• Publications close
• Research software close
• Other research products close
• Other ORP type close
• DARIAH EU close
• Digital Humanities and Cultural Her... close

These documents contain a number of auxiliary materials for the CHIIR 2020 paper A Workflow Analysis Perspective to Scholarly Research Tasks Marijn Koolen, Sanna Kumpulainen, Liliana Melgar-Estrada Published in: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR '20), March 14--18, 2020, Vancouver, BC, Canada. The paper analyses the workflows of two research projects in the domain of Digital Humanities. The analysis is based on coded interviews for two project collaborators for each project. There are three types of auxiliary materials: Interview guide for interviewing research project collaborators of the two projects analysed in the paper (see pages 2-3 of this PDF). Codebook for coding research activities of the analysed research projects. This is based on the NeDiMAH Methods Ontology (NeMO), extended with a few activities that have no equivalent in NeMO (pages 4-6). Full workflow diagrams of both research projects, RP1 (page 7) and RP2 (page8). Please see the paper for descriptions of the projects. This work is partially funded by CLARIAH, a project on the National Roadmap for Large-Scale Research Facilities of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and by Academy of Finland grant number 326616.

The subject “Science and Technology in the First World War” has so far been treated from the perspective on inventions and the development of new weapons, and often the focus has been on the topic of chemical warfare at the expense of other important dimensions. The approach of this Archival Research Guide, by contrast, comes from the social sciences and focuses on the establishment of relevant scientific, military and governmental bodies and on the personal networks established during the war. By examining these institutions and networks country by country, comparisons between them can be drawn, enabling further research with regard to the sociology of institutions. By pointing to the connections and channels of exchange between the nations and institutions under consideration, this approach opens up a transnational perspective and supports the paradoxal insight that transnational ties can dissolve national obstacles while simultaneously strengthening the nation-states themselves. On the individual level, the ARG takes the role of intellectuals into account, for whom scientific objectivity / neutrality and patriotic commitment seemed to have been no contradiction. It is remarkable that the First World War led to the establishment of several institutions aiming at funding science through the state, most notably in the case of France (CNRS), the U.S. (NACA/NASA) and Russia (KEPS). CENDARI Archival Research Guide

Knowledge production has always act globally, and when it comes to the humanities early networks of scholars can still be traced in their letter correspondence. With the emergence of digital humanities more prominently in the 1970s, research communities have organized themselves in many different ways. The enthusiasm generated by the promises of what was sometimes perceived as a "new field" were to some extent echoed in new forms of institutionalization, to the point of defining a discipline in its own right. But the enthusiasms was also accompanied by a certain resistance of communities reluctant to introduce digital technology into their field.The term of "digital humanities" in these earlier days of adopting digital methods into the humanities created an area, a niche, inside which pioneers in Digital Humanities could gain critical mass. Today, where digital methods are far more widely applied, one can observe an almost opposite trend, the abandoning of a ‘specific label’ and a much broader advocacy concerning all humanities.What remains specific for DH communities is the close alliance between content providers (which themselves are in a process of digitisation content and access), humanities scholars applying digital methods, and computer scientists linking to new methodological achievements in their field. However, this alliance can express itself in very different forms of national and international organisation, and is far from following a specific model.This panel examines different ways of "forming a community" among digital humanities scholars and scholars in other fields, and other actors in DH. The contributions span a range from generic ways to design digital research infrastructures in the SSH, over national solutions to supranational coordination.The purpose of this panel is to unfold the diversity of the current "digital humanist movement”, not only to compare, but also to understand what is at stake for the actors involved and what impact the different forms of organisation have on creation and evolution of research communities. We further discuss issues of cohesion and durability. Through the papers presented, we will examine the impact of bottom-up, top-down and horizontal strategies as well as the adoption of hybrid solutions (organizational, disciplinary, methodological, scalar) in the design of research communities. This approach will allow us to put convergences and challenges into perspective and to question the re- compositions at work within SSH communities.This panel will highlight the experiences of SSH research communities from different cultures and organizations rooted at different levels of governance, such as some French communities structured around institutional nodes such as Maisons des Sciences de l'Homme (MSH), or research infrastructures at the national (TGIR Huma-Num) or European level (DARIAH ERIC); project based collaboration of research infrastructures (DANS, The Netherlands) and Canada (CRIHN); and professional networks and transnational associations related to digital humanities (e.g. Humanistica, the French-speaking association of digital humanities, or the Latin American network for digital humanities under construction). The comparison of the experiences presented will not produce a homogeneous and smooth image but will highlight differences in approaches and organisation. Even it seems nearly impossible to give account of every association that could be representative on a way to build community in DH, the chair of the session will make an introduction with a brief summary of this landscape. That said, besides the geographical aspect that we try to include, another is that we are giving voice to formal and informal associations such as the LatamHD network, that is just at an early stage and that is not yet defined in its goals. We decided to propose several solutions to deal with the diversity of needs and practises inside our communities and we wanted to present some of them to share our experiences and initiate discussions during this panel in order to develop collaborations with colleagues sharing the same kind of constraints.Thus, the objective is to have a broad discussion with the audience to broaden the perspectives to other experiences.This panel aims to contribute to the reflective work in the wider DH context about factors of constitution, consolidation and evolution of its research communities.

The digital text platform is part of the Flemish contribution to DARIAH Belgium (DARIAH = Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities). The goal is to create a platform for the collaborative management and discovery of digitised textual collections that allows digital humanities researchers to prepare their corpora (consisting of, for example, digitised newspapers and books) for textual analysis. The platform will enable researchers to browse and search the digitised collections compiled, cleaned, enriched and managed by the researchers themselves. Once the relevant research sub-corpus has been compiled, data export tools, using standardised open formats (such as XML, JSON, .csv, .txt, etc.) will enable researchers to export sub-corpus for analysis with existing digital text analysis tools such as MALLET, (http://mallet.cs.umass.edu/topics.php) for topic modelling, VOYANT (http://voyant-tools.org) for data visualisation or AntConC (http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/) for concordance and textual analysis.The platform has been conceived as part of a larger and modular virtual research environment service infrastructure (http://www.ghentcdh.ugent.be/projects/dariah-vl_vre.si). In a previous phase, possible frameworks and content management systems were tested, notably Islandora (a digital asset management system based on Fedora Commons and Drupal), but also Mediawiki and Omeka.One of the main challenges of the envisaged new platform is the possibility to integrate a wider variety of possible textual data streams (including a scan workflow). In addition, user-friendliness, scalability, adherence to standards and facilitating the interoperability of data are key issues to be addressed. The platform will build on the existing IIIF format, the International Image Interoperability Framework. This format is used by some of the most important libraries and cultural heritage institutions in the world, therefore providing access to enormous collections of digital objects. As the name suggests, IIIF is mainly focused on displaying and annotating images. However, we fully endorse the IIIF-community’s vision to develop an overarching interoperability framework for other data types, including all kinds of textual data. Benefits of the format include the interoperability, the ease of sharing images and annotations without the need to exchange files, and its support for multilingual data. In the months leading up to the conference, we will evaluate the existing IIIFpowered digital libraries and research projects and how they deal with practices of co-creation, data cleaning and enrichment of (structural) metadata. OCR improvement will become vital, as digital textual analysis can only be performed well on high-quality textual data. A related challenge will be combining the various input formats and converting them to different output formats required for analysis. In our poster, we will present a summary of our experiences with and technical assessment of our previous Islandora installation, in addition to our survey of the existing corpus management solutions. As a way of conclusion, we will introduce the envisioned new version of the platform.

The CLARIN Language Resource Switchboard (LRS or Switchboard) serves as an established and valuable asset to provide the user with tools and services for their research data. Apart from looking at an already existing set of research data, moreover, many users would like to search for tools and services from the angle of the research method, a certain technology, interoperability or even just a research question, which calls for the SSH Open Marketplace (MP). The MP not only strives to provide individual items (tools, research data, tutorials, software) to the searching and browsing user, but first and foremost context. Contextualized items in the MP allow for a search serendipity which contributes substantially to the service experience. The LRS promises to be a suitable means to convey such serendipity. For this purpose, the following document outlines possible user stories in favor of its integration into the MP. Beyond the LRS-MP relation the document also considers scenarios for the relation of both components to the CLARIN Virtual Collection Registry (VCR). The VCR allows the user to create individual and persistent collections including records from a broad range of sources. Such sources may be repositories exposing research data (the common VCR use case= ’bibliography of research datasets’), but possibly also from other sources such as the MP. The overarching goal of the activity in T3.6 is to achieve - wherever useful and technically possible - an integration between CLARIN and DARIAH components, being developed and extended under the SSHOC umbrella. This includes especially the MP, the VCR and LRS. The DARIAH research infrastructure plays an important role in this regard, although this document focuses on the CLARIN LRS and CLARIN VCR as well as the MP. NOTE: Addendum to this document is available on Zenodo.

A defining feature of data and data workflows in the arts and humanities domain is their dependence on cultural heritage sources hosted and curated in museums, libraries, galleries and archives. A major difficulty when scholars interact with heritage data is that the nature of the cooperation between researchers and Cultural Heritage Institutions and the researchers working in CHIs (henceforth CHIs) is often constrained by structural and legal challenges but even more by uncertainties as to the expectations of both parties.This recognition led several European organizations such as APEF, CLARIN, Europeana, E-RIHS to come together and join forces under the governance of DARIAH to set up principles and mechanisms for improving the conditions for the use and re-use of cultural heritage data issued by cultural heritage institutions and studied and enriched by researchers. As a first step of this joint effort is the Heritage Data Reuse Charter (https://datacharter.hypotheses.org/) establishes 6 basic principles for improving the use and re-use of cultural heritage resources by researchers and , to help all the relevant actors to work together to connect and improve access to heritage data. These are: Reciprocity, Interoperability, Citability, Openness, Stewardship and Trustworthiness.As a further step in translating these principles to actual data workflows the survey below serves as a template to frame exchanges around cultural heritage data by enabling both Cultural Heritage Institutions, infrastructure providers and researchers and to clarify their goals at the beginning and the project, to specify access to data, provenance information, preferred citation standards, hosting responsibilities etc. on the basis of which the parties can arrive at mutual reuse agreements that could serve as a starting point for a FAIR-by-construction data management, right from the project planning/application phase. In practice, the survey below can be flexibly applied in platform-independent ways in exchange protocols between Cultural Heritage Institutions and researchers, Institutions who sign the Charter could use it (and expect to use such surveys) in their own exchange protocols. Another direction of future developments is to set up a platform dedicated to such exchanges. On the other hand, researchers are encouraged to contact the CHIs during the initial stages of their project in order to explain their plans and figure details of transaction together. This mutual declaration can later be a powerful component in their Data Management Plans as it shows evidence for responsible and fair conduct of cultural heritage data, and fair (but also FAIR) research data management practices that are based on partnership with the holding institution. As enclosing a Research Data Management Plan to grant applications is becoming a more and more common requirement among research funders, we need to raise the funders’ awareness to the fact that such bi- or trilateral agreements and data reuse declarations among researchers, CHIs and infrastructure providers are crucial domain-specific components of FAIR data management.

• To the extent that is has been theorised, work on DH pedagogy has tended to be very strongly tied to the classroom experience. A classroom experience, however, exists within a particular social and institutional framework (students seeking knowledge, experience or qualification from instructors who master a specific body of knowledge) which is quite different from the operational and distributed nature of Research Infrastructures such as DARIAH.• Research infrastructures seldom possess the kinds of specialised procedures, staff, resources and expertise to deliver formal educational programmes, but the strength of RI’s lies in the provision of and reflection upon the experience of acculturation and professionalization in “real” cross-institutional and often cross-cultural projects in which peer learning, skills transfers and network building are a rule rather than an exception.• Research Infrastructures such as DARIAH have a specific role to play in the European educational landscape by complementing rather than replacing the pedagogical models prevalent in HEIs today.• RI’s such as DARIAH should focus not only on DH or even on a discipline in which a student or researcher seeks to use DH methodologies, but also on highlighting how these practices engage interdependent communities of practice with intersecting concerns.• DARIAH should intensify effort to position itself as pedagogically relevant beyond the individual humanities disciplines in terms of what it can contribute to the development and dissemination of early-career researchers’ transferable skills and competences as identified by the Eurodoc 2018 Report.• DARIAH should establish an active educational partnership network in order to validate a new approach to the skills needs of humanities students and researchers, looking beyond the frame of what is currently available in the context of formal educational programmes.• DARIAH should develop a curricular model and, if possible, an internship program, to enable fluid exchange of knowledge and students between university programmes and the applied contexts of the research infrastructure.• DARIAH should continue to create and maintain essential filtering and contextualising layers for training materials, which are now available throughDARIAH-Campus, in order to coordinate and enhance open educational resources with other stakeholders in the field.• DARIAH should aim to apply and test its learning resources in different HE contexts in order to profit from unforeseen synergies and unexpected outcomes such as, for instance, the initiative to publish young researchers’ data papers using the DARIAH-Campus Event Capture Template, which emerged out of the DESIR Workshop at the University of Neuchâtel.• Building on currently identified needs, DARIAH should develop foresight models to predict future needs within the Higher Education sector.