• DARIAH EU
• NARCIS close
• DARIAH EU close

This book is available as open access through the Bloomsbury Open programme and is available on www.bloomsburycollections.com. It is funded by Trinity College Dublin, DARIAH-EU and the European Commission.This book explores the challenges society faces with big data, through the lens of culture rather than social, political or economic trends, as demonstrated in the words we use, the values that underpin our interactions, and the biases and assumptions that drive us. Focusing on areas such as data and language, data and sensemaking, data and power, data and invisibility, and big data aggregation, it demonstrates that humanities research, focussing on cultural rather than social, political or economic frames of reference for viewing technology, resists mass datafication for a reason, and that those very reasons can be instructive for the critical observation of big data research and innovation.

One of the main products of the Humanities at Scale project was a profound (re)-conceptualisation of the DARIAH in-kinds and a web-based service [2] to collect, review and display in-kind contributions, in short DARIAH contributions. [1] This paper looks at the results of the implementation phase of this new service, and particularly focuses on baseline statistics and visual analytics of the content submitted (about 300 contributions for 2017 and 2018). In general, for European Research Infrastructures, so-called in-kind contributions are a way for the members to account for their national eorts under the umbrella of the ERIC. They may represent contributions available for all ERIC members (e.g., central services executed by an institution in a member country) and/or contributions which embody, complement, or enhance the mission and strategic actions of an ERIC on the national level. DARIAH's reference model [1] on the basis of which contributions are dened, introduces two main categories: `services' and `activities'. For them a detailed metadata scheme has been devised. Submitted contributions are further subject to a detailed self-assessment and reviewing process, one part of which is dedicated to determine those contributions which are put up for the financial accountability of a member's contributions. The web-based service replaces earlier forms of template-based and data-based submission of in-kinds, and enables immediate comparison of the submissions - also by a couple of visual interfaces (map, tables). In this paper, we aim to demonstrate the main benets of the tool and zoom into three aspects. The DARIAH contribution tool relies on the tedious and comprehensive work of the National Coordinators which are in charge of the submission process. To make their often invisible work more visible is one motivation behind this paper. The submitted content as such forms an interesting empirical base for reflection on what is seen as a DARIAH contribution by the DARIAH community. This, in turn, can inform the DARIAH strategy and help to monitor the success of its actions. This is the second motivation. Submissions can still vary in form greatly, despite the formal model. They remain human generated content. Analysing the variety helps to tune the tool to user requirements, to fix bugs, and to curate the data it collects. We conclude our paper with reflections on the future use of the tool and its connection to other DARIAH strategic actions, as designed in the Strategic Action Plan II.

This user Guide provides information about using the Weblate software for translating the Dataverse User Interface. It was made for the participants of the SSHOC ‘Dataverse Translation Workshop’ (02/06/2021). 

Publishing research data as open data is not yet common practice for researchers in the arts and humanities, and lags behind other scientific fields, such as the natural sciences. Moreover, even when humanities researchers publish their data in repositories and archives, these data are often hard to find and use by other researchers in the field. This report gives an overview of the various aspects that are connected to open access publishing of research data in the humanities. After the introduction, where we give definitions of key concepts, we describe the research data life cycle. We present an overview of the different stakeholders involved and we look into advantages and obstacles for researchers to share research data. Furthermore, a description of the European data repositories is given, followed by certification standards of trusted digital data repositories. The possibility of data citation is important for sharing open data and is also described in this report. We also discuss the standards and use of metadata in the humanities. Finally, we discuss best practice example of open access research data system in the humanities: the French open research data ecosystem. With this report we provide information and guidance on open access publishing of humanities research data for researchers. It will also serve as input for the design and implementation of an open humanities data platform in DARIAH.

PurposeThis paper proposes a new perspective on the enormous and unresolved challenge to existing practices of publication and documentation posed by the outputs of digital research projects in the humanities, where much good work is being lost due to resource or technical challenges.Design/methodology/approachThe paper documents and analyses both the existing literature on promoting sustainability for the outputs of digital humanities projects and the innovative approach of a single large-scale project.FindingsThe findings of the research presented show that sustainability planning for large-scale research projects needs to consider data and technology but also community, communications and process knowledge simultaneously. In addition, it should focus not only on a project as a collection of tangible and intangible assets, but also on the potential user base for these assets and what these users consider valuable about them.Research limitations/implicationsThe conclusions of the paper have been formulated in the context of one specific project. As such, it may amplify the specificities of this project in its results.Practical implicationsAn approach to project sustainability following the recommendations outlined in this paper would include a number of uncommon features, such as a longer development horizon, wider perspective on project results, and an audit of tacit and explicit knowledge.Social ImplicationsThese results can ultimately preserve public investment in projects.Originality/valueThis paper supplements more reductive models for project sustainability with a more holistic approach that others may learn from in mapping and sustaining user value for their projects for the medium to long terms.

The concept of “scholarly primitive” has been widely welcomed both by humanists and system designers in the humanities, due to the fact that it made it possible to have a solid conceptual basis for the operationalization of the essential functionalities required for advancing computer-mediated work in the humanities. It has also helped to prioritize, and to provide general frameworks for the analysis of system requirements, which otherwise would have remained vague, or too specifically tied to the particular projects. However, in the design of actual systems or digital infrastructures, most initiatives that have tried to apply the concept of “scholarly primitive” have acknowledged the importance of looking at the relationship between them (e.g., Palmer et al., 2009), but haven't framed these primitives or activities within the larger workflows in which researchers transition from one activity to the other, or perform multiple connected activities in tandem. One of the most fully-fledged conceptual models for scholarly research activity based on scholarly primitives was developed by DARIAH (note 1). Grounded in conceptual and empirical research, this conceptual model aims to fit the needs of the actual research life-cycle (Benardou, 2013), with the resulting NeDiMAH (note 2) Methods Ontology (NeMO) centered around a list of research activities, which are hierarchically connected by means of a taxonomical structure. We have developed a process perspective that can help to understand how these activities are interconnected. For example, the activity “gathering” is defined by the NeMO ontology as “aggregating discovered resources [...] for further analysis.” (note 3). While this normalization of the activity name and definition is useful for several purposes in system design, the NeMO ontology makes no connection to the activities that occur during “discovering” or “analysis”, which makes it difficult to understand how “gathering” occurs in practice, and how it works in real contexts where other activities precede, succeed, or occur simultaneously to the “gathering” activity. The lack of understanding of the scholarly primitives (or of the research activities) in a workflow perspective has negative implications in designing systems that support the research life-cycle. To overcome this limitation, this paper introduces the concept of “workflow transitions” and presents investigations of scholarly work using this concept. The method we propose consists of selecting a sample of representative “research projects” (Koolen et al., 2020) and use them as the unit of analysis for the study of workflows and workflow transitions. We developed our approach through analysing the research process of two digital humanities projects in great detail, by interviewing the project collaborators (using Critical Incident Technique), studying their papers and looking at datasets, tools and scripts. In this paper we will present the resulting workflow visualizations, the findings of our analysis and their implications for digital infrastructure support for humanities research.

In Digital Humanities we are accustomed to think about tools as a means to tell a story, whether it be a story about artefacts, events, or patterns in the past. This paper looks at it from the other end, namely that each tool comes with its own story. When we group tools together for means of dissemination, re-use, and accountability in the coordination of an infrastructure we are also telling a story. Certain selected ensembles of tools, which encompass and supersede the individual stories of the tools, create a story of their own. In this paper we take as a case various tools reporting efforts in DARIAH (from the DARIAH contribution website (IKCT), to the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to the SSH Marketplace (MP)). We reflect which story is told by whom, for whom, and for what purpose. Doing so, we build on the fact that the stories that tools tell not only shape the (DH) field in which they are built, but are also products and artefacts reflecting the priorities and the technological choices made by the communities building them. (Barbot, 2019; Scharnhorst et al., 2019; König and Uytvanck, 2020; Ďurčo et al. 2021) Reflecting about tools and their lifecycle is not new: some are success stories, some are encompassing failures (Dombrowski, 2014); some are collective stories, while others are more personal ones. Interestingly, and maybe increasingly so, we see a growing emphasis on the need to provide context to tools, particularly in their documentation and registration - not in the least as a means to encourage sustainability and re-use. Still, in practice, we see a co-existence of various ‘documentation streams’. In this paper, we articulate the stories behind various documentation streams that have been designed and are now being executed in DARIAH. With the IKCT, administrative and technical descriptions are centralized; the more recent KPIs put emphasis on DARIAH’s outreach and impact and the even fresher MP targets the functioning of DARIAH-related tools as part of the EOSC landscape. By making the stories around those specific ensembles of tools visible, we shed light on the different communities, stakeholders and their interests, relying on earlier debates around DARIAH’s reference architecture (Barbot et al, 2021, De Leeuw et al, 2017). We also reflect how the different stories mimic the changing strategies of DARIAH and the maturity of tools and services in it. In practice, we see sometimes the same tools figure in different stories, or even making a ‘career’ between different types of storytelling, but we also see new types of tools emerging. Documentation is never a pure administrative act (Hackman 2009, Smiraglia 2014). By unravelling the ‘secret stories tools whisper in the infrastructure’ when being documented, we raise further awareness why we document what in which form. Ultimately, the reflective layer contributes to a more effective documentation. Therefore, we hope to give guidance to the storytellers, to those which tell the story of one tool, and those which tell the stories of ensembles of them. References: Barbot, L., Roi, A., Scharnhorst, A., Durco, M., Fischer, F., Kalman, T., Moranville, Y., Parkola, T., Garnett, V., Edmond, J., & Toth-Czifra, E. (2021). Towards a concise DARIAH service strategy: 2020 Reflections - White Paper. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4621287 Barbot, L., Fischer, F., Moranville, Y., & Pozdniakov, I. (2019). Which DH tools are actually used in research?Https://Weltliteratur.Net/Dh-Tools-Used-in-Research/ Permalink Https://Web.Archive.Org/Web/20220222114745/Https://Weltliteratur.Net/Dh-Tools-Used-in-Research/. De Leeuw, L. Admiraal, F., Ďurčo, M., Larousse, N., Mertens, M., Morselli, F., Priddy, M., Ribbe, P., Thiel, C., Wieneke, L. (2017) D5.1 Report on Integrated Service!Needs: DARIAH (in kind) contributions - Concept and Procedures. DARIAH. Humanities at Scale project. 〈hal-01628733v2〉 Dombrowski, Q. (2014). What Ever Happened to Project Bamboo? Literary and Linguistic Computing, 29(3), 326–339. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqu026 Ďurčo, M., Barbot, L., Illmayer, K., Karampatakis, S., Fischer, F., Moranville, Y., Ocansey, J. T., Probst, S., Kozak, M., Buddenbohm, S., & Yim, S.-B. (2021). 7.2 Marketplace – Implementation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5749465 Hackman, L. (2009). The Origins of Documentation Strategies in Context: Recollections and Reflections. The American Archivist, 72(2), 436–459. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.72.2.g401052h82h12pm3 König, A., & Uytvanck, D. V. (2020). D7.3 Marketplace—Interoperability. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5871651 Scharnhorst, A., Admiraal, F., Roorda, D. (2019) DARIAH (in-kind) contributions: a visual walk-through. DARIAH Annual Event 2019: Humanities Data, May 2019, Warsaw, Poland. 〈hal-02196707〉 Smiraglia, R. P. (2014). Cultural Synergy in Information Institutions. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1249-0

Researchers, universities, and academic libraries develop a range of tools and platforms to make scholarship more accessible. What could these scholarly communications and open access projects learn from examples set by fandom and fan activists, for example, the fan works platform Archive of Our Own (AO3)? This conceptual paper, the result of a brainstorming session by scholars and librarians, proposes that a Fantasy Research Archive of Our Own should excel at making scholarly knowledge production into a visibly, enthusiastically collective endeavor that recognizes many kinds of contributions beyond the publication of traditional research papers.