• DARIAH EU
• Publications close
• Research data close
• NL close

CoreTrustSeal certification

The distributed and polymorphic nature of DARIAH as a consortium, and its social and technical components as an infrastructure makes it pertinent to define its perimeter. This is especially true with respect to the various resources that are created and used in its environment. The term “DARIAH resource” does not indicate direct ownership or control by the DARIAH consortium over that resource but rather it being created and/or used within the broad DARIAH ecosystem, i.e. some actor (person or institution) related to DARIAH being involved in the creation or provision of that resource. A large majority of DARIAH resources are produced or offered byindividual institutions in the member countries and reported by their respective national consortia. Besides that, there are resources produced under DARIAH activities by DARIAH Working Groups, funded by DARIAH Theme or by DARIAH and affiliated entities within EU projects.

While remote collaboration is not new in DH, it has had a profound impact on the DH research, education and community in the past couple of years due to the health, security and financial crises. If absorbed appropriately, it can also prove beneficial in overcoming the various environmental, geographical, mobility and other barriers in the future, making DH more resilient, inclusive and diverse. This is why the main objective of the proposed workshop is to develop a better understanding of the dynamics on the Digital Humanities work floor when researchers, teachers and/or professionals with different areas of competence engage in remote collaboration to solve humanities research questions, and to explore how education and training of humanities scholars, cultural heritage professionals and technical experts can help making remote collaboration across disciplines more efficient and effective, more creative and innovative, and more inclusive and rewarding for all participants. To this end, we invite submissions reporting on all aspects and stages of engaging in remote collaborative research and teaching in DH, including the obstacles encountered and solutions found. We are also welcoming position papers on the role of research infrastructures to better facilitate remote collaboration in DH.

This research analyses the European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) and on the research communities that take part in them. In particular, it examines the case study of the DARIAH-ERIC, the Research Infrastructure for the (digital) Arts and Humanities, and its Working Groups. These are communities of researchers gathered around similar research interests with the aim of providing concrete solutions to scholarly challenges. This doctoral thesis investigates collaborative practices taking place in the DARIAH Working Groups, by focussing on the epistemic and socio/political dynamics created by the interaction of practices and governance models proper of Research Infrastructures and research Communities. Finally, this research asks, do Research Infrastructures encourage collaboration among researchers? In this dissertation, I couple an institutional perspective - which has deeper roots in the field of Research Policy - with a research methodology (including ethnographic methods) originating in the Philosophy of Science and Social Epistemology. Drawing on existing literature and empirical research, I identify the concept of co-creation as central in dynamics of knowledge creation in Research Infrastructures. Concluding, I argue that within Research Infrastructures, co-creation becomes societally and culturally relevant because of its crucial role in knowledge and technology transfer between stakeholders: as an example, the DARIAH Working Groups connect several actors, such as researchers, research managers, policymakers or citizens, from different disciplines and background, and provide an answer to concrete social or scholarly challenges.

ERICs (European Research Infrastructure Consortia) are European legal entities to facilitate the establishment and operation of Research Infrastructures with European interest. ERICs are increasingly asked to account for their operations (see debate on KPI in the ERIC Forum). At the same time, web services such as the EOSC Resource Catalogues, the SSH Open Marketplace, and OpenAire, provide possibilities to register and disseminate research outputs, making them ready for automatic harvesting. While the need for standardization of the description of ERIC provided services and content is still very much debated, there are also conceptual dimensions we would like to address in this paper.textlessbrtextgreater ERICs, by definition, create and operate in a landscape of distributed, co-created, network of processes. To summarize, services in the large domain of SSH, are increasingly ‘shared’ resources. In the spirit of Open Science and the further consolidation of the European Research Area, this interconnectedness can only be applauded. This is how the integrating function of ERICs materializes, and how we avoid the duplication of effort. At the same time, ERICs are also defined organizations with boundaries, and subject to individual assessments. To some extent ERICs are even in competition with each other, for visibility, user groups, in-kind contributions, funds allocated nationally and from the EC.textlessbrtextgreater This paper makes a first attempt to reflect about intrinsic challenges in accounting single nodes in a network of collaborating nodes. While each ERIC already defines its own policy of how to deal with this complexity according to their needs, there is a debate needed as to how to assess contributions to distributed infrastructures in a way which gives credit to all participating while at the same time avoid mis-allocation, double counting and so on, in particular in the context of the development of the EOSC. The matter of ethical, balanced, effective research assessment which has been discussed extensively in the realm of scholarly communication (Leiden Manifesto) also needs to be addressed in the area of research infrastructures. Such a reflection will inform the current discourse of further standardizing the metadata schema which are behind the different catalogues; the search for meaningful Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for ERICs and the further shaping of the collaboration and division of labor between ERIC’s at national and European level.textlessbrtextgreater This paper takes the current discourse around the DARIAH service portfolio as an example/case to highlight these more generic challenges. It also attempts to sort out various sources of ‘assignment uncertainty’ of contributions (e.g. differences in controlled vocabularies, incompatibilities of metadata schemes, user-generated content, metrics of assignments, and policy decisions). While we focus the discussion on ERICs, our motivation to present this at the DARIAH Annual event is that it might be of particular interest to see how cultural heritage institutions (libraries, archives, museums…), in their roles as content providers also for ERICs are credited for their contribution to ERICs, and beyond.textlessbrtextgreater textlessbrtextgreater References:textlessbrtextgreater Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L. et al. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520, 429–431 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a See alsotextlessbrtextgreater http://www.leidenmanifesto.org

Research assessment reform is crucial for the social sustainability of research infrastructures (RIs): RIs can only thrive in the long term if the researchers who contribute to their development and growth receive academic credit for the kind of work they do in and around research infrastructures. To put it bluntly, research infrastructures have a vested interest in supporting the reform of research assessment. But, conversely, ongoing attempts to reform research assessment can also benefit from the work of research infrastructures because RIs have a great deal of experience creating and maintaining public services for producing, curating and harvesting both traditional and non-traditional academic outputs. The goal of this paper is to outline DARIAH’s position on the importance of research assessment reform for thematic RIs and the importance of thematic RIs for research assessment reform at the European level.

Research assessment reform is crucial for the social sustainability of research infrastructures (RIs): RIs can only thrive in the long term if the researchers who contribute to their development and growth receive academic credit for the kind of work they do in and around research infrastructures. To put it bluntly, research infrastructures have a vested interest in supporting the reform of research assessment. But, conversely, ongoing attempts to reform research assessment can also benefit from the work of research infrastructures because RIs have a great deal of experience creating and maintaining public services for producing, curating and harvesting both traditional and non-traditional academic outputs. The goal of this paper is to outline DARIAH’s position on the importance of research assessment reform for thematic RIs and the importance of thematic RIs for research assessment reform at the European level.

Abstract The datafication process transforming society enables us to witness the pandemic from a global perspective. This article provides an example of immersive architecture in which coronavirus-related scientific literature was revealed during Ars Electronica 2021. Like a starry sky, a network visualization representing more than 600,000 articles was showcased in the Deep Space 8K theater, where spectators were accompanied in reading insights. The case study of 3D Cartography of COVID-19 illustrates a novel way to present data in public spaces to foster conversations and reflects on how visual data literacy can be addressed in museums.

This talk outlines a vision for Common European Data Spaces, proposed by the European Commission, where FAIR principles (Wilkinson et al. 2016) and FAIR Digital Objects (FDOs) (De Smedt et al. 2020, Schwardmann 2020) can play a role in bringing together research infrastructures, data aggregators and other stakeholders working with curated objects in museums, herbaria, libraries and archives. The organisations and stakeholders involved represent a wide range of disciplines and data types including biodiversity, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, cultural history, digital storytelling, art conservation, and history of science among others (ICEDIG 2020, Ortolja-Baird and Nyhan 2021). The context and the history of the curated objects also span the natural sciences and cultural heritage domains (Nadim 2021, Weber 2021). Despite this heterogeneity, various common themes in the area of digital curation, open access, and data usage (Tasovac et al. 2020) appear where FDOs and Common European Data Spaces can be a useful venue for supporting the European Strategy for Data. In particular, FDOs, as an abstraction mechanism to structure and describe digital artefacts from a specific domain yet at the same time provide interoperability (De Smedt et al. 2020), can help realise the vision behind a common data space to “bring together relevant data infrastructures and governance frameworks in order to facilitate data pooling and sharing” (European Commission 2022:2). A May 2022 report on the challenges and opportunities of European Common Data Spaces highlights the following points: Open data holders have extensive experience in data publishing, metadata management, data quality, dataset discovery, data federation, as well as tried-and-tested standards (e.g. DCAT) and technologies. There seems to be very little knowledge/technology transfer from the open data community to the data spaces community, which is a missed opportunity. Data space implementations should not reinvent wheels that the open data community has already developed, tested, and used extensively. Whether the data is private, shared, or open, using data from multiple sources requires interoperability at several levels, from identifiers to vocabularies. The question of which data intermediaries will act as neutral agents to ensure interoperability is underexplored in the data space context. Public administrations, building on their experience of publishing open data, are best placed to take on such roles Open data holders have extensive experience in data publishing, metadata management, data quality, dataset discovery, data federation, as well as tried-and-tested standards (e.g. DCAT) and technologies. There seems to be very little knowledge/technology transfer from the open data community to the data spaces community, which is a missed opportunity. Data space implementations should not reinvent wheels that the open data community has already developed, tested, and used extensively. Whether the data is private, shared, or open, using data from multiple sources requires interoperability at several levels, from identifiers to vocabularies. The question of which data intermediaries will act as neutral agents to ensure interoperability is underexplored in the data space context. Public administrations, building on their experience of publishing open data, are best placed to take on such roles Building on previous conversations facilitated by DiSSCo, DARIAH, Europeana, and Archives Portal Europe Foundation, (Europeana Conference 2021, DARIAH Annual Event 2022), this talk will address the above points from the perspective of bringing together the domains of natural history museums, cultural heritage, and digital humanities. Within our collaboration, we have identified several common areas such as data discoverability, linking, and providing contextual information, which align with the goal of FDO implementation. DiSSCo and DARIAH as European infrastructures, on the one hand, and Europeana and Archives Portal as data aggregators, on the other hand, are involved in improving access to data and the researchers' capacity to work with heterogeneous data sources. One of the biggest shared challenges across the diverse workflows in the arts and humanities and natural history domains is that the data curation processes form a natural continuum between a range of different actors working either in cultural heritage institutions or in academia. In reality, these different layers of curation, enrichment and analysis are separated by legal, institutional, infrastructural and even funding silos (as in many countries, these institutions belong to different ministries, and fall under different legislative frameworks). How can this continuum, from a scholarly point of view, be supported within common data space and FDO framework? At the same time, implementing a common data space requires not just interoperability but stewardship and strategy for sharing resources (Keller 2021). The data infrastructure and FAIR related activities explored in our collaboration are of strategic importance to help Europe and the rest of the world deal with important societal issues. Therefore, bringing this collaboration within the context of FDO provides an ideal avenue to explore potential data, policy, and implementation matters, in order to address the two gaps outlined above for Common Data Spaces. Furthermore, the ideas expressed in Common European Data Space for Cultural Heritage (with Europeana as the core stakeholder) and Green Deal Data Spaces need further clarification concerning implementation planning and most importantly, how multiple commons would work together. With DARIAH coming from the humanities and DiSSCo from the natural sciences side, such collaborations and synergy should align with the Common Data Spaces vision. The philosophy and ideas behind data and digital commons are not new (Fuchs 2020, Kashwan et al. 2021). However, it is crucial to contextualise the implementation strategy and benefits within data intensive, multidisciplinary research and FAIR principles. Given that curated objects are informational resources for the researchers, but can also provide contexts, and make visible the relationships between artefacts, people, publications, organisations, provenance, and events, it is important to think of them as much more than just records in a database. Additionally, FDOs as the digital representations of the curated objects have the potential of fostering cross-disciplinary collaborations (such as between biology, history, art or anthropology) and of providing a wider lens for understanding materiality and the role of data (Ribes 2019). As interdisciplinarity and data-driven foci are gaining traction via applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning, it is vital to understand what FDO adoption and implementation can contribute to common data spaces. We believe FDOs can be a successful foundation for Common European Data Spaces because they can can connect multiple commons -- from Green Deal to Cultural Heritage -- in order to drive forward the vision for interdisciplinary collaboration.