate and promote transparency and reproducibility in Digital Humanities.

show abstract

Code review in digital humanities

Damerow,

Koeser,

Carver

et al. 2024

Digital Scholarship in the Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software and computational methods offer tremendous possibilities for digital humanities research, both accelerating existing work and opening up entirely new questions. However, software also has the potential to introduce new kinds of errors into the research workflow. How do we know that the software developed for a digital humanities project is error free and does what we think it does? Code review is a widespread technique to improve software quality and reduce the number of flaws, where a programmer other than the author reviews and comments on the source code. However, given that many digital humanities developers work in developer teams of one, code review is often not possible. In this article, we share progress and insights from an effort to establish a community code review process for digital humanities, and provide background to help understand the need and potential impacts of this work.

show abstract

Digital Technology and the Practices of Humanities Research

Cited by 28 publications

References 181 publications

What do we mean by “data”? A proposed classification of data types in the arts and humanities

What do we mean by “data”? A proposed classification of data types in the arts and humanities

A documentation checklist for (Linked) humanities data

Code review in digital humanities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About